Congrats! We have made history ("Fur Elise", "Moonlight" by Beethoven)

[vladimirdounin]

Congratulations! We just made history. (“For Elise”, “Moonlight” by Beethoven).


                                         INTRODUCTION


Have we made history? Maybe – “yes”, maybe – “not”. I do not care, though I hope that we have.

I am not a historian, I am a classical musician. I love classical music and I am worried that in global scale it has the tendency to die off and be replaced with something that I do not like.

I do not know any serious reason for this withering. During my life I was lucky to see quite many times how powerful is our art in hands of the best and how much the plain people around us need just classical (not any) music. (Yes, I mean school students, workers, farmers, soldiers, prisoners, everyone in the society).

 Therefore my dream is to worm (find out) all the secrets of the best pianists and share them between all of us - mortals.

Who does not feel him/her self mortal and imperfect in piano play - do not read, please. It is not for you.
                                 

 Warning! The article is terribly long and boring .                                                                                              
                                         Vladimir Dounin




Dear Colleagues,

First of all, please allow me to congratulate each of you who answered my questions, as well as this wonderful Forum, because in the last week we altogether started at least a new chapter in the history of music! I am more than serious, let me, please show only a few reasons to have said like that:

1.Never before in history the information about the most elusive substance of music – the individual volume of each given note in relation to the previous note and the following note (hereafter shall be called “Note Strength”) – has been transmitted (sent), received, processed and sent back IN PLAIN TEXT, without any real sound (playing, singing etc.) at all.
(And even more - it was done with a precise accuracy!)

I am especially pleased to announce this because many high-ranked specialists have told me that this is impossible in principle. Fortunately, they have been no more right than the renowned scientists who “had convinced” (it is a real, well known historical fact) society that flight on any apparatus heavier than air was absolutely impossible, and they did it not before but AFTER the Wright brothers had already crossed the Atlantic.

Our first tests were as short and simple as the first in history audio recording (“Mary Had A Little Lamb”, performed by Mr. T. A. Edison himself) and the first Radio – Message  (“SOS”). However, the first short step opens endless ways to new horizons. Look at only a few randomly chosen unprecedented opportunities:

2. Literally tomorrow (because everything is done except anti-piracy protection) you can download a new software “Music teacher” and install inside of your piano inexpensive set of sensors and pushers. These specially designed by the world-famed piano manufacturers sensors and pushers will replace your fingers for this kind of work.

Now, please, switch on your imagination! Let us say you have decided to learn our beloved “Fur Elise” by Beethoven. Your PC invites you to choose the “base-model” out of 100 top rated recordings. E.g. your choice is “Vladislav  Tashkenazy” because you like his conception as a whole. However you are unhappy with some details of this famous recording.
Therefore you press “Edit”.

What can be different in Piano Music? – Only 3 things: Pitch, Timing and Note Strength. (Let us mention “Damper” and “Piano” pedals as well but they are not engaged in this particular software yet, it will be done after tomorrow).

The first of all we have to edit “Pitch”, because Tashkenazy recorded D seven times instead of Beethoven’s E (at the end of each “sentence”, like bars 7, 15, 29 etc.)  You have to replace all of them with “E” and to add the missed “C” at the final resolution of the piece.

Your reason for this action is this: Beethoven could not be illiterate in Harmony (just because his, Haydn's and Mozart’s music are the basis of the Classical Harmony) and write the resolution of the Seventh of D7 in the “up” direction instead of the legal resolution “down”. Moreover, he could not leave this “seventh” unresolved at all at the end. Beethoven’s autograph and the very first edition prove it. By the way, isn’t it a shame, in your opinion, for the great Mr. Tashkenazy to choose the faulty edition for his recording? We know that he graduated from the best Conservatory and had a really great teacher Mr. G. Althaus.

Your next step is “Timing”. In the bar 45 (the first bar of F-Major episode) you prefer to brake the F-Major “on” beat instead of “before”, because the grace notes were not crossed by Beethoven.

The last correction is “Note Strength” (not the volume of the music in whole, of all notes together). You prefer to make more prominent the lower voice in bb. 52 and 54 and to play more shiny the entire top notes in this episode. Now everything is done in accordance to YOUR taste.

The next step is  “Preview” (“Pre-audition”). You have to check whether you are happy with the result of your corrections or not – your PC plays for you back exactly “your” variant of “Fur Elise”. (On your own, real piano with specially designed pushers, I do NOT mean just pathetic "computer beeping" or performance on electronic instrument). In fact this variant is already a unique piece of the art (nobody played exactly like this yet). After you have auditioned and approved your own way to perform or have done some other correction  – you press the button “Save”.

From this moment on, your PC "listens" by sensors to your practice and prints or displays each time the note-text with all your mistakes (discrepancies  with YOUR plan) marked in red color: wrong notes, timing, note strength (similar to the  “Spelling Check” in “Microsoft Word”). Undoubtedly, you can change your “performing plan” in your PC at any time.


Isn’t it great to listen to your self at any time “from the audience’s seats” and be absolutely objective without the influence of your daily tiredness, stress, nervousness, and mere forgetting of details of YOUR OWN plan? Now each of us will be able to afford lessons with the best professors on a daily basis (as long as their recordings are available for your PC). Good luck in bringing YOUR plan of performance to life!
Would you like to download this software and install the pushers? – Let me know.
   

 3. From now on each composer can indicate the desired strength of any note accurately instead of taking chances that performers probably will be able to understand the author’s intentions. The performers, in turn, do not need to guess anymore what exactly the composer meant (at least in some tricky spots).

4.   Instead of the quite common situation “blind under the guidance of blind” each student can submit his “Plan of Performing” of any piece and discuss it with the teacher of any level or even get comments and suggested corrections from highly qualified board of advisors. (Judging from my personal life experience: it is always better to hear the 2nd and the 3rd opinions and then choose the most convincing one, than obey one single specialist blindly). As a result, s/he will know “how to play” in all the details BEFORE even one hour of his/her time was spent for inefficient exercising.

Inefficient - because it is simply impossible to work effectively without being aware of the direction one wants to go and what exactly is the goal? In our case, who of us does not want to know for sure at the very beginning of our hard work: which note on which beat should be played and which of these notes should be louder or softer? Who does not want to go straight to HIS/HER OWN goal instead of zigzag and labyrinth with plenty of deadlocks? Presently, the majority of musicians are using the time-consuming “trial-and-error method”. Isn't riding better than crawling? Teachers will profit also from the unprecedented opportunity to learn and teach from a complete disclosure of all artistic details of any performance as long as the recording of this performance is available on their PC’s.

5.   A new scientific field – theory and comparative history of piano performing - will come into musical schools and universities with oceans of researches and dissertations. “Any science is as much science as it can be described mathematically". And "any science starts from reliable data", but what of data do we know about performing art today? We know none of them in spite of billions of "Note Strength" indications accumulated in computers of Disklaviers.

Are you sure that Math and Music have nothing in common? Okay, I will not remind you that our A1 is simply 440 vibration per second as well as A2 –880, that each of our notes is 2/1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc. I will only refer you to the excellent education system of ancient Greece and Rome: any student of the math faculty was a musician automatically – music was a substantial part of the math syllabus.


6.If it is so easy (from now on) to pass on all the fine details of your artistic vision to your students, then it will be even easier to pass the same ideas into a fully obedient computer. And your  old friend piano will play for you perfectly any piece of any difficulty exactly in the way you suggest, even in the way that human can not dream about because of their limited nature.

7.    Composers will definitely exploit this feature – they will write an absolutely new kind of music designed specially “for computerized performing”, without observing of all the human limitations.

8. What is wrong in the suggestion that maybe in the future the computer will play piano (physically) more often than humans? Is it disturbing for us today that no single book in our libraries is written by the hand of human – all of them are just printed by “stupid and insensitive machines”, by robots?

 - Not at all, nobody sees here any reason to say that the human soul, thoughts and feelings have disappeared from the books because of this. All of these three are still living in each book (if it is a good one, of course). Why mustn’t the same logic be applied to music?

