Bela Bartok Burleske op.8c

[Steffen Fahl]

I ever thought this piece was neglected for no reason.
It has nearly everything a goud Bartok-Piece useally has: energy, intelligence, sponanity, virtuosity and a bunch of ingenius Ideas.
Thats why I produced this recording with pianosamples.
Since it is still not part of your collection, I hope It might contribute to it aswell.
best
fahl5

[birba]

Great piece!  I wasn't familiar with it.  What are pianosamples?  You mean you didn't play it?  I was going to say your technique intimidates me...   Thanks for posting!

[Steffen Fahl]

Thank you for your kind answer.
Yes it is right, you must not be intimidated by anything. Produced with samples means, that i programmed every single note of the piece in the way i musically understand it should be played.
So it is a lot of work but in some aspects a bit different from traditional excercise as far one has to add everything intentionally also what the traditional "player" may give to the interpretation subconciously.
So please just listen to the music, and if you like - I'll be happy.
best
fahl5

[prongated]

Interesting...if these are piano samples, that means the tempo can be altered right? I like it a touch faster in the brisk section, but maybe that will risk making it sound mechanical here.

The big thing I miss out on is the expressive tonal qualities of the piano. In the middle lyrical section, the piano tone does not sing enough, and the sharply accented chords are not sharp/percussive enough. Also, in that middle section, the broken arpeggios could be spread out more gracefully.

But yes, overall this sounds really well-executed - what a difference compared to your previous samples! I think a congratulations is in order! You plan to do the other 2?

[Steffen Fahl]

@prongated: Pianosamples mean singlenotesamples. You cant nor need change the "tempo" of a single note. But yes I have to care very much for a musically reasonable tempo how they are executed and that means also quite much subtle tempochanges without loosing the metrical order. And yes, it is possible to program that. But it is just nothing "automatical".
Finaly Thank you for very much for your friendly resumé.
I dont know if I will do the other pieces to. The first one was my favorite from op.8c and I never understood, why you listen it so seldom. There are still so many exciting pieces around. I am curious f.i., what you think about my Eugene d'Albert recordings and I am still working on a better version of Bachs WTK I.
best
steffen

[rachfan]

Hi fahl,

I don't want to seem unkind, but if you're using a PC to program a piece of music by entering note/tone samples one by one to build a computerized rendition, I don't see that as an authentic performance of this work  or your other submissions here.  Members here submit recordings actually performed on acoustic pianos or at least e-pianos.  While your process might be very clever programming, I don't see the possibility of equating it to true musicianship and artistry.  To be candid, it seems to be a mechanical process rather than true music making.  Figuratively, it would seem that a brass monkey could do likewise. Those of us who work hard as pianists to post music here DO actually play the piano!  If I have misunderstood or misrepresented your efforts  here, then probably a more complete description of your method would be in order.  On the other hand, if my impression is largely correct, then I would not spend any time listening to these artificial creations.  I mean, someone could use a program of sampling Monet's brush strokes to electronically recreate them on a computer monitor--but that is not fine artistry.  I should also mention that these six synthetic "performances" have knocked an equal number of real performances off the front page of Piano Street.

[Steffen Fahl]

@rachfan: If I do shape the music it is nothing automatical or nothing a monkey would do likewise. It is much more likly that you might bring an ape to play something on a piano by just imitating movements without musical thought as we all have seen it to often in the tumb mechanical practising of less gifted pianostudents, than to make him understand and musical reasonable use modern musicsoftware to shape an interpretation of any piece of music.

If you believe the only way to shape music is to practise the piano, than you forget, that even the composers no longer fit your severe judgement about what is music and what is not, since they like me decide note by note how the composition should be not by just practising already existing pieces. Or to follow your analogy to painting. It is as if you would say the pointilism of Seurat, Signac or even van Gogh is no real art, since they dont use traditional strokes like Monet does but single points instead.

Believe me everything you hear is musical intended and musical decided by me. Therefor what you hear is the result of many hours work and detailed musical judgement. There is nothing and no one I just "automaticly" digitalize, moreover I try as musical reasonable as possible to make use of the contemporary musical means to make as ambitious music as possible. If you dont agree with my musical decisions, I'll be quite interested to learn what I might correct or what I might better reflect. But if you cant judge musically since you are bound ideogically on a certain manner to produce music, than I just comiserate you for your poor unmusical approach to music.
best
fahl5

[rachfan]

So, fahl, tell me this:  Please describe the set-up on stage as to how you would artificially "perform" these pieces in a recital hall for a live audience.  The reason I ask that question is because many of us who submit recordings here could also perform them in the traditional way at the piano in recital.  I want to be able to visualize, with your help, the electronic recital.  Thanks.

