Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic the challenge of (MIDI) timbre

I notice that the attitude is always: "Where's an instrument that will
'realize' my music the best?" This implies that you've written some
music, not really knowing exactly what timbre you want to play it, and
then used a timbre that isn't really what you imagined would sound good,
to play it.

Rather than approach composition that way, consider this approach:

OK, I've got what's thought of as a "cheesy" MIDI sound here.
How can I make music FOR this timbre that makes it sound good/appropriate/works?

In other words, START with the timbre/soundfont/whatever, and work
backwards.

I'm convinced that any timbre can be made to sound "good". . . .no let me
rephrase that: any soundfont can be presented in such a way that it
presents an integral musical "character" to the listener, that is
musically effective. (That character may include "bad" . . but that's
part of its charm . . . )

There are a lot of pieces by the late Salvatore Martirano (a composer
from U of Illinois, (I think he was one of Kyle Gann's teachers)), from
the 80's and 90's, that use the cheesiest MIDI timbres you can imagine.
But he uses them in such a way that they're colorful and humorous.
You're not thinking "Geez, this would be cool if it were for a REAL
instrument". You're thinking, "Hee hee hee, that melody, played by that
Elmer Fudd phat brass patch is a hoot!" and then "Oh, listen to that
silly low fart chord in the MIDI tubas. Hee hee hee" and it's not all
laughs, sometimes there are sudden dark moments as well, made possible by
a COMBINATION of the harmony, and the timbres.

The point is, he composed FOR the timbre, and made it work.

A CHALLENGE:

Write a piece with this specification:

1) It exists ONLY as a midi file.
2) Therefore it will likely be played only on QuickTime instruments.
3) Your piece should be effective for QuickTime instruments.
4) Compose FOR QuickTime instruments.

>
>Message: 15
> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:51:41 -0000
> From: "daniel_anthony_stearns" <daniel_anthony_stearns@...>
>Subject: Re: Sharing Music and Other Real Listening Problems
>
>Hi Jeff, I totally agree. But my personal opinion is that it's up to
>the composer to properly parent all relevant aspects of their music
>and that would certainly to my mind include a self-respecting
>attention to timbre and tone,etc. So my general rule of thumb when it
>comes to presenting a piece is that if it's not good enough it's not
>good--period. In my opinion, bad midi realizations are the main
>reason this microtonal community is taken lightly by most musicians
>who otherwise would seem a perfect fit.
>
>

Hi Gene,

Sorry I don't understand your point.

The main advantage of the Roland is that it is a soft synth
so you can play music on it in real time. You can't do that
with the Quicktime plug in as it comes. If you try and work
around that you come across various issues, and it just
isn't particularly satisfactory for that purpose at least
I couldn't find a solution when I was looking into this
- though it was a year or two ago now.

If all you want to do is to play a midi file
and don't care to work with the sounds in real
time, all you need to do is to show the midi file
in a web page using the Quicktime plug in.
All you need for that is Quicktime itself.

You can also use Roland to render directly to .wav.

I don't know about iTunes as I haven't used it.

The Roland soft synth is moderately
priced and good at what it does.
No drivers need to be installed,
just the soft synth itself.

But I shouldn't say that it is the best
possible solution, of course not, and sorry
to have given that impression, it's
just the best of the methods that I have tried.
It is one way to make midi clips for use
in quicktime. There are probably others
as good, and depending on ones working
methods

Robert

the challenge of (MIDI) timbre

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@...>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@...>