Surely this would be more worthwhile if music that were rarely or never recorded was used.
Hi I'm new here and just want to introduce me here with my brandnew Music-Homepage sf-media.12hp.de with thousends of minutes of mp3-recordings I produced in the last 5 Years with several high quality sample Libraries, to proof, wether they can meet the musical demands of reasonable classical interpretations.
I think most of you could problemless musically judge and enjoy historic recordings of great pianists with much more awful acoustic quality
You're asking us to judge the quality of the instrument you're playing on what are really inexcusably bad recordings.
The mere fact that you're using MIDI limits the performance of the synth to 'medium-grade', no matter how clever the sampling may have been.
This seems to me quite a harsh judgement for a product that has gained a lot of international awards and positive reviews in the musical world.
I would be interested in reading more about these awards and positive reviews.
I think it really needs comments/endorsement from pianists or musicians from the classical World.Thal
Because people used to years of the real thing would have a better idea as to the programmes accuracy.
Oh where did you learn that the Jury of the mipa Award from the Musikmesse Frankfurt for instance just are not "used to years of the real thing"?
I certainly do not want to hear the results of any products that did not win any awards.Thal
I don't understand how the fact that a digital instrument has the same sound over a long period of time and usage is immedately synonym of being ideal or best.
I have listened to a few examples, but cannot take any more of this plastic sound. If this is technology at its best, then God help us.
Here you are obviously not informed abot the musical abilities of the current midistandard. The temporegulation is able to the most extreme as to the most subtle tempovariations
at its best, then God help us.
I must admit i am rather suspicious of your activity as all of your posts have been solely in this thread and I am just waiting for the "sales pitch".
ronde-de-sylphe: Here you are obviously not informed abot the musical abilities of the current midistandard. The temporegulation is able to the most extreme as to the most subtle tempovariations listen for instance my interpretation of the Field Nocturne in the section with music for historic Keyboards of the 19th century https://www.sf-media.12hp.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=213%3Afield-nocturne-c-maj&catid=15%3A19th-century&Itemid=6&lang=en or Anitras Dance for strings: https://www.sf-media.12hp.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54%3Agrieg-anitras-tanz&catid=7%3Aorchestras&Itemid=4&lang=en.But I dont intend to use rubato that strongly in every kind of music, as I also dont when I play pieces live.
Perhaps you should post your interpretation of one or several of the pieces you have posted here, played on a real piano and let us judge whether what everyone is critisizing comes from interpretation or the instrument itself.
"final testament to the voice of a computerize rendition."
Hi ronde_des_sylphesyour last posting rescued at least a bit the standard of the Forum since you at least start to argue musically. Of course I dont claim to be an undoubtable genius of interpretation. But I claim that all music is shaped by my personal interpretation and no product of automatic "computerization" or "medium grade synthezisers", as some poeple here seem to think. In my conception Interpretation is a dialogue between the partition and the one who realizes the music. In Respect to "Vision" you might have noticed the "pesante" and "simile sempre marcato" beside the over the whole first page dominating Forte. (You wont deny that the small cresc. forkes (is this "<" called like that? ) and harmonic necessities are quite clear dynamcly respected and realized). You will find the same marcatos on each melodychord on the seconde page. That was the reason why I understand the piano as hint just to put the before melodic dominating right hand with the accompagniyng arpeggia now in the Backgrond and not to totally change the pesante charater of the melody that metrical corresponds the same way to the bassline as it does in the first page. In pedaling of the first page is just a matter of Liszts tast, since it is noted just the way I did it. The second site has no pedalling advice at all which I think cant be that there would be no Pedal be used, since that woul make all those argeggia sound totally thin. So I decided to go on with the pedalisation Liszt has noted explicitly for the first page.But as everywhere, when it comes to understand historic texts I admit there might be other conceptions of the same text that could make sens musically to. It just would be a pitty, if you would judge hours of totally different music on my site - (which even lostinidlewonder presumably unwillingly called "human") just from two pages of a Lisztetude you understand in another way than I do. So at least I hope there are more that dare to discuss musically since I thoght thats what a pianoforum would be about.best fahl5
where is lack of interest, there is verdict without reasonable proofs, Where is lack of knowledge, there is persistant suspicion with out proof and blushing.
OK, your prejudice are trapped, 1) None of them are played by a computer at all. All are practised and recorded on real keys!
Out of curiosity Fahl5... Do you actually play piano???I only ask since that if you actually don't know sh*t about playing piano, then I feel your testimony to this stuff may seem a little prejudiced in the first place.
Hi Lostindlewonderstupid are just those who can't imagine that pianoworks are realy played on real keys, and stay against any testimony and reason in the prejudice the music on my site is just the result of automatic computarisation
For the last time: "It is not and it took several years I've worked on that repertoire."
....you know what is the differnts between computermade and the music on my site you self behalf of your good ears judged as "human" music
It is nothing amazing that they might be played on real pianos, that is what they call a disk klavier, and it is old tech. You don't seem to understand that just because they might be on real keys that DOES NOT separates it from being computerized music.Congratulations you learnt to play a piano through a digital medium, now stop doing that silliness and play the piano with your fingers Are you saying that there is no difference? That your computer music has become so good that it should be considered human music!? When I said Human I didn't mean 100% human, I mean more human than the other, since you gave me 2 options for the samples, all of the recordings in my opinion would not win any awards for amazing playing! I think some passages are played well, but the majority is played without musical understanding, as simple as that. And if these recordings u gave are all digital renditions, you have note errors in the Liszt I. I would think you wouldn't make those slip ups, or is it really a human? Or maybe you are trying to trick us, it is really both isn't it!!! ARRRG MY HEAD IS GOING TO EXPLODE!!!! lolOn another point, I would love it if you sampled the entire Sorabji OC.
I say they are human they are more human than the other samples. If the Liszt I is NOT a human, then the person who wrote the notes did mistakes, cos there are note errors.
Played on real keys but not by humans a computer
(or maybe it has recorded a human playing already and someone has messed with a midi to make it more clinically correct).
In respect to sorabji: I have heard abot his works, but still have another totally undiscovered Pianocycle on more than thousand narrowly written manuscript pages of a late romantic, early 20th century composer which even might be a larger composition than sorabjis works.