[Steffen Fahl]

So, fahl, tell me this:  Please describe the set-up on stage as to how you would artificially "perform" these pieces in a recital hall for a live audience.  The reason I ask that question is because many of us who submit recordings here could also perform them in the traditional way at the piano in recital.  I want to be able to visualize, with your help, the electronic recital.  Thanks.

Ah OK, so you belong to the kind of people Glenn Gould tried to escape when he preferred to record his interpretations in studio than to do the musical tightrope clown on stage.
Sorry, I am not interested to present me in a dog and pony virtousity show, I am not interested to be an "actor" on stage. I am  just interested in the wonderful music and try to do my best to make it audible. perhaps you should ask an actor to do that visualization job. If this seem to be so important for you, I just wonder why nearly no composer of pianomusic has written any hint how his pieces should be "visualized", while they usually all take care of the right understanding of nearly every single note they composed.

best
fahl5

[perfect_pitch]

OH JESUS... Not this crap again. Are we once again going to go round in circles debating whether these recordings actually can be called 'recordings'

I'm not going to get dragged into this debate again. I already had my fun in January arguing with Fahl5, and all it ended up doing was making us both look like a bunch of tossers in front of the whole forum.

I just wanted to get that out in the open, so that hopefully this forum won't become another pissing match between users (metaphorically speaking).

[Steffen Fahl]

Oh no! not "perfect_pitch" again...

[rachfan]

Hi fahl,

OK, let's switch then to focusing only on recordings, as you wish.  My next inquiry to you is this: Let's assume that a person never took a piano lesson in his life, and has never actually played the piano. But he loves classical piano music, listens to CDs of such music, attends some piano recitals, reads books about classical music and piano, etc.  He also has learned to read music scores very well.  

One of his favorite pieces is Scriabin's Etude in D#m, Op. 8, No. 12.  He's heard several fine recordings, has also heard it played in recitals, and has decided to use the same sampling software you use to create an electronic realization of that piece.  After painstaking time and effort, he achieves his goal.  The realization is certainly note-perfect and has musicality within the limitations of the software and the musical intents, such as they are, of the person programming the piece.

There are errors on Horowitz's recording of the etude.  Or let's even remove the celebrity element and say that one of the pianists here made the piano recording, but with the exact same errors as Horowitz.  Would this mean that the gentleman's artificial electronic realization would be deemed by most musicians to be superior or at least equal to the actual piano rendition as described here? And does this mean that the gentleman using the software to create his realization is a true musician and artist?  

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi rachfan,
let me first thank you for your serious kind of discussion. Thats why I dare to answer, while I am still a bit afraid others might missunderstand our discussion in the way "perfect_pitch" already does.

OK, I am not quite sure if I got you right. In my opinion anyone is able by no means to reach any kind of ultimate and absolute interpretation. And I am very thankful for the many great masters without whom we would never had the faintest Idea what ever might be possible in music. Of course no one seriously would judge any musical Interpretation by the simple amount of mistakes, but how musically convincing it finally it speeks to the audience.

Nowadays the Audience is no longer constrained on the recital halls so with new ways to communicate music we also get new means to produce them. In my opinion none of the different possibilities to make music is superior by it self. I may be musically convinced in anyway, but I want to be convinced. You may likewise play a nasty interpretation even if you have practised the piece for month on a real piano, as you may programm a nasty interpretation even if you have reflected on all settings ever modifiable. But why should it not be the same the other way round, that you may likewise within the human limits play a wonderful interpretation on a grandpiano in a recital hall even with mistakes or a not so good instrument, as  - at least in my opinion - that is possible with the means I explore with their certain own problems and special demands.

To make it clear I am neither a Monkey nor someone who never had the own experience to play the piano. Since that would made it at least really hard to imagine all the subtle nuances that are necessary for a reasonable interpretation. And even some reactions here gave me a little hope that even my recording - to some listeners at least - seem to have one or the other musical reasonable aspect.

