Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Musical Objectivity: Why MIDI?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...> wrote:
>
> Bill Flavell escreveu:
> > The only thing I can say is that I'm very interested in
> > musical "objectivity", so I couldn't really get much satisfaction
> > from anything other than composing with MIDI. That's why I'm so
> > interested in exploruing pre-compositional structures.
>
> I am wondering...
> Why MIDI?

Because MIDI is a genuine musical "tabula rosa" (blank
slate) as opposed to the imaginary one postulated by
serialism.

It allows the objective (stylistically neutral) performance
of musical structures, so it is a quantum leap in terms
of the pre-compositional "auditioning" of raw musical
materials.

For instance, in my "reference melody" MIDI files, all
note durations are a quarter note and the dynamics
(key velocity) setting is at a constant 128, so that
melody/tonality is isolated and the subtle internal
rhythms of the melody can be perceived.

However, I'm also exploring new tonal areas of 12EDO,
so those who have a long history of doing diatonic
7-tone music might be turned off by that.

In that sense, I haven't written "music" in the normal
sense, but what I call "reference melodies". My initial
motivation was to hear the 1440
(720 primes, 720 inversions) possible 6-interval
sequences of 12EDO.

> Why not sound synthesis instead?

Well, I'm definitely FOR electronic instruments, since
acoustic ones can't be accurately tuned, making it impossible
to advance in the creation/perception of more subtle tonalities.
I consider digital sound synthesis to be another musical tabula
rosa, and have had the good fortune to be able to play a Korg
OASYS synthesizer (which is probaly the best digital synthesizer
in the world right now) in my local Guitar Center store. I consider
the synthesizer manufacturers to be the saviours of the future of
music, which would certainly be bleak without them.

> I find MIDI is musically too poor when compared with real acoustic
> instruments or electroacoutic music made with its own resources and
> possibilities.

Well, I'm dealing with severe financial restrictions, so MIDI has
been the only musical composition resource I've had access to.
But I also think that timbral "beauty" has been severely
over-emphasized in the history of music, and the cost-effectiveness
of classical music in particular seems to be a taboo subject.
What does the alleged superiority of acoustic instruments cost
in both economics and the burdening of the conceptual advance
of music theory?

> P.S.: I have not heard your music yet, however. This is just a
generic
> opinion.

No problem, Hudson! :) I appreciate your interest, and thanks very
much
for the great discussion/response! :)

Bill Flavell

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@yahoo.com.br>

Hi Bill,

Bill Flavell escreveu:
> Because MIDI is a genuine musical "tabula rosa" (blank
> slate) as opposed to the imaginary one postulated by
> serialism.

`rosa' or `rasa'?

> > It allows the objective (stylistically neutral) performance
> of musical structures, so it is a quantum leap in terms
> of the pre-compositional "auditioning" of raw musical
> materials.

Not trully `neutral'... If I understood you correctly, you are using this term as `not biased by any old style'. But `composing with notes' (or `composing melodies') is itself an obsolete idea, very tied to the traditional concepts of music.

>>Why not sound synthesis instead?
> > > Well, I'm definitely FOR electronic instruments, since
> acoustic ones can't be accurately tuned, making it impossible
> to advance in the creation/perception of more subtle tonalities.
> I consider digital sound synthesis to be another musical tabula
> rosa, and have had the good fortune to be able to play a Korg
> OASYS synthesizer (which is probaly the best digital synthesizer
> in the world right now) in my local Guitar Center store. I consider > the synthesizer manufacturers to be the saviours of the future of
> music, which would certainly be bleak without them.
> > >>I find MIDI is musically too poor when compared with real acoustic >>instruments or electroacoutic music made with its own resources and >>possibilities.
> > > Well, I'm dealing with severe financial restrictions, so MIDI has
> been the only musical composition resource I've had access to.

???

Good MIDI hardware is not cheap at all...

By the other hand, there are *many* excellent free software tools for sound synthesis, for example:

puredata <http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/software.html>
csound <http://www.csounds.com/>
RTcmix <http://www.music.columbia.edu/cmc/Rtcmix/>
clm <http://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/clm/>
nyquist <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~music/music.software.html>

> But I also think that timbral "beauty" has been severely
> over-emphasized in the history of music, and the cost-effectiveness
> of classical music in particular seems to be a taboo subject.
> What does the alleged superiority of acoustic instruments cost
> in both economics and the burdening of the conceptual advance
> of music theory? I mean the sound quality as *richness*, not *beauty*. And I wrote `musically poor quality' of MIDI sounds because they are, in general, only imperfect imitations of acoustic intruments, but without the richness that acoustic instruments allows to explore, for example, in *articulation*.

With MIDI, all you have is such a poor imitation: it is a step *backward* from acoustic instrumental music, not a step forward. MIDI already was obsolete and too limited when the time it was created. Read the texts of F. Richard Moore on computer music, for example.

Computer music doesn't need many the traditional musical concepts of instrumental music. There are many other sound worlds to explore out of the old world of `notes'.

Best,
Hudson

--
'-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*Nï¿½o deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Apï¿½ie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@yahoo.com.br>

Gene Ward Smith escreveu:
> Hell, music of any kind is an obsolete idea.

...just like drinking water! ;-D

> Let's quit writing it or
> performing it or listening to it.

