computer instruments

> >
> > The piece I posted recently in 19-tet was written on a LINUX box
> > with
> > shareware. All free, except for the computer.
> >
>
> Well it's one thing to have a way to hear our microtonal pieces, it's
> another thing to get instruments in the hands of good musicians so
> that we can hear 'musical' performances... Until we get that, we
> still have nothing but MIDI realizations in most cases...
>
> Keyboard bands playing softsynths? Could be the answer!

My piece was not a MIDI "realization". It was written
specifically for computer-music instruments that I designed. There's no
way musicians could play it. The timbres I used are rich in their own
quirky ways, or when they're not, it's because I wanted them to be crude
at that particular point. I try to mix and match them rhythmically to
bring out their best aspects, rather than highlighting weaknesses we
wished didn't exist. It's the same thing we do when writing for violin or
timpani, except we're so used to it that we don't think about it.

Which maybe is a larger point : It's possible to write decent sounding
music for MIDI or other computer-music instruments --- but you have to
compose your music for the MIDI instruments. Too often, people write
for "string quartet", and then listen to a "MIDI realization" and feel
that's it's not the "real thing." Well, it's not.

But when Bjork (& producer) start a tune with some coarse MIDI sound,
that's "supposed" to be there. It's not "supposed" to be a real clarinet.
They're writing for the box. They're orchestrating for MIDI/samples/etc.

I have no problem with people who want to write for live performers--I
certainly do myself often---but I think we can write some great music with
the computer tools that are currently available, and, unlike performers,
can usually allow us to write in any tuning system we can imagine, if we
just give some thought to orchestration for those tools.

We are all so obssessed with pitch-structure, that when it comes time to
make music, we've only done 50% of the work--yet we just throw it into a
MIDI file, and call it done.

What about the instruments? What about the people/machines playing them?,
and how are they played?

In a way, we could learn something from Brian Ferneyhough, annoying though
he may be. He always starts with the instrument, and works out from
there. Pitch-structure is secondary.

C Bailey

*********************************************************************

http://music.columbia.edu/~chris/
new piece in 19tet and JI:
http://music.columbia.edu/~chris/dissert.html

**********************************************************************

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey

/makemicromusic/topicId_4180.html#4180

> Which maybe is a larger point : It's possible to write decent
sounding music for MIDI or other computer-music instruments --- but
you have to compose your music for the MIDI instruments. Too
often, people write for "string quartet", and then listen to a "MIDI
realization" and feel that's it's not the "real thing." Well, it's
not.
>

***This is an important point and when I'm doing a piece in, let's
say Sibelius that is for "real" instruments, it's a far different
idea that using electronics as an *integral* part of a work. In
fact, I've learned to intentionally *avoid* simulations of
traditional instruments when I work that way, after encountering some
criticism from some quarters. Well, frankly I was not
thinking "clarinet" (let's say) when I was using a MIDI sound of that
nature, but was just using the sound the box made as *itself* but
people tend to *hear* it as a poor emulation no matter what one
does...

J. Pehrson