So if you see that I do share the respect for the masters like you do, perhaps you might allow you to find some respect for people who are interested in music today even if they try to use  the means we have today, which our great predecessors didn't had.
best
fahl5

[rachfan]

Hi fahl,

I agree with you that the ultimate test of any performance is whether or not it convincingly communicates the musical idea to the listener.

Likewise, I agree that a fine pianist's performances can be highly creditable or not-so good.  There are many factors that can come into play--unfavorable biorhythms, fatigue, loss of concentration, nervousness, distractions such as audience noise, an unsatisfactory piano, a memory lapse, and other things that can cause an "off day" during a performance.  Nontheless, many artists have overcome daunting problems to turn in splendid performances as you suggest.  Is this all a matter of chance?  No!  It has been conclusively proven over and over again, that the key to consistent success in performance is preparation.  That is, if the pianist has engaged in thorough, intelligent, analytical, thoughtful, musical, efficient and effective practicing, then the odds of a poor performance are vastly reduced.  Why?  Because he truly knows the score(s) and how to execute them!  

Turning to your endeavor, I cannot comment on the demands of the process of making electronic realizations of piano works, nor can I compare them to what I just described above, as I do not know enough about it.  The process can obviously produce a seemingly flawless realization, but it is not necessarily as exciting and gripping as an artistic performance in my humble opinion.

To clarify, I never called you a monkey.  I did mention the brass monkey, which is merely a figure of speech.  If I offended you, then I apologize.

Getting back to the "demands" of making your realizations, perhaps you could illuminate those for us so that we have a better appreciation.  

By way of contrast, I can certainly mention here the standards of pianism.  At the fundamental level, the concerns center on such things as accuracy, tone quality, technique, rhythm, phrasing, dynamics, balancing of the hands, observing structural design, clearness of linear voices, nuances, timing and spending of climaxes, imagination, and more.  At an advanced level there are other standards including things such as knowing performance practices, following voice leading, voicing or coloring a horizontal melodic line embedded in vertical chords, emulating the singing human voice in cantabile lines, matching dynamics between phrase endings and phrase beginnings, distinguishing between foreground and background, understanding of stylistic periods along with the composers therein, being able to justify any execution of figuration based on analysis of the score, developing integrating and synthesizing motions as part of technique and choreography of the hands, playing strategic harmonies, etching the long line, and more.  The accomplished pianist also comes to read between the lines of the score to better know the composer and his intents.  All of this is imparted from the artist-teacher to the student, traditions that are handed down through the generations.

I respect you and your exploration of technology.  Do I believe that electronic realization is as good and desirable as a fine acoustic piano rendition?  To be honest, not really, in light of all the standards I just finished mentioning above about piano performance.  While making electronic realizations is undoubtedly an exacting and difficult endeavor, I cannot equate it with the art of piano and the artistry required of the musician which I see as being at a more lofty and noble level.  It takes many years of training for anyone to become an accomplished pianist.  Learning the software and how to apply it certainly must have its own learning curve, but probably does not take 10 or more years to grasp and to use it well.  

I can visualize electronic realizations having a place in some modern avant garde music, in  music used in commercial advertising, a library where one could easily access a piece to get an overview of it, and maybe in music appreciation classes in public school systems.  There are probably more applications, but these come quickly to mind.  But I don't see it as being fully comparable to artistry in the area of the serious repertoire for the piano.  

If suddenly the world ran out of wood such that acoustic pianos could no longer be built, maybe the electronic realizations would have their day in the sun.  Hopefully I would be long gone by then. But until that time, I believe the piano, its amazing and inspiring literature, and the great performers and pedagogues will continue to strongly predominate as they should.  

David




  
 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The big thing I miss out on is the expressive tonal qualities of the piano. In the middle lyrical section, the piano tone does not sing enough, and the sharply accented chords are not sharp/percussive enough.

Yes, I absolutely agree; the sonority that you get from a concert grand doesn't seem to be there. If you're sampling directly from an acoustic grand piano I'm not sure why that should be. Of course wood has its own resonance and maybe the sample doesn't capture that. I'm not also sure about the physics of what happens when (for example) you make a chord by taking several different waveforms (ie notes with their associated decay) and add them together to make a chord waveform. Is that the same waveform as you would get if you sampled the chord? Rationally I guess it should be, but there are the natural harmonics to consider also.

