Re: [MMM] computer instruments

Chris,

You bring up some excellent points in this post. I've been working my way through "sand", and just got the last two installments downloaded this afternoon. Make up an mp3 playlist and now I've got the whole piece running!

(Would you consider making either a .zip or .pdf file of your dissert available? I didn't want to spend all the time online reading it, so I used a snag tool to download all the pages and graphics to read offline - quite intriguing so far...)

{you wrote...}
>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.

There is a lot of personality to the sounds of the piece.

>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.

Damn. Haven't I been saying that for a long time?

One thing we must take into consideration is that not every member reading this would consider themselves a composer, with or without a capital "C". So in a small way one could semi-overlook a less-stringent work ethic when it came to the 'orchestration'.

However...

If one ventures beyond microtonal "examples" or "experiments" or "progressions" or "doodlings", etc., and wants the music being made to be taken on a level of listening that *any* music of care and quality is taken, one simply can't ignore all else (to any major or minor extent) save the intonation of the work.

Well, one *can*, but one's work suffers accordingly.

Whether classical, pop, or any other genre, music requires care in preparation and execution. We could be posting to Making Rhythmic Music, or Making Period Music, or Making * Music - the last word must be Music.

>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.

Yup.

>... 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.

And the only thing this scenario will *always* miss is the energy and moment of magic that can only come from a live performance. Maybe sometimes the trade-off is worth it. Even though I make my living performing live music, I constantly listen to recordings as well. I derive great pleasure from them. But it's been rare that an artist, live, has been less enjoyable than a recording of them.

>We are all so obssessed with pitch-structure, that when it comes time to >make music, we've only done 50% of the work

If that!

>--yet we just throw it into a MIDI file, and call it done.

I try not to, and hopefully with enough examples of good midi orchestration, as well as mixing and production, people will start to realize the benefits of honing a piece to enhance the listener's experience.

>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.

Heresy. Besides, I've seen BF, and I seriously doubt he works out. :)

Cheers,
Jon