To understand the real significance of our tiny event and the fascinating future which INEVITABLY will follow, (even if all of us have not wanted it) we have to look back.

TO BE CONTINUED... in "Look back....and ahead"

[dangermouse]

  How Silly 

 

[jam8086]

Hahahahahaha..."Vladislav Tashkenazy"

[Torp]

Congratulations.  It sounds like you just reinvented MIDI.

[xvimbi]

Congratulations.  It sounds like you just reinvented MIDI.

That was my thought, exactly.

Well, to be fair, there is probably a bit more to it, but I am not at all convinced that it is the revolutionary, ground-breaking paradigm shift Vladimir is trying to sell this as.

[Aziel]

This is by far the most retarded idea ever.  You must have started the 'For Dummy's' book line up, either that or been the subject.  Most likely the latter.  (Not trying to put you down) 

 


Aziel Diabolus for Prez!!

[Bob]

What is this?  Some kind of advertisement?

I stopped reading that first post.  I didn't understand what it was getting at.

[vladimirdounin]

How Silly 

 

Why silly when it works perfectly and never fails! Come to any my lesson and watch how does it work (it is free for everyone). You can invite me to your place as well for master-class or work with ensemble or choir if people around you are  not so negative as yourself without any reasons.

Would you like to know the definition: who is clever and who is stupid?
"The clever one knows that he is stupid and wants to learn during the whole his life, the stupid one is just sure that he is clever."

Fortunately, not everyone shares your opinion. See one of such examples below.

With best wishes,

Vladimir Dounin

Hello vladimirdounin,

MCAACMPSR2007 has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to
entitled - Congrats! We just made history.("Fur Elise", "Moonlight" by
Beethoven... - in the Piano forum of Virtual Sheet Music Forums.

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Mr. Dounin,

I would like to send my congratulations, on what to me is startling...
I was wondering what you were on to when you post the thread, that was
asking people to put the +'s & -'s on the notes according to how they
would stress them.  I think this is one of the most brilliant musical
philosophies, if you could call it that, that I have come across in my
musical life, and I send my sincerest congratulations.
 
 I know that it would be very large and that it would tremendously help composers like myself, with getting the performer to express exactly what is going on in the composers mind... sometimes the musical expression of my thoughts is not completely translated onto the paper, which creates a divide between paper score and real score.  The real score being in my head, and believe me no one wants to go in their to dig out the real score.
 
I think this is a brilliant idea, but to formulate it for other
instruments may be one of the toughest challenges, at least in reference to
the computer program that you mentioned.  My question is; How would one
use this program for another instrument?  I feel that it wouldn't work
as well, that is why some room must be left for the performers emotions
to get involved witht the piece.  I believe that when one studies a
piece or performs it, they should dive in head first, and not rush
anything they should listen to any recordings they can find, to get ideas from
other performers, and then they should rely on their musical instincts
to help them into the perfect frame of mind, for each individual piece. 
In my experience when playing my trumpet when I am thinking about
sadness, and I am trying to play it, it changes my tone to a completely
different feeling.  An dwhen the piece is meant to be happy, if I am in
that frame of mind, it makes my instrument sound happier.  I have !
found that the performers own feelings help them to convey the right
mood, and if the siece is supposed to be sad and detached from the world
("Empty Auditorium" solo for piano) if one is a little detahced from
the people watching, then conveys that they want somethin, but because
they are detached from the audience it creates the barrier that the
performer needs for that piece.  I feel that conveying the composers
feelings is my most important part of performing, followed by getting
everything else right.
 
I know that these things can be accomplished without playing or
singing, how do people think that music was written without an instrument
right there... or do they think that Beethoven had an orchestra in his
closet that he had play every bar when he came up with one.  Of course this
is a completely logical and brilliant approach to music literacy... and
I do hope that it takes a strong foothold in the world of music.

  #3     
 Yesterday, 02:46 PM

 
MCAACMPSR2007 
Senior Registered User       Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Marysville, CA aka Hicktown, USA
Posts: 246  

[vladimirdounin]

Hahahahahaha..."Vladislav Tashkenazy"

Did you listen to this recording ("Fur Elise")?  Isn't this true that I said ?
                                                                                                               V.D.

[vladimirdounin]

Congratulations.  It sounds like you just reinvented MIDI.

No, it sounds wrong for you. MIDI was invented long time ago, Disklavier was invented in 1982.  However nobody before paid attention that computers of Disklaviers accumulated priceless information about THE ENTIRE SECRETS of performance of the best pianists of the world. The whole piano repertoire is recorded by the best performers and we have unprecedented opportunity to know EVERYTHING about each their note.


Unfortunately, the existing sistem of musical notation is not prepared to display for everyone this most important for every pianist information. The individual note volume, Note Strength - is the only difference between charming, full of life music of good pianists, and  dead and ugly music of bad ones. Today nobody knows how to teach these "micro-volumes" for each particular notes. It would be possible to improve the situation dramatically if we will upgrade the existing musical notation with the indication of Note Strength.

With my best wishes,

Vladimir Dounin

[vladimirdounin]

That was my thought, exactly.

Well, to be fair, there is probably a bit more to it, but I am not at all convinced that it is the revolutionary, ground-breaking paradigm shift Vladimir is trying to sell this as.

What is the biggest difference between our old and new knowledge about the Earth? In old times people used only 2 dimensions do describe it and were pretty sure that the Earth is flat. After they accumulated more of knowledge they realized that it is not a flat surface but a globe with 3 dimensions. Was it revolutionary or not?

Our "maps of musical world" (I mean our scores, music sheets) are FLAT, they have only 2 dimensions, they do not correspond in full to the real, live performance. Therefore majority of the people are frustrated after they tried to use our incomplete "maps".    "2 dimensions scores" mislead inexperience musicians and undermine our business in whole. We lose 99% of potential students and audience.

I do not sell anything to you, I am just trying to open your eyes and ears.

Thank you in any way,

Vladimir.   

[vladimirdounin]

This is by far the most retarded idea ever.  You must have started the 'For Dummy's' book line up, either that or been the subject.  Most likely the latter.  (Not trying to put you down) 

 


Aziel Diabolus for Prez!!


[/quote]

Do you know any book, including the newest text books that can teach: which note in the melodical or accompaiment line, or in the chord should be louder or softer? Do you know anybody who is in posession of this vitally important information (without this knowledge music is not beautiful), maybe do you know it self? Give me your address, I will take lessons from you. I will sent you 100 USD cheque if you will point me anybody who really knows this matter.

However, If you are not able to answer these questions, if nobody yet discovered this ocean of  musical secrets and treasures, then why my idea is retarded?

Vladimir Dounin   

[vladimirdounin]

What is this?  Some kind of advertisement?

I stopped reading that first post.  I didn't understand what it was getting at.

If you did not stop reading you could have good chances to understand. Maybe you can restart?

I did my best to be understood. Why didn't you want to do your best to understand as well?

Yours Sincerely,

Vladimir Dounin

[nomis]

Mr. Dounin:

This system on concentrating on note strength is very interesting, and is similar in ways to Karl Leimer's (Gieseking's teacher) insistance on getting correct rhythmic values. It gives a firm foundation for one to depart from as you cannot depart from something if you do not know where you are departing from. One of the main advantages of concentrating on note strength is the ability to train the ear to listen, much like Leimer's method, as there are many pianists (including myself) who play the piano without listening to the sound at all!

However, I am thoroughly against such notation that indicates all the note strengths - Classical music today does not readily allow departure from the musical text at all, which is one of the great restrictions to freedom of expression. So by enforcing notation that contains all the note strengths too, it further restricts freedom of expression, and will result in students that are even more cautious than they are today (that reminds me of something that Harold Schonberg said about how students would cut their hands off knowing that they had changed a note ).

[xvimbi]

What is the biggest difference between our old and new knowledge about the Earth? In old times people used only 2 dimensions do describe it and were pretty sure that the Earth is flat. After they accumulated more of knowledge they realized that it is not a flat surface but a globe with 3 dimensions. Was it revolutionary or not?