Having said all that, and been quite critical of your Liszt etudes in the past, this now sounds a lot more musical and I think it's a significant improvement. I also listened to the d'Albert and am glad that I did. In no.2 I prefer

(played by d'Albert firstly, and especially the second, sonically better Earl Wild recording), but they are interesting pieces and what you've done is worthwhile.

Philosophically I don't think the means by which you create a recording are important; the musical validity of the end result is what matters. I can't in principle see anything wrong with embracing new technologies to use in the process.

And does this mean that the gentleman using the software to create his realization is a true musician and artist?  

If it is musically convincing, imo he probably is because he will have put sufficient interpretative input in to make it convincing. Hypothetically it's like old discussions about technique (in the sense of dexterity to get all the notes, not in the tone production sense) and interpretation.. the software provides the notes leaving the editor/musician free to focus on tone production, shaping, interpretation, etc.

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi rachfan, Hi ronde_de_sylph,
Let me first express my pleasure about the respectful and serious way of discussion you practice. Thank you for that.
@rachfan to make it short:
It is even still quite a bit work to reach at least the level of the "Brassmonkey" if you are working with samples and sequencers. There still is no button you may just press and everything happens "automatically" it has taken for instance allready some month for me to bring the complete score of the paganini-rhapsody into a at least mechanical correct midifile.
As far as I searched the existing midifiles there still is no other for piano and orchestra available.

Since you asked I willl try to give you a more detaild impression of what I do, meanwhile this cant be that short.
The difference is of course the way I work after having prepared this midifile.
I cant Imagine one might do this without years of practical experience with classical pianointerpretation and in so far it still seem to be the case, that there are not so much guys who combine both: the musical experience and the knowledge to handle the software. Still it needs years of experience with this special approach to interpretation, to learn to use it musically reasonable. I hope still I am in a good way, but I know that I am just trying my best not more not less. If you have ever took a look on my own site you will see that it already took long years to provide all those recordings.

I think all who are occupied with pianomusic would consent with the long list of skills you need for a good interpretation. Yes in some aspects you might easier concentrate on the more interpretational questions if you have once provided a correct transmission of the score to mididata. Interpretation might becom in this way more the quality of a composition, than of the artistery performed on a stage in front of an excited audience. In so far I would be realy quite interested, what Glenn Gould f.i. would have done with those means today.

But anyway if you do not share the most of musical skills you listed up, you would not have the faintest Idea what to do to bring the pure sequence of notes to a telling musical speech. This is likewise true for a unedited midifile as it is for a dumb noteplaying practicing less talented pianostudent.

What I am interested in is the fact that in my approach you even need much more conciuos knowledge about what happens when you play a pianopiece than the traditional musician himself, since there are so much often subconciuos little aberrations caused not only by physical differences in the difficulty to play certain passages, but also caused by the relation between musical thinking and biological rythms like the breathing or physical excitement of the interpret which are strongly related to what is composed and used to hear in every interpretation, that you have to conciously reconstruct also those effects to in order to bring the interpretation to the musical language others might understand. For all this it really needs a genius if anyone think it would be able to do without any of the musical skills you listed above.

To give you a technical impression it is as I have said before. Imagine you may decide every parameter of every single note. Chose from 128 different level of keyvelocity, decide to change the metrical order up to an infinit subtle dimension or the aberration of single notes from that metrical order and this for thousands of single notes in a pianopiece. If you cant imagine what this should make all together you would not have any Idea how to make music out of it at all. So it is not far from practicing listening critical over and over again if the realisation you programmed might realy fit to the certain musical Idea of a piece. But you are not in danger to forget those essential musical questions over the problems to just technically reproduce the composed sequence of notes in the score as we all know less talented pianists might easy do when they are practicing to difficult pieces.

As I put it earlier this way to produce music has nothing to do with the recital hall and therefore does not try to replace live performed music in any way. I admire every succesful performance and already have so much great musical experiences by live performances of good known and unknown musicians, that I think I know its special qualities.

At the same time the way I work with pianomusic may perhaps still contribute to the large world of musical culture in its own way. As you might see in a lot of my project one is able to listen to music rarely or never heard before since very few musicians has the time to practise unknown pieces to give an impression of their hidden qualities.

