Hello,
Summary - it is probably good for most listeners, and
really boring as a recording practice.
It seems unethical not to label recordings as
the product of this approach.
Assuming the midi rendering is on a real piano I think it would sound
very good. It would probably sound as good as other real
recordings. The problem, or rather aversion I have to the practice
is only that it represents a different hobby than playing piano. It is
a good hobby and it is tempting to compare the results to what
one experiences at a good recital, but it really dumbs it down for
those of us who really like the idea of competing with all the great
recordings that are out there -- the live recordings at least. For
the audiance it is probably great - or at least as great as a
recording can be, and assuming the emotional/musical
content can be successfully rendered at a slow speed.
I think there is a tendency to view recordings as the real
window into piano playing (and music in general) and this is a
pity. If you have access to live music it is (at least for me) tons
more interesting. You then realize that iterpretation is this vital
dimension that isn't as static as one thinks from having one
recording of each great tune. That is the real reason that I don't
have much interest in this form of music rendering - it is a very
logical extension of the approach Glenn Gould took of making
recordings and fixing up blunders in the editing room. I hold him
in very low esteem for this. (And for many other reasons I won't
detail). I don't see any difference
philosophically between the midi thing and patching up that
note you missed in a recording. I'd much rather all the
recordings I have be live.
I've made recordings via overdub wherein I played multiple parts.
They turn out very nicely and I actually like to listen to them, but
they are completely impoverished on the real time musician to
musician communication front, which you can't get if you don't
have everyone playing at once. It isn't a completely implausible
stretch to suspect that the midi technique distances the
interpreter from the composer's intent. By this I mean I don't
know if one would be able to learn to feel, and hence impart,
the frantic inexorable drama of the third movement of Op 57
if it had to be rendered it at a safe speed - but then again KH may
really enjoy this and do it well. Even if he can do this, I'd still
rather listen to live, because a real piano with a real competent
human player is still the best technology available for the kind
of sound/music I'd like to hear. Every time I get to the end of
the Rach 3 recording I have w/ M.A. and the applause starts up I
think "she nailed it". One take, live. This makes it the real deal
to me and that's the only thing I'm interested in working on.
Regards,
Bobo
Topic: Kevin Hadsell