Our "maps of musical world" (I mean our scores, music sheets) are FLAT, they have only 2 dimensions, they do not correspond in full to the real, live performance. Therefore majority of the people are frustrated after they tried to use our incomplete "maps".    "2 dimensions scores" mislead inexperience musicians and undermine our business in whole. We lose 99% of potential students and audience.

I don't quite agree. The 3rd dimension you are trying to put into the score has always been there. Perhaps it isn't in such detail as you would like to have, but any dynamics marking (pp, p, f, ff, etc.), pedalling, accent marks all specify how notes should be played. It only looks to me as if you have a system that specifies all this in a more formal way. Agreed, in order to play a phrase in a Mozart sonata, one would have to know about how phrases were rendered in those days. This requires pupils to learn "rules" as well, just like your rules. However, the general rules, to me anyway, seem to impart a much deeper musical knowledge than your detailed rules. They do not represent historical developments and peculiarities specific to a given composer, unless you also teach how exactly you derived those rules, in which case you might just as well go back to the "traditional way".

Do you know any book, including the newest text books that can teach: which note in the melodical or accompaiment line, or in the chord should be louder or softer? Do you know anybody who is in posession of this vitally important information (without this knowledge music is not beautiful), maybe do you know it self? Give me your address, I will take lessons from you. I will sent you 100 USD cheque if you will point me anybody who really knows this matter.

That is what I just talked about. There is a great deal of understanding how to render a phrase in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or Debussy. I agree that the way these concepts are communicated could be improved, but assigning strengths using a scale from 0 to 100 to every note is not the right way, in my opinion. MIDI seems to provide exactly the same facilities you are talking about, and composers make good use of it already. MIDI has not caught on in "real", "human" playing, and not only because it is too complicated to parameterize music first and then memorize all these minute details.

[quasimodo]

All the charm of human interpretation is in its inaccuracies, imperfections and the emotion of performing.

Try to modelize emotion first and come back to us ok  ?

Well, and maybe also try to understand what music really is  .

[mound]

I saw this guy post the exact same diatribe on pianoworld, as his 2nd post. I thought "eh, spam.  what is he trying to sell? clearly nobody ever introduced this guy to MIDI"

Haven't checked these forums in a few days, I'm glad it seems my initial thought is shared by others.

[jeremyjchilds]

I don'y mean to be a critic or anythig. but it all seems kind of forced.

As to midi or not, at least we won't have to listen to corny beeping on our computer...

[Aziel]

Music is Yourself...


Aziel Diabolus is Done With This Topic!!

[jeremyjchilds]

Which note should be the loudest in the indian drum song??

[Baohui]

I know that it would be very large and that it would tremendously help composers like myself, with getting the performer to express exactly what is going on in the composers mind... sometimes the musical expression of my thoughts is not completely translated onto the paper, which creates a divide between paper score and real score.  The real score being in my head, and believe me no one wants to go in their to dig out the real score.

Amazing! Now we can all interpret every single piece exactly the same as eachother! The world would only need one pianist, playing exactly what each composer wanted!

[xvimbi]

Mr. Dounin,

...
 
 I know that it would be very large and that it would tremendously help composers like myself, with getting the performer to express exactly what is going on in the composers mind... sometimes the musical expression of my thoughts is not completely translated onto the paper, which creates a divide between paper score and real score.  The real score being in my head, and believe me no one wants to go in their to dig out the real score.

I have spoken to a few composers myself over the years. None of them was interested in imposing strict rules on the performer. On the contrary. They were very much interested in the DIFFERENT ways each performer would interpret their works. They were often positively surprised at renditions which they hadn't even thought of. This is what to a great extent brings music alive.

It might be different when it comes to music that should really be played exactly according to the composer's directions, such as film music. However, when it comes to music as art, variations are required. Any painter, poet, sculptor, etc. would tell you that s/he does not want to have people interpret their works in one and only one way.

Thus, I can't take this "composer" seriously as an artist. And as already mentioned several times, MIDI solves this person's problems anyway.

In this respect, that whole concept is questionable, but this application is only one of several.

Would it be useful as a "language" that allows us to talk more easily about dynamics, for example, would it help one person to communicate more easily an idea to another person? Probably. But then again, several "languages" already exist, some of which allow as accurate and precise a quantification as the proposed system, or even better.

Really none of them has ever caught on when it comes to playing "real" music, except the "traditional" system (pp, pf, f, accent marks, etc.)

[jeremyjchilds]

How is this revolutionary.

When I say a sentence, I talk with some words louder than others due to inflection...

When I play the piano, I play certain notes louder than others due to inflection....

It's been like that for years....

Have you heard of "mozartean phrase endings" just one example.

Even when I interpret a Bach fugue, I always instruct my student to shape each line dynamically to reach a climax on some note or another. It's called good musicianship.

I suppose we are saying the same thing from different angles, but when I teach my student about "sighing"  themes, I do not claim to be a revolutionary.

As I say this I realize that this is probably all a joke and we are all falling for it...

[Torp]

Let me see if I get this straight:

I take someone elses recordings that were made on a disklavier using a MIDI based code to ascribe "note strength" via the 127 velocity delineations, then, since I didn't really like the ending of that version I combine it with the disklavier recording of someone elses ending.  Then, I have the disklavier play this back and it is now unique and all my own?

I think I'll ask Koji if I can take one of his recordings, change a note digitally, and then post it on the forum as my own.  Koji?  If you made it to this thread, what do you think?

How is the concept of note strength different from the concept of velocity in MIDI?  If I have a MIDI recording of anyone and I simply go in and change the velocity attribute of one note does that make it mine?  Of course no one else would have ever played that, but I didn't play it either.

If we take Fur Elise and assign a velocity, duration, and pitch attribute to each note what does that get us?  MIDI already can do this.  I can go in and play a piece, review the velocities, change them if need be, and have the midi program play the music back.  It's NOT me who is playing, it's a computer.  I don't get how this revolutionizes music.

[ramseytheii]

Honestly I believe that here is a real idea that has amazing and frightening potentials.  It seems to be new in development, but in spirit, it was predicted by Glenn Gould  as far back as 1966, in his essay, "The Prospects of Recording."  I have included a few excerpts from that long essay for your pleasure....

----------------------------------------
"At the center of the technological debate, then, is a new kind of listener - a listener more participant in the musical experience.  The emergence of this mid-twentieth-century phenomenon is the greatest achievement of the record industry.  For this listener is no longer passively analytical; he is an associate whose tastes, preferences, and inclinations even now alter peripherally the experiences to which he gives his attention, and upon whose fuller participation the future of the art of music now waits.

He is also, of course, a threat, a potential usurprer of power, an uninvited guest at the banquet of the arts, one whose presence threatens the familiar hierarchical settings of the musical establishment.  Is it not, then, inopportune to venture that this participant public could emerge untutored from that servile posture with which it paid homage to the status structure of the concert world, and, overnight, assume decision-making capacities which were specialists' concerns heretofore?

The keyword here is 'public.'  Those experiences through which the listener encounters music electronically transmitted are not within the public domain.  One serviceable axiom applicable to every experience in which electronic transmission is involved can be expressed in that paradox wherein the ability to obtain in theory an audience of unprecedented numbers obtains in fact a limitless number of private auditions.  Because of the circumstances this paradox defines,  the listener is able to indulge preferences and, through the electronic modifications with which he endows the listening experience, impose his own personality on the work.  As he does so, he transforms that work, and his relation to it, from an artistic to an environmental experience.

Dial twiddling is in its limited way an interpretative art.  Forty years ago the listener had the option of flicking a switch inscribed 'on' and 'off' and, with an up-to-date machine, perhaps modulating the volume just a bit.  Today the variety of controls made available to him requires analytical judgment.  And these controls are but primitive, regulatory devices compared to those participational possibilities which the listener will enjoy once current laboratory techniques have been appropriated by home playback devices.