Sometimes it is also a little game to realize the music perhaps in a way which was perhaps musically intended even if this was practically nearly impossible, since as you know it is not so seldom that the musical imagination of composers went sometimes far beyond the limits of what is in physical reality executable. Perhaps the Dohnanyi capricion might be an example for that but in a totaly other way this might be also true for the shoenberg recording. But this is an extremly sensible question, meanwhile I had in some pieces the impression, yes the music in it self would tend to be played in an other way the interpret would do or even be able to do. Since this is so much easier for me, I know I must be so much more carefully with this aspect. But anyway this might also be at least in some pieces an interesting contribution to the attempt to understand the music.

In my view using modern technology is in no way disputing the continuity of our musical tradition, but perhaps even a chance to provide this certain continuity as far as you may bring the rich musical heritage on the level of thinking and communication of our time and dont let this field totally to the often musically quite poor world of literally "synthezised" popular music. 
And as it depends on recordings of real existing high quality wooden pianos I do hope like you there will ever enough wood to make good pianos. Even if I could enjoy recordings of pianomusic as I do a good recital.

@ ronde de sylph
You are absolutly right that the mix of frequencies of a played chord might in some aspects differ from the sum of the single notes this is for instance if you lift the damperpedal caused by the sympathetic resonances of other tones. In fact the latest version of the Pianosamples I usually work with  (which is unfortunatly still on the postal way to me) has integrated even this effect of sympathetic resonance so that you can get even the overtoneeffect of voicless pressed keys when hitting the right lower note.

This is regrettably still not the case for the sampleset I used in this recording. I am quite curious about the difference. Perhaps I will try to change this mp3-file if I get the new sampleset. But let me thank you again for your honest and friendly reaction on my recording.

best
Steffen

[lostinidlewonder]

Delusions of grandeur still runs strong in this one.

I cant Imagine one might do this without years of practical experience with classical pianointerpretation and in so far it still seem to be the case, that there are not so much guys who combine both: the musical experience and the knowledge to handle the software. Still it needs years of experience with this special approach to interpretation, to learn to use it musically reasonable....

Creating midi does not take years of musical experience, creating ones that express the musical value of the compositions however does, your examples have already been highlighted in lacking in this aspect and this Bartok example is no difference in my opinion.

....in some aspects you might easier concentrate on the more interpretational questions if you have once provided a correct transmission of the score to mididata. Interpretation might becom in this way more the quality of a composition, than of the artistery performed on a stage in front of an excited audience.

You are saying if we put notes into a midi program we can concertrate more on the interpretation questions of the music? I don't think so one bit as a pianist who plays piano with their fingers on a real piano. As we play the real piano we use that as a tool to craft our musical interpretation, the computer is a much worse tool to use to try to do this but of course your belief is that it is a more supreme way in accordance to your delusions of grandeur.

This is likewise true for a unedited midifile as it is for a dumb noteplaying practicing less talented pianostudent.

Your creations lack tempo, note quality expression and overall phrasing understanding and more, which could class it as unedited in this respect.

What I am interested in is the fact that in my approach you even need much more conciuos knowledge about what happens when you play a pianopiece than the traditional musician himself...

Your approach does not require more conscious knowledge about what you play at all, even though you are looking at it note for note the pianist is able to read things at once and understand sentences where you are bogged down looking at every single letter and trying to pronounce them one at a time. But again this is a better method in your mind, to be able to consider every single note individually, it is the pinnacle of muscial mastery not to say supremely efficient!!!!!

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi lostinidlewonder
First I want to express my explicit respect for your personal opinion, meanwhile it is obviously quite different to mine.

I personaly have the impression as if much of your response is more motivated by emotions but really careful musical thought and listening, but even than I respect this certain way you are, think and argue. It is just your decision how you like to comunicate. And its absolutly your decision how and based on what kind of judgement you think and post about the recordings I just contribute here.

I just consent to your opinion, that the pianist as every other musician should not stuck on every single note but must have the overview of the whole. This is explicitly the same what I said one also need to do when editing a midifile, which does not that much more than a painstaking but ignorant pianostudent: he gives you the right sequence of notes.

To make the music out of it one must interpret the music so that every single aspect fits to the intention of the whole. The traditional pianist does just the same and also cares for every single note as I do.

