computer/midi instruments.

Well, I suppose if the style is quasi-"classical", and the MIDI sound is
sorta like a clarinet, then one would tend to hear it as a lame clarinet.
Bjork gets away with it (I can't remember the name of the song I'm
thinking of, which begins with these clarinet-like sounds that would
sound lame if they were used in a "classical-music" context, but which
sound perfectly fine in a "techno" context--it was on her "Homogenic"
album) because we are used to hearing "cheaper" timbres used to "raw"
effect on techno tracks. . . so we don't think "yuk, midi clarinet"
immediately.

So I suppose the solution is to "process" the sounds enough so that the
ear can't immediately "slot" them into some familiar timbral category.
It's kind of like a "timbral entropy" "One-Footed Bride" situation, but
with timbre instead of pitch.

And it's the same problem----in the latter case, convincing the ear that
it's a new interval, not a badly-tuned old one---in this case, a new
timbre, not a bad imitation of an old one. . . .

Actually, do you know Sal Martirano's electronic music? I like the way he
uses MIDI, all of the "cheesiness" is there, but the music is very
"Wacky" and so it all works nicely, I think. The music would lose an
essential humourous aspect of its character if it were played on very
"Smooth"-sounding computer-sounds: the "clunky"ness of MIDI is composed
*into* the pieces, at least to my ear.

cb

>______________________________________________________________
>
> From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>"
>
--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey
> 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
>>n.ot.
>

>>***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...

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_4212.html#4212

>
> So I suppose the solution is to "process" the sounds enough so that
the ear can't immediately "slot" them into some familiar timbral
category. It's kind of like a "timbral entropy" "One-Footed Bride"
situation, but with timbre instead of pitch.
>

***Sure... that makes sense. Or, of course, one could simply use
something else.. :) I'm always *thinking* of spending time creating
new timbres with a patch editor but then get *antsy* for actual
composing instead... but eventually...

>
> Actually, do you know Sal Martirano's electronic music?

***Certainly by *reputation* but unfortunately I do not know his
work, but have heard some works from "followers" and students of
his "school..."

I like the way he
> uses MIDI, all of the "cheesiness" is there, but the music is very
> "Wacky" and so it all works nicely, I think. The music would lose
an essential humourous aspect of its character if it were played on
very "Smooth"-sounding computer-sounds: the "clunky"ness of MIDI is
composed *into* the pieces, at least to my ear.
>

***This is an important point, Chris, and I think it should also be
noted that the field seems to be changing substantially. It *used*
to be that nobody could do "home" electronic work... only the work
done in the largest studios with thousands of dollars of "state of
the art" stuff was considered "serious."

Now, however, organizations like the ACF "Sonic Circuits" are
considering seriously submissions where *anything* is acceptable if
it is somehow "plugged in*... Some things are "cruder" than others,
but it's all taken in the context of the *esthetic* that goes with
the works, and they're not eliminated immediately because of the
materials.

At least that *seems* to be what I'm "seeing/hearing..."

best,

Joe Pehrson