It would be a relatively simple matter, for instance, to grant the listener tape-edit options which he could exercise at his discretion.  Indeed, a significant step in this direction might well result from that process by which it is now possible to disassociate the ratio of spede to pitch andi n so doing ... truncate splice-segments of interpretations of the same work performced by different artists and recorded at different tempos.  Let us say, for example, that you enjoy Bruno Walter's performance of the exposition and recapitulation from the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony but incline towards Klemperer's handling of the development section, which employs a notable divergent tempo.  With the pitch-speed correlation held in abeyance, you could snip out these measures from the Klemperer edition and splice them into the Walter performance without having the splice procedure either an alteration of tempo or af lucation of pitch.  ... There is, in fact, nothing preventing a dedicated connoisseur from acting as his own tape editor, and, with these devices, exercising such interpretative predilectinos as will permit him to create his own ideal performance."
--------------------

A long excerpt I know, and although Gould is talking specifically about recordings, you can see plainly the ideas that are the same in Mr Dounin's conception of the Disklavier role.  Also, the idea that one performer is not enough to give an ideal performance of a work. 
Of course that only addresses one aspect of Mr Dounin's ideas, avoiding comment on practice of notation, and such things as having an interpretation written out exactly to be approved by a board (here I will keep my mouth shut).  Maybe now a few of us can be convinced to take the ideas a bit mroe seriously?

Walter Ramsey

[andhow04]

I would be really interested to hear Bernhard thought's on this topic! Yoo-Hoo! Bernhard! Are you out there SOmewhere!
 
 

[crimper]

...However nobody before paid attention that computers of Disklaviers accumulated priceless information about THE ENTIRE SECRETS of performance of the best pianists of the world. The whole piano repertoire is recorded by the best performers and we have unprecedented opportunity to know EVERYTHING about each their not.

This sounds more like a large computer database containing the dynamics of performances rather than how others suggest a complete reinvention of MIDI.  More appropriately, one should describe this as an application of MIDI--but is this a unique application?

Disklavier obviously accomplishes some of the aspects Dounin suggests; however, I'm not familiar with Disklavier beyond recording and playback.  Does Yamaha provide such software that operates as a recording/accuracy analyzer?  It seems unlikely the people at Yamaha would not have considered this form of learning. 

I bet some will cringe at the idea of calling it musical education, which I hope we can all agree, is deeply subjective.  Therefore, if someone decides to follow a metronome's tick and another chooses a canned advanced software approach, allow him or her.  Most agreeably, calling this notion revolutionary is moot given people are resistant to change and have good reasons.  Current musical notation is traditional and it works just fine.  Most of the musicians here are clearly not bothered with the lack of discrete notation.  In fact, I think such lack of detail augments the interesting aspect of music.  In short, interpretation is fun!

Interestingly enough, I recall thinking of a vaguely similar application of MIDI, but never pursued the concept, as a limit exists on financial resources.  I am intrigued by the idea and perhaps willing to help develop such a system if coaxed by some type of incentive cough$$$$cough.  Of course, I'm not sure of Dounin's intentions of this thread besides a supreme exhibit of rhetorical BS reminiscent of a corporation's marketing department.  Please elaborate...

[vladimirdounin]

Mr. Dounin:

This system on concentrating on note strength is very interesting, and is similar in ways to Karl Leimer's (Gieseking's teacher) insistance on getting correct rhythmic values. It gives a firm foundation for one to depart from as you cannot depart from something if you do not know where you are departing from. One of the main advantages of concentrating on note strength is the ability to train the ear to listen, much like Leimer's method, as there are many pianists (including myself) who play the piano without listening to the sound at all!

[u]ANSWER[/u]
Thank you very much for amazingly deep understanding of the problem. This system really forses us to listen to our own sound. It is not only about the students,  it is and about myself as well.

 Many years ago, when I had to do a lot of recordings, I was amazed: "how differently do I play" (for my own ears) from my recording in comparison to what I have heard in reality when I did this recording. It proved that I did not listen properly to my self. After decades of experiments with "Note Strength" - I do not notice any substantial difference between my real and recorded play anymore. Now my ears are much more accurate.

All these rules, that scared and disturbed so many opponents, are not some kind of rules "How to play". They can be called   "Do Not Play Like This" rules, "Musical Safety Rules".
("Do not accent the first note in any slur", "Do not soften the top note in a chord", "Do not accent the first short note (in a group of short notes) after the long note or after the silence -rest etc").

I never teach Note Strength as a rules that should be memorized verbally (though I can express them in words for myself, of course). I only play for my student 2 versions of the same spot:his/her and mine. Student never knows, which is his/her and which is mine (s/he can not listen to sound during the play yet), only friends or parents can witness, that "my copy is true to original". After the student makes his/her decision (which variant does s/he prefer?) I ask: what is the  difference between the 1st and 2nd variants? Only after the answer, and the answer practically always is the right one, I explain, why did I know, that it should be played like that. If student could memorize the rule - all right. If not - no problem: s/he will definitely make the same mistake again after 2-5 bars. We again will investigate the reason of ugly sound and eventually s/he will never play like this. Does s/he know or does not this rule verbally - I do not care at all.

Now it is a big problem for my self to play "Spanish Rhapsody", "La Campanella", "Islamey" etc., that I had done long time ago, when I was a student. Now I am detecting my own mistakes in Note Strength  (that I did not suspect 30 years ago) on each page and have to fix such a shame each time. It is a bit irritating.

 However Note Strength pays back as well: 30 years ago (I remember) I never could play "La Campanella" without missed notes and flip-flops. Now (fortunatelly) it is a rare event and I usually play it faster than (4 minute 50 seconds) of my old recording. Note Strength have solved for me the problem of chromatic scale (separated  by thirds) at the finale of "Spanish Rhapsody" and (maybe it should sound strange for some pianists) the first 2 pages of "Islamey" as well. They always were most difficult for me - I couldn't catch the spirit and motorics of this Caucasian dance given to us in only one single voice. (All the rest in this peace is more familiar for classical pianist and I felt the relative confidence regarding all the other pages). 

However, I am thoroughly against such notation that indicates all the note strengths - Classical music today does not readily allow departure from the musical text at all, which is one of the great restrictions to freedom of expression. So by enforcing notation that contains all the note strengths too, it further restricts freedom of expression, and will result in students that are even more cautious than they are today (that reminds me of something that Harold Schonberg said about how students would cut their hands off knowing that they had changed a note ).

[/i]

In my opinion Note Strength is a wonderful way to put the beginners "on the rails" and an effective "resque tool" for any "infected and sick" music. Healthy, beautiful music does not need  any "crutches". However in emergency it is very useful.
 Who needs Note Strength more than anybody else - these are musical scientists.

Thank you very much once more for your serious and creative approach,

Vladimir Dounin.

[nomis]

In my opinion Note Strength is a wonderful way to put the beginners "on the rails" and an effective "resque tool" for any "infected and sick" music. Healthy, beautiful music does not need  any "crutches". However in emergency it is very useful.
Who needs Note Strength more than anybody else - these are musical scientists.

I was talking about the computer software you mentioned. The concept of Note Strength is a good idea, but I think it would be superfluous for composers, as the performer should use their own discretion as to which notes should be stronger at a microscopic level. The composer has a variety of symbols to accent a note in standard notation, but again it is up to the performer how strong these accents should be. A sforzando (sp) within a pianissimo passage should be much weaker than one in a fortissimo passage, for instance. However, the software would be useful for teachers if it is more efficient to put a large number of different note strengths using a computer rather than hand.

[JPRitchie]

Hi Vladimir,

      I want to say right up front that I sell a CD with MIDI files and related material (see:
https://www.cdbaby.com/ritchie), so, in some sense, it looks as if we are competitors. But, on the other hand, we have a mutual interest in promoting pianistic performance, compostion, and appreciation.