I hope You are right, that you say you do such a better job in interpreting music in this sense, that you are at least able to seriously judge what others do or not. Since I have no proof of your superior abilities, neither in form of any concrete recording nor in form of a musically understanding coment I just can show my respect for your emotions and hope they are able to satsfy your psychological needs.

best
fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

I personaly have the impression as if much of your response is more motivated by emotions but really careful musical thought and listening, but even than I respect this certain way you are, think and argue. It is just your decision how you like to comunicate. And its absolutly your decision how and based on what kind of judgement you think and post about the recordings I just contribute here.

Nothing I have said is of personal issue, if you read carefully I have merely highlighted some amazing facts you have said about what you do and how you think it is of a higher standard than what normal musicians do.

I just consent to your opinion, that the pianist as every other musician should not stuck on every single note but must have the overview of the whole. This is explicitly the same what I said one also need to do when editing a midifile, which does not that much more than a painstaking but ignorant pianostudent: he gives you the right sequence of notes.

This starts with making sense then go off into oblivion making no sense. Please rewrite.

To make the music out of it one must interpret the music so that every single aspect fits to the intention of the whole. The traditional pianist does just the same and also cares for every single note as I do.

But you said what you do requires more "conscious knowledge" so obviously it is not the same in your mind and you are avoiding being clear here.

I hope You are right, that you say you do such a better job in interpreting music in this sense, that you are at least able to seriously judge what others do or not.

We have seriously put your work under the microscope in previous posts early on in the year using people with much higher credentials than ourselves to debunk your silly ideas. Just have a look at recordings here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35977.msg413898#msg413898

Since I have no proof of your superior abilities, neither in form of any concrete recording nor in form of a musically understanding coment I just can show my respect for your emotions and hope they are able to satsfy your psychological needs.

One does not need to present personal proof to highlight that your work is lacking in musical quality. This is an illogical requirement on your behalf but I respect your emotional requirement to believe this, I presented you with an Arrau example as a response to your recordings.

[Steffen Fahl]

I hope you might understand, why I cant see any reason to discuss again things we already discussed if ever you dont have any interest to come together. This is the Auditionroom which discusses new contributions.

And it seems to me still reasonable if someone asks me to explain my approach in this context that I am ready to do, if it might help him to judge his own thinking about what he hear.

But nothing else.

So if ever you like to understand anything or at least criticise understandingly you are wellcome.

best
fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

I hope you might understand, why I cant see any reason to discuss again things we already discussed if ever you dont have any interest to come together. This is the Auditionroom which discusses new contributions.

Then  you should have not asked me for evidence to prove anything like you did in this thread and in previous threads. At least you won't bring it up again.

And it seems to me still reasonable if someone asks me to explain my approach in this context that I am ready to do, if it might help him to judge his own thinking about what he hear.

It is fine to explain what you think your approach is, it is also fine for us to say what we think of your approach.

So if ever you like to understand anything or at least criticise understandingly you are wellcome.

I have already presented some critiques which are reasonable and done so understandingly. I am merely asking you to be more clear in what you are are talking about in your thinking that your computer button pressing is any improvement on proper musicians making proper music with proper instruments. Maybe we have something to learn from you, but you fail to encourage me to think this way.

[thalbergmad]

I have to say that the latest batch appears to be an improvement on some of the ones I heard a few months ago, or maybe it is just my ears.

I do see some value in what fahl5 is doing, but if it were my project it would be restricted to pieces where no recording exists. That way, we would have a library where pianists could log on and sample unrecorded works and it might just persuade a few to be a little bit more adventuous.

Perhaps some Steibelt sonatas, fantasias by De Meyer, little ditties by Hunten and transcriptions by Fumagalli, all of which remain neglected up to now. There are more works unrecorded than recorded.

Thal

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi lostindlewonder,
please let us keep away from fruitless debating like we did in january. I respect that one has other opinions. But you are right, as far it is something new one will judge it is not a bad Idea to learn about before judging. Please dont take me wrong in this point. I dont acclaim any superiority neither for the things I do nor for their explanation. The opposit is true I know that new means has their own new chances and problems. To me the chances seem to be promising enough to try to cope with the problems. But of course I respect everybody who does not share this point of view.

In fact the difference is much smaller than most probably think who seem to be afraid I would tend to negate all wooden pianos and will put automatical machinerie in the place of warm human musical intention and judgement. And all I am trying to outline, is the fact, that at least 90% you must know for preparing a reasonable interpretation I still must know for trying to programm it musical reasonable. While there are purely technical questions which are not as problematic for a sequencer than for the daily practising of a traditional pianist, one must on the other hand still be able to imagine quite detailed which dificulties of a certain piece will have what impact in the traditional interpretation, which we all are used to and expect to hear to take it as part of a human musical thought.