That is the end of the intended `neutral' or `objective' way, as I would like to show. Thanks, Gene, to point out my ironic conclusion.

There is still much good pitch-oriented or note-oriented music to be written; but I think conventional instruments are the better execution medium for that kind of music, and will continue being for some time. Good music explores the features available in the execution medium. Instrumental mimics cannot have sufficient quality in electronic medium (at least not yet). This is like to play a Beethoven's Piano Sonata on a glockenspiel: likely to sound as a caricature. By the other hand, there are many possibilities typical of computer music media that can achieve high musical quality.

Best.
Hudson Lacerda

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...> wrote:
>
> Gene Ward Smith escreveu:
> > Hell, music of any kind is an obsolete idea.
>
> ...just like drinking water! ;-D
>
> > Let's quit writing it or
> > performing it or listening to it.
>
> That is the end of the intended `neutral' or `objective' way, as I
would
> like to show. Thanks, Gene, to point out my ironic conclusion.
>
>
> There is still much good pitch-oriented or note-oriented music to
be
> written; but I think conventional instruments are the better
execution
> medium for that kind of music, and will continue being for some
time.
> Good music explores the features available in the execution medium.
> Instrumental mimics cannot have sufficient quality in electronic
medium
> (at least not yet). This is like to play a Beethoven's Piano Sonata
on a
> glockenspiel: likely to sound as a caricature. By the other hand,
there
> are many possibilities typical of computer music media that can
achieve
> high musical quality.
>
>
> Best.
> Hudson Lacerda
>

***I have to admit that, of late, emulating traditional instrumental
timbre has little interest for me. I mostly build up sounds
from "scratch" using simple waveforms with the z3ta+ synth
(microtonal, of course, with Scala) and Sonar sequencer. However, I
have to admit that sometimes I label the sounds by equivalents, such
as "Pehrson bell", etc... so they still do have "real world"
classifications in my mind, regardless...

J. Pehrson

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Bill Flavell <bill_flavell@email.com>

OK, then I'm a person who is still interested in melodies played
in tunings with fixed precise pitch classes/interval classes, and my
favorite timbre is the brass instrument family, but I don't like
acoustic instruments because they can't be tuned accurately.

Bill Flavell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Bill Flavell escreveu:
> > Because MIDI is a genuine musical "tabula rosa" (blank
> > slate) as opposed to the imaginary one postulated by
> > serialism.
>
> `rosa' or `rasa'?
>
> >
> > It allows the objective (stylistically neutral) performance
> > of musical structures, so it is a quantum leap in terms
> > of the pre-compositional "auditioning" of raw musical
> > materials.
>
> Not trully `neutral'... If I understood you correctly, you are
using
> this term as `not biased by any old style'. But `composing with
notes'
> (or `composing melodies') is itself an obsolete idea, very tied to
the
> traditional concepts of music.
>
> >>Why not sound synthesis instead?
> >
> >
> > Well, I'm definitely FOR electronic instruments, since
> > acoustic ones can't be accurately tuned, making it impossible
> > to advance in the creation/perception of more subtle tonalities.
> > I consider digital sound synthesis to be another musical tabula
> > rosa, and have had the good fortune to be able to play a Korg
> > OASYS synthesizer (which is probaly the best digital synthesizer
> > in the world right now) in my local Guitar Center store. I
consider
> > the synthesizer manufacturers to be the saviours of the future of
> > music, which would certainly be bleak without them.
> >
> >
> >>I find MIDI is musically too poor when compared with real
acoustic
> >>instruments or electroacoutic music made with its own resources
and
> >>possibilities.
> >
> >
> > Well, I'm dealing with severe financial restrictions, so MIDI has
> > been the only musical composition resource I've had access to.
>
> ???
>
> Good MIDI hardware is not cheap at all...
>
> By the other hand, there are *many* excellent free software tools
for
> sound synthesis, for example:
>
> puredata <http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/software.html>
> csound <http://www.csounds.com/>
> RTcmix <http://www.music.columbia.edu/cmc/Rtcmix/>
> clm <http://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/clm/>
> nyquist <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~music/music.software.html>
>
> > But I also think that timbral "beauty" has been severely
> > over-emphasized in the history of music, and the cost-
effectiveness
> > of classical music in particular seems to be a taboo subject.
> > What does the alleged superiority of acoustic instruments cost
> > in both economics and the burdening of the conceptual advance
> > of music theory?
>
> I mean the sound quality as *richness*, not *beauty*. And I wrote
> `musically poor quality' of MIDI sounds because they are, in
general,
> only imperfect imitations of acoustic intruments, but without the
> richness that acoustic instruments allows to explore, for example,
in
> *articulation*.
>
> With MIDI, all you have is such a poor imitation: it is a step
> *backward* from acoustic instrumental music, not a step forward.
MIDI
> already was obsolete and too limited when the time it was created.
Read
> the texts of F. Richard Moore on computer music, for example.
>
> Computer music doesn't need many the traditional musical concepts
of
> instrumental music. There are many other sound worlds to explore
out of
> the old world of `notes'.
>
> Best,
> Hudson
>
> --
> '----------------------------------------------------------------
---.
> Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
> *Não deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
> *Apóie o Manifesto:
http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/
>
> == THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
> http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?
option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
> .----------------------------------------------------------------
---'
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador
agora!
> http://br.acesso.yahoo.com
>