      Much of what appears in this thread gives me the impression of using MIDI as a means of enforcing strict compliance to a "one and only" interpretation of a piece of music.  I object to this use because it may be incorrectly linked with MIDI technology itself. (See my comment about "Moonlight" accents in your thread in the Performance section.) MIDI and software can render rhythms essentially perfectly; they can play the most difficult pieces at or, in the absence of quantitative marks, near the intended tempo; they can play all the notes that are in a piece and no others. In addition, they can be used to play pieces at arbitrary tempi, make MIDI recordings, provide feedback, measure progress, and design a performance. Many other possibilities also exist. These aspects of the technology might prove useful in exploring, teaching, preparing for, designing, and composing piano performances. The MIDI files I sell provide a performance that is a systematic, but not completely pre-defined, translation of the composer's score. As such, they are a starting point for interpretation, not the stopping point. ( I should add however that some music is better suited than others to MIDI. A march or a Joplin rag, for example, is a good candidate; an idiomatic jazz piece with lots of rubato will take more work.)

     Modern technology offers many possiblities. I hope it will be used in some way to further a growth of interest in fine music and the freedom of expression it provides.

Regards,
Jim Ritchie     

[vladimirdounin]

 The concept of Note Strength is a good idea, but I think it would be superfluous for composers, as the performer should use their own discretion as to which notes should be stronger at a microscopic level. The composer has a variety of symbols to accent a note in standard notation, but again it is up to the performer how strong these accents should be.

ANSWER

Let us imagine that we have to teach some actor-foreigner to participate in our drama play and say on the stage one short  phrase: "Good morning, I am calling from Columbia...". If we will teach him in the same way as we teach musicians (according to all our text books), our actor will say : ++  0  +  0   ++  0  +  0  ++ 0  + 0 (look at "How to play "Moonlight" in "Performance" forum).

Who will understand and like this phrase spoken in such "English" : " g-Ood  morn-I-ng, i Am call-I-g from c-O-lumb-I-a?

It is exactly the problem that I am trying to solve with Note Strength. Usually students do not know "musical words" and their stressing and softenning are absolutely random, meaningless. Note Strength method fixes this problem effectively.
Vladimir Dounin

[vladimirdounin]

Which note should be the loudest in the indian drum song??

ANSWER

If you really in need to know this - write this song down and show me or my students.
Then we can talk about the stressings and the softenings. It depends on the music itself, not on the title or genre.
V.D.

[vladimirdounin]

How is the concept of note strength different from the concept of velocity in MIDI?  If I have a MIDI recording of anyone and I simply go in and change the velocity attribute of one note does that make it mine?  Of course no one else would have ever played that, but I didn't play it either.

ANSWER.

Dear Mr.Torp,

The concept of Note Strength in principle is not different from the concept of velocity in MIDI.
However 3 things are substantially different:

1. I do not give to my students computer's 124 degrees scale of dinamics. No one human will be able to read these numbers in real time during the performance or even practice. It would be as complicated as 88 numbers instead of our ABCDEFG (Do-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La-Si) on our 5 lines (staff). Therefore I am using a very convenient sistem of Note Strength indications that does not interfere with Pitch and Timing of the musical text. And even these very economical indications I am using only for very beginners and in case of persisiting volume-mistake on the same note each time. In general all these indication should be (and are in case of my students) replaced with the knowledge of a few variants of dynamics that can not be appropriate for any music. For example, "the accompaniment should not suppress the melody'. (The advantage of Note Strength system is that this long phrase is substituded with a single small sign). Who will argue about this? After we know: what is prohibited, we ABSOLUTELY FREE to do all the rest. Does your knowledge that you must never drive on red light make a slave or robot of you?

2. All of us proved that the "humanized" velocity - "Note Strength" can be send, understood, and processed as a plain text. (It even have caused a real storm of emotions, as you can see from our discussion). I never heard about this way of communication between musicians before. Did you?

3. If you will make recording of any piece and then send  to me computerized report about your recording with entire data including "velocity" no one my student as well as I self will  be able to understand this report and follow it by my own piano play. However I can play (physically, on any piano) for you the accurate copy of your interpretation after a simple program will convert the computer data of your recording into readable for human Note Strengths. I would like to invite you to do such a test with me.

Regarding the "author rights" after just one note was altered:  this was in jest, of course. Sorry, I was joking. However, many pianists are copying somebody's CD without even single note of alteration (sometimes even with the wrong notes and timing of the original) and nobody sees anything wrong in this.

Vladimir Dounin  


If we take Fur Elise and assign a velocity, duration, and pitch attribute to each note what does that get us?  MIDI already can do this.  I can go in and play a piece, review the velocities, change them if need be, and have the midi program play the music back.  It's NOT me who is playing, it's a computer.  I don't get how this revolutionizes music.

ANSWER - QUESTION

As far as I know MIDI works differently from Disklavier. Could you play with your MIDI the real concert "Steinway"? Could you make with your MIDI on this Steinway spotless, artistic recording of "Islamey" in double Tempo? If you can do this work, why it is not done yet? A lot of people will buy this recording. I am the first on your list, what is the price?
Disklavier definetely can do this job.

Vladimir Dounin.

[vladimirdounin]

[

Would it be useful as a "language" that allows us to talk more easily about dynamics, for example, would it help one person to communicate more easily an idea to another person? Probably. But then again, several "languages" already exist, some of which allow as accurate and precise a quantification as the proposed system, or even better.

QUESTION

Could you, please, tell more about this languages, and more detailed? Where is it possible to read about them? I had exchange with many specialists and they never mentioned anything like that.

Thank you.

Vladimir Dounin

[xvimbi]

Could you, please, tell more about this languages, and more detailed? Where is it possible to read about them? I had exchange with many specialists and they never mentioned anything like that.

Well, what I meant was that there are already systems available for specifying note strength. MIDI is arguably the most precise system. It is, as you say, not quite convenient for humans to read MIDI, although one could write the velocity value on top of the notes in a score. That would be rather similar to your scale of 0-100.

Then, we have of course the traditional language that provides accent marks and dynamics instructions (pp, p, f, ff, etc.), although usually not for every single note.

Finally, your own rules probably come from concepts that have been around for a long time, for example "in a melody line, the top note should be the loudest".

I assume that you did not invent any new rules, so it seems to me as if you have designed a novel way of communicating these concepts. So, instead of saying, "in a melody line, the top note should be the loudest", you write something like "---, --, -, 0, +, ++, +++, +".

Don't get me wrong, your way may very well prove useful, and perhaps people will adopt it. However, there is hardly a more stubborn bunch of people settled in century-old traditions than classical musicians. It will require a lot of convincing.

[vladimirdounin]

Well, what I meant was that there are already systems available for specifying note strength. MIDI is arguably the most precise system. It is, as you say, not quite convenient for humans to read MIDI, although one could write the velocity value on top of the notes in a score. That would be rather similar to your scale of 0-100.
Then, we have of course the traditional language that provides accent marks and dynamics instructions (pp, p, f, ff, etc.), although usually not for every single note.

ANSWER

I have written already that even 88 individual numbers for each key of piano are "too many", they could not work for human's brain. Instead of 88 numbers man invented 5 lines and clefs. Now we can read and play in fast tempo (thanks to this invention).

Therefore I am using the system similar to above mentioned. I declined the idea to replace our pp-p-mp-mf-f-ff with 100 degrees at the very beginning of my quest.  Instead I am considering all these "p" and "mf" as "dynamics octaves". Inside of each octave I made 7 "dynamics notes-gradations". Let us say: "---mF, --mF, -mF, mF, mF+, mF++, mF+++".
However my signs are smaller and do not interfere with "tenuto" - "_", and "see comments below"- "+" signs.

I can not imagine, why so many people can not understand that we need these or different signs (kind of accurate indication whatever they look like) to teach and explain the right stressings and softenings in musical language. Would you insist that the phrase " Good morn-I-ng, I Am call-I-ng   from t-O-ront-O  ont-A-ri-O" is an acceptable variant of good English and everybody can "selfexpress" in this way?

Didn't you hear the same way to play music ++ 0 + 0   ++ 0 + 0 ++ 0 + 0 , is it better?
No FF or PP will fix this problem but "accurate indication" will fix for sure in a few minutes.

Vladimir Dounin


Finally, your own rules probably come from concepts that have been around for a long time, for example "in a melody line, the top note should be the loudest".

I assume that you did not invent any new rules, so it seems to me as if you have designed a novel way of communicating these concepts.Don't get me wrong, your way may very well prove useful, and perhaps people will adopt it. However, there is hardly a more stubborn bunch of people settled in century-old traditions than classical musicians. It will require a lot of convincing.

ANSWER

Of course, I have not invented "these rules". Vice versa, I have said many times that all good musicians are playing always in accordance to these rules and played properly even before all of us  were born. These rules existed always because they spring from the Laws of Music. They are of the same importance as the grammar of any language.  My concern is that they are not written down and therefore not taught properly. A lot of people deny their existence at all.

Another thing that I can not understand is why "bunch of people settled in century-old traditions" likes this "century-old  traditions" more than "millenniums-old traditions" to live without any musical literacy at all? By the way, to live in a tree without any houses and pianos is even older tradition. Don't you see here some kind of "double standard" regarding their passionate love to traditions and "Freedom of Self-expression"?

I highly appreciated support from the thinking part of the members of this forum; however the quantity of the people who never used their own brain yet is quite frustrating.

Vladimir Dounin

[Dazzer]

I highly appreciated support from the thinking part of the members of this forum; however the quantity of the people who never used their own brain yet is quite frustrating.

nice way to insult everyone on this forum there vlad.

the first time you posted i was already very annoyed by your multi board spam.

But nevertheless, let me try to, put in simpler terms, what you're trying to say.

Outview
1a) First you're going on about note strengths. Simple.
2a) suddenly this ... computer program comes in like a product placement. I've no idea where this came from.

Inview
1b- something with lots of plusses and minuses. STILL utilising the traditional notation, but after that expanding on it
2b- okay so what this program will do... if you input a recording (live/midi) and then it'll display for you the sheet music, with your note strength notation. Then allow the user to change these, note strengths, timings etc, and then it plays it back to you the way you'd want it to be played. So that way the user can then use this as the basis for his/her performance.

--------
my views

1c- right. Lets take your fine example of the fur elise

Today my concern is in the very first bars of “For Elise” by Beethoven. Which notes of the melody E-D#-E-D#-E-B-D-C-A   C-E-A-B  E-G#-B-C should be stressed, played stronger than regular ones (you can mark them with “+” or ”++ “or “+++” depending on Note Strength), which should be softened (mark can be “-“, “- - “ , or “---“)  and which notes are just regular (not stressed, not softened – no mark needed or mark “0” can be used).

and xvimbi's fine usage of your notation

overall p (equivelant to 0)

E--
D#-
E0
D#+
E++
B+
D0
C-
A---

(crescendo to the last E, then decrescendo)

so expanding what you're saying is you want us to read


EP-- D#P- EP D#P+ EP++ BP+ DP CP- AP---

?

FURTHER MORE, you don't exactly state WHICH OCTAVE the notes are on?... so now what do we get?

5EP-- 5D#P- 5EP 5D#P+ 5EP++ 5BP+ 5DP 5CP- 5AP---

?


oh wait... you mean with a score? alright then...

here's an original edition of the fur elise. M1



here's vlad's, which i made



here's a more extrapolated copy of the original which i edited



right... TELL ME now... is it easy to understand ALL THREE? in fact... is not the traditional notation there EASIER to read at first glance? even with my extra notation added on, its still easier. of course you'd probably say no. and i don't blame you. You have a cause to champion. But do think of others, who don't have your amazing sight reading abilities.

so you say that this would be a valuable tool to teach beginners? alright lets count the number of Basic symbols a beginner would be required to learn.

Traditional
PP,P,MP,MF,F,FF, Cresc, Dim, Forza.  (count 9 symbols)
Vlad's
PP,P,MP,MF,F,FF --,-,+,++ (10 symbols)

oh okay so PP is quite understandable once you've learnt P? like wise with -- and -, > <, etc

so

Trad: p, mp, mf, f, sfz, < ( 5 symbols)
Vlads: p, mp, mf, f, -, + (6 symbols) and not forgetting we don't have a symbol for forz.

SO overall you're asking beginners to learn MORE symbols, and read MORE symbols on the score?

Next.
You say first that the traditional methods of notation are not accurate. Since we have no idea what the composer means by P, by F, or the relation between the two. Right, so let me ask you, what is the relation between P and P-? isit SLIGHTLY softer than P. isit a TINY BIT softer than P.isit just SOFTER than P? or isit VERY MUCH softer than P?

That said, however, i very much doubt your notation has the same application as the traditional notation? Who REALLY cares whether a section starts with P, or P-? there'which brings us to applications of your notation. The notation of musical GUIDELINES (or laws, which i so dislike to use).

- ON A SIDE NOTE-
There is a very misled school of thought that P,F has to mean something A certain VALUE. a VOLUME, a VELOCITY.And they must have a relation. Unfortunately that is wrong. P means Soft. F means Loud. P, Very soft, F, Very loud. That's all there is to it. It is only in the later eras where people decided to add in FFF (of course, due to the increase in dynamic range available on the piano). But its because of that that we're misled to think that FFF is three times more loud then ... loud?
- END -

anyway most teachers already have their own method of notation such things. Mine, for instances, draws a line descending over two notes with a slur (the first note of a slurred pair should fall towards the 2nd). simple to understand, isit not? Two lines, to show the high point of a phrase. even simpler. TWO lines. not 10-15 characters.


Okay so we've ruled out your notation for
beginner's notation.
guildline notation

which leaves us with your FINAL application (i don't remember seeing any other), that is, the Conveying of Music in Plain Text. Particularly useful, say, over a internet chat program or....... come to think of it, that IS the only application i CAN think for it. On paper its already redundant. People can write out a score faster than you can write that out and understand it. Aurally? Jeez, whatever happened to singing? Can you imagine a radio program that goes: FIVE-EE-PEE-Minus-Minus Quaver FIVE EE-FLAT-MINUS-Quaver and so on so forth?

And even then, on the internet, with increasing technology there's video conferances, Voice-over-IP,and look above... i've already shown you how EASY it is to post a picture.

Ah yes i forgot... COMPOSERS!

If composers WANT to use it , that's their choice. Its not the first time composers have used their own unique notation to convey what they mean. But in MANY cases, they wish for it to be STRICTLY adhered to. And they're mostly Avant-garde. There is nearly NOTHING that the traditional notation can't do that yours can.

And computer music has been around for awhile already. the last ligeti etude was meant to be played by a computer. So you're kind of late.

So, ultimately, your notation is REDUNDANT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Phew... NEXT

2c- I've already touched on this above... Just WHAT is your relation between P, P+, P++, etc??? Trust me i'm a programmer, and i KNOW you need to set values for those. So, lets see... Assuming we have a scale of ---P, to F+++, that means 12 levels. (lets say P+++ = F---). there're 128 volume levels in midi. that's  about 10 volume midi levels.

So what IF ... just what IF... i wanted it to be 5 volume levels in relation to the previous note? Say... i have a SCALE, consisting of 60 notes, and i want a gradual decrescendo... can YOUR notation do that? Now... don't say that that'll NEVER happen. because it COULD, if it you do come up with that program I WILL do it.

AH but then... perhaps you'll say that its up to the student to decipher it.. Then i don't think its ACCURATE anymore. hence... redundant, yet again.

Maybe you say we can have MORe levels... ----!! ++++!! right... which brings us yet again back to our number of symbols per BAR.  REDUNDANT.

Bah... i'm spent too much time USING MY BRAIN for this drivel.

Anyway, maybe we can just close this topic up. Come back to us, maybe, when you've found a way to improve it. But as of now, this notation is redundant before it even became useful.

ONE FINAL "LAW" that you might find useful ->
K I S S
KEEP IT SIMPLE! STOOPID!
-bows-
-exit stage right-

[Skeptopotamus]

holy crap.  my post sure as hell isnt going to be as long or articulate as yous guys, but we pay musicians to play well.  We don't like robot pianists.  The pianist decides those tiny little things.  the composer doesn't need to.  That's what makes one pianist better than another.  I don't think anyone here wants to spend the rest of their lives listening to Disklaviers playing everything.  that'd be boring.  Where's the heart in that?  Sides, doin that stuff gets rid of any room for personal interpretation and that's boring.

[Skeptopotamus]

oh and dude; holy crap that yellow is totally annoying as ***.

[Dazzer]

2nded

[JPRitchie]

Hi Vladimir,

      I just wanted to say that if someone wants to hear music played according to the score, something like a Disklavier system may be necessary. After fooling around with MIDI for - well, a long time - I was able to create simulated performances that are a systematic translation of the composer's score. Because I avoid listening to pieces I'm programming, it was only later that I found that some of them sound very different from available recordings, especially as regards tempo and timing. In these aspects the programmed music is a nearly perfect rendition of the composer's version of the composition. The physics of sounding a note involves only timing, volume, and duration; these can be reduced to quantitative notation.  (Pedaling is a separate matter, also quantified.) Operating an acoustic piano mechanically eliminates inherent limitations of audio recordings, such as sampling rates and resolution, and others of those synthesized.  Moreover, giving credit to the transcriptional capabilities of the composer as well as the knowledge the composer has that the printed score is the principal and authorized media for communicating composition, one has to acknowledge the printed formal score as the best possible guide to a performance. Unless the composer has provided something else. Some musicians have told me that such programmed or mechanical performances are not an aid in their own interpretations. And there are not a lot of such performances available commercially.  I communicate these last two observations, but do not explain them.

     FWIW, over the years I've heard a lot of criticism of computer music, MIDI, mechanical playing, etc. Very little of it is factual.

     As far as notation goes, composers could make the additional marks you suggest if they wanted to. And in some cases, they have. Having programmed several compositions, I can say that most scores don't result in a completely pre-defined performance. Just as one tiny example to make my point, one does not have to sound all notes of a chord at the same volume.

Regards,
Jim Ritchie

[vladimirdounin]

nice way to insult everyone on this forum there vlad.

the first time you posted i was already very annoyed by your multi board spam.

But nevertheless, let me try to, put in simpler terms, what you're trying to say.

ANSWER

I did not mean the people who does not support my ideas, sorry. It is just about only insults instead of constructive criticism. And, eventually, I simply expressed my frustration.

Didn't you do any mistake in your life when you had started any new business? I never had used computer and internet before for anything more serious than printing letters and reading news. If I am learning to do this kind of activity it is not a reason for you to be spiteful. V.D.  

Outview
1a) First you're going on about note strengths. Simple.
2a) suddenly this ... computer program comes in like a product placement. I've no idea where this came from.

ANSWER
This program could not work without Note Strength, because human can not react adequately on computer's 124 degrees scale of velocity. No one pianist will be able to play melody with indications 27 - 39 - 44 - 67- 93 etc. I am teaching hundreds of students (including my work as supply teacher) a year and each of the students, even 3-5 years old, follows every my instruction with precise accuracy. Not because my instructions are so perfect, it happens because I found the satisfactory way to convey this information. Anyone will use - the result will be the same. I do not sell it - I am giving away for everybody who wants and I am surprised to hear a gritting of teeth in response to me.

Inview
1b- something with lots of plusses and minuses. STILL utilising the traditional notation, but after that expanding on it
2b- okay so what this program will do... if you input a recording (live/midi) and then it'll display for you the sheet music, with your note strength notation. Then allow the user to change these, note strengths, timings etc, and then it plays it back to you the way you'd want it to be played. So that way the user can then use this as the basis for his/her performance.

ANSWER

You did not understand me. If you are serious in piano playing then you should know that it is a big problem to copy anybody's way to play. It is like handwriting - everybody has different.

Someone has perfect "piano-handwriting" - s/he he does not need any help and advises. However the majority of us would like to improve own "handwriting" without knowing what namely is wrong. I do not know how good is your play, but usually several persisting problems can be immediately "diagnosed" by any professional who listens to you from an audience seat. And you never would believe that it is your mistake, because you are pretty sure that you did not play like that. Computer's report will refute your arrogance and make you aware of all your lacks in comparison to YOUR OWN ideal way to play this particular piece.
(Read my last version of "Congrats")

However, it is not enough to fix your problem. Each my new student (without exception) can not say: why my and his/her ways to play the same melody sound so different? (I am doing this not so bad. At least thousands of people bought my recordings after my concerts while all the shops are full with the same staff). I am not using pedal in this case and playing with my only one finger. No one, including professionals, can answer my simple question: did I play this note louder or the previous one? Not because they have problem with ears, but because they used to play in accordance with wrong standard (++ 0 + 0), they can not imagine, that this  "Fundamental principle" of dynamics is absolutely wrong.

This stupid rule is descended from the instructions for military brass-bands: "How to play marches and dances". And it is absolutely right if you need your soldiers to make "Right-Left,
Right-Left" with their feet absolutely simultaneously (the same about the dancers).

However, this rule is inappropriate if you going to play music for any things that are positioned in your body above the waist line: for heart, for sole, for mind etc. In this case the rules should be much more complicated or  your music will sound as a cartoon or garbage. I know plenty of these rules (I had not invented them, they existed already before all of us were born), a lot of wonderful musicians know more than I know. Unfortunately, they are not written down and  the majority of musicians never will know about them (I do not mention that they will not know them, of course).

The reason for this situation is that the best performers usually have no time and desire to teach, to organize all these rules in some readable system, some of them consider these rules as professional secrets etc.

The "computerized teacher" that I described will bring this information to all the people "who's nose is below the water line", who want but can not play beautifully. Ugly music is not in demand in the society and works for our business in whole like a virus-infected material. Millions hate classical music, do not come to concerts, do not bring kids to learn music etc. because of this. On the other hand I can witness that the best classical performers (I had seen it many times) make the best friends out of most hostile audience (farmers, labourers, crewmen, prisoners etc.) V.D.
--------


my views

1c- right. Lets take your fine example of the fur elise

and xvimbi's fine usage of your notation

so expanding what you're saying is you want us to read


EP-- D#P- EP D#P+ EP++ BP+ DP CP- AP---

?

ANSWER

I am very sorry that you wasted so many words without any reason to do so. I have not posted even single example of my real dynamics-notation on Internet yet. You have seen only rough idea of it. I told many times, that my notation is very simple and compact, but I will not post it today either.

I have a few reasons against doing this:

1. I am still not 100% happy with my existing and working notation and have hope that some of the readers will prompt me to do the better one. However, they will be distracted from their own ideas if I will show them mine.

2c- I've already touched on this above... Just WHAT is your relation between P, P+, P++, etc??? Trust me i'm a programmer, and i KNOW you need to set values for those. So, lets see... Assuming we have a scale of ---P, to F+++, that means 12 levels. (lets say P+++ = F---). there're 128 volume levels in midi. that's  about 10 volume midi levels....


2. You are looking serious about this topic, but even you have overlooked very important
step and you did not understand the base of "human", not computer's degree. "Note Strength", "human's" one degree - it is the smallest difference we can feel (I say "feel" instead of "hear", because pianists feel-hear with their fingers, not with their ears. It is a big and serious problem, one of my respondents even mentioned, that he never hears the music he plays. I can say that majority of us do not hear, including my self. But I know about this and keep trying to improve myself, while many others do not suspect that this problem has any relation to them).

I appreciated that you tried to understand me but you did not and started to refute me instead. What can I expect from the others who do not want even to try to understand?
Therefore I prefer to show my way to indicate Note Strength in person with piano and active playing from both parties. This works. All your other cyber-space variants are very attractive, but they are not tested yet and I am not sure  about their workability.  


Ah yes i forgot... COMPOSERS!

If composers WANT to use it , that's their choice. Its not the first time composers have used their own unique notation to convey what they mean. But in MANY cases, they wish for it to be STRICTLY adhered to. And they're mostly Avant-garde. There is nearly NOTHING that the traditional notation can't do that yours can.

ANSWER

Now you have provoked me to do again double posting, I wrote this already many times:

"I can not imagine, why so many people can not understand that we need these or different signs (kind of accurate indication whatever they look like) to teach and explain the right stressings and softenings in musical language. Would you insist that the phrase " Good morn-I-ng, I Am call-I-ng   from t-O-ront-O  ont-A-ri-O" is an acceptable variant of good English and everybody can "self-express" in this way?

Didn't you hear the same way to play music ++ 0 + 0   ++ 0 + 0 ++ 0 + 0 , is it better?
No FF or PP will fix this problem but "accurate indication" will fix for sure in a few minutes".

V.D.[/color]


And computer music has been around for awhile already. the last ligeti etude was meant to be played by a computer. So you're kind of late. So, ultimately, your notation is REDUNDANT.
---

ANSWER
And what about all the rest compositions that can not be played flawlessly by human, at least in fast tempo?  Are they recorded already by "computerized perfect performer" as well?  
V.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So what IF ... just what IF... i wanted it to be 5 volume levels in relation to the previous note? Say... i have a SCALE, consisting of 60 notes, and i want a gradual decrescendo... can YOUR notation do that? Now... don't say that that'll NEVER happen. because it COULD, if it you do come up with that program I WILL do it.

AH but then... perhaps you'll say that its up to the student to decipher it.. Then i don't think its ACCURATE anymore. hence... redundant, yet again.

ANSWER

Read the "English" phrase above (toront-O, ontari-O) aloud and do any crescendo and diminuendo. Such a drivel, as you say, will be still a drivel and no one of your program will fix it. Mine will.  Welcome to try. I repeat over and over: these Note Strength do not replace crescendo, diminuendo , piano, forte ("forte" means "strong", "loud" is the wrong translation, it provokes roughness). Note Strength works as a passenger in an elevator's cabin: you can sit down, you can stand up, you can lie down or jump in the cabin. Crescendo, forte , smorzando etc. are working at the same time as the elevator itself. The cabin can move up or down, it has nothing to do with the activities of the passenger. They are in certain meaning of the word - independent systems. In sequences, for example, it is very important. Audience should recognize the same motives (musical persons) in any crescendo and diminuendo.

Instead of a kiss I will quote my teacher Vladimir Nielsen. "After your concert never believe your friends. They never will say the truth because they love you. Always ask your enemies, nobody else will count all your lacks so perfectly and say about all your mistakes as straight as they do. Learn from your enemies (by the way, it was a good tradition of many great Russians) and The Bible teaches: Love your enemies!"

I love my enemies as well but do not kiss them yet.

Thank you.

Vladimir Dounin.

V.D.
  

[mound]

QUESTION:
Is the goal of your program to create piano players whom all sound exactly the same?

[Dazzer]

yes you know what? Whatever.

if you think it works then i'll give it to you. It works.

just stop being evangelical about it. If your "revolution" is meant to change the world it'll do so one day. i just hope not in my lifetime.

Oh yes, you say i misunderstand what you say, but you misunderstood alot more of what i said. Perhaps its the language. Its 3am, i don't wish to argue. The general consensus has already been set.

instead of being so evangelical about it, what is the purpose of all this? what use is it to you coming here and throwing all these stuff at us?

A good analogy is one of a christian evangelist coming on here, and telling everyone who good and great god is and how sexy jesus is and sh*t, but for NO apparent reason.

Tone down on the enthusiasm, zealot.

[Skeptopotamus]

*cough* narcissist *cough*

Hey I know you're having fun writing out your rediculously long posts and pressing your intelligence on us by doing so, and in your mind, completely destroying your opposition every time you do it, but when it's soooo long and soooo boring people aren't even going to read it.  and SERIOUSLY!  quit with the goddamned yellow!


Oh and also; you came here expecting us to listen and consider your ideas but you obviously have no intention on listening and considering ours, just to slam them down because you don't like them.  Show some courtesy man.  And don't ever think you're the only one that could be right just because you think you're smarter than everyone cause there are people here who are smarter and righter than you ^^

[ramseytheii]

- ON A SIDE NOTE-
There is a very misled school of thought that P,F has to mean something A certain VALUE. a VOLUME, a VELOCITY.And they must have a relation. Unfortunately that is wrong. P means Soft. F means Loud. P, Very soft, F, Very loud. That's all there is to it. It is only in the later eras where people decided to add in FFF (of course, due to the increase in dynamic range available on the piano). But its because of that that we're misled to think that FFF is three times more loud then ... loud?
- END -

As Dounin pointed out, your translation of forte is wrong, also, it is unmusical.  Forte is above all else a character indication.  Many composers indicate a a forte in conjunction with the soft pedal.  Furthermore, no volume indication in a score can be quantifiable, except as regards the rest of that score.  Performers have to be like the so-called "Constitutionalist" judges so praised in America today, not relying on so many foreign influences.  The forte of Gabrieli is far removed from that of Brahms.

Walter Ramsey

[shoshin]

I'm sorry but MIDI does what you described just perfectly.  Why dont you go and reinvent the combusion engine on some car forum.

[Dazzer]

As Dounin pointed out, your translation of forte is wrong, also, it is unmusical.  Forte is above all else a character indication.  Many composers indicate a a forte in conjunction with the soft pedal.  Furthermore, no volume indication in a score can be quantifiable, except as regards the rest of that score.  Performers have to be like the so-called "Constitutionalist" judges so praised in America today, not relying on so many foreign influences.  The forte of Gabrieli is far removed from that of Brahms.

Walter Ramsey

and just how are you the authority on Gabrieli? The baroque period had a very tough time when it came to dynamics, due to its very poor range.  But lets not deviate from the topic on hand.

I spent the whole night thinking of this, and after thorough thought, yes i'm willing to say that PERHAPS this notation technique can be used to help teachers write down, on a score, the dynamics, and the "volume" for each note. Everyone has their own methods, why not this as well.

HOWEVER, saying that, music is about listening, and as dounin says, feeling. If we're talking about teaching a child here, the child must be taught to feel the music, and develop his/her own sense of musicality. This tool here can be used for teachers to show their own interpretation that the child "should" follow. But it must be cautioned that eventually the child will have to step out on his own, and the teacher cannot hold his/her hand anymore. If a performer has a tendency to put down copious amounts of notes on a score, and with this notation, notes down note strengths for every single note? What would he be performing? It'd be robotic. Not necessarily the music. But the body, the soul, would only be simply regurgitation of what was on the score.

All in all. Yes, this could be a (i wouldn't call it revolutionary) useful technique for teachers. and maybe performers, who have a addiction to putting notes on the scores. But only for that purpose.

The whole... computer idea seems more gimmicky then anything else.

And vlad seems more desperate to put his name on something than anything else.

[vladimirdounin]

QUESTION:
Is the goal of your program to create piano players whom all sound exactly the same?

ANSWER

I had answered this questions already many times. You can speak about anything you like but you have to follow the crammar and  rules of right stressing in the words to be understood and appreciated.

You can drive in any direction but you must not break traffic rules, you are the first who needs them to "arrive alive".

You must obey Dynamics Rules not because I or somebody else in person wants "these goofy marks" from you, but only because your audience and just your self  will never like the wrong stressing in melody and chords. Note Strength rules are designed to help you, not to restrict you or forse you to do something that you do not like. V.D.[/color]

[vladimirdounin]

Hi Vladimir,

      I just wanted to say that if someone wants to hear music played according to the score, something like a Disklavier system may be necessary....

ANSWER

Dear Jim,

Thank you so much for the abundance of useful information in the field that I do not know well. I did not understand everything yet, but I am trying my best.

Tell me please, can we today read in any way all the data from Disklavier's computers by using MIDI or somehow else, or it is impossible? Can this information be printed or displayed, send by E-mail?

Thank you! V.D.