I personal feel judged quite superficially in the generalizing way you think you may negate anything I contribute here and it is a pitty, because I would think that we both share the interest and admiration for classical pianomusic, which must not necessary be a reason for trying to just deny anything I have done. It seems as if you are even not at all able to make a difference between things I done well and things which deserve founded criticism. And this makes the controversy for me so fruitless, at least if it will go the same way it does in january.

So only as far I can understand some respect for me and what I have done I would like to further discuss everything what might be in question.  

Hi Thalberg,
Nice to read you again. I know your opinion and I think you might see that I really share it since what you say is nearly exactly what I do. None of the pieces I contribute here were recorded befor in pianostreet. On the other hand I see no reason to restrict my work with modern musical means totally in a  ghetto of unknown music, since what I do is musical thinking that might be comunicated as any other recorded music might be.

Meanwhile as every musician I restrict what I will do on those things I am intrested in, and that seem to be not far from that what you propose would be a god  place to work with for this way to produce recordings.
But impudent as I am still I hope you might like one or the other of my recordings at least one day.

best
fahl5

[rachfan]

Hi fahl,

Thank you for that lengthy description of your work method.  It was helpful to better visualize and understand it.

A couple of things:  

First, in your process you seem to bifurcate or split the composer's score and the pianist's interpretation into two separate components of performance.  You mention that loading the score into the midifile frees the musician to focus solely on interpretation.  I see the score and the interpretation as being inseparable.  In performance, the score is transformed into an interpretation for the listener. I never think of the pianist as "re-creating" the composer's concept as is so often asserted.  Instead, I see the art of performance as co-creating the music; that is to say, it is a collaboration between the composer and performing artist.  In some instances the artist knows the score far better than the composer ever did.  The reason for that is quite simple.  The composer committed the piece to score, then sent it off to his publisher, and next turned his attention to several other works in progress, perhaps never to revisit the score in question or to perform it himself.  By contrast, an artist might spend years or even a lifetime with that piece, always gaining new insights.  

The way I work, for example, is to first study the the score away from the piano.  This includes things like analyzing the form and structure of the piece, understanding tempo and mood, deciding the best techniques for executing certain figurations, scrutinizing tricky rhythms, figuring out some difficult ledger line notes, studying all the dynamics, accents and performance directions, jotting in some tentative fingerings for certain passages, tracing the melodic line, etc. etc.  When I go to the piano it's to gain a sense of the piece and to decide on a concept.  Once I get through the "mechanical" practicing, I turn attention to musicality. Then I allow my imagination to actualize the concept and to guide the flow of the music to attain the desired result.  For all intents and purposes, I regard and score, piano and myself to be inextricably bound together.  That is, I try to become the music to the extent possible. Dealing with midifiles one note at a time would not work for me.  I need to feel the sweep of the music, and in the moment determine what I need to do musically to put the music over to the audience convincingly.  I must add that I imbue my playing with emotion derived from my own life experiences that seem appropriate to my concept which I believe to be congruous with the composer's concept.  The piano and I are totally connected as I express the score, tinged with a bit of my own individuality, through the instrument.  I cannot imagine myself working with key velocity counters, a sequencer, etc. as it would somehow be overly objective, detached, mathematical and sterile--to me at least.  It would be impossible for me to work at communicating music in that virtual way.  

This is the same reason that I refuse to edit any of my recordings, while there are some other pianists who edit to differing degrees.  I consider my recordings to be authentic music making in the moment, and that's exactly what I wish to document and convey.  In an exciting performance where I take some risks, a few wrong notes mean nothing to me, as long as I have put the piece across to the listener effectively and successfully.  There is no perfection in artistry or any other endeavor in life, including producing electronic realizations. If that were not true, then we would all be gods.  We strive for perfection, but in our lifetimes we never actually attain it.  If an artist comes close to perfection just once in his
experience, that will forever be an mystical and unforgettable moment for him.

The second major point I want to make is this: I'm not at all convinced that making electronic realizations is even efficient.  In the arduous hours that it might take the programmer through trial and error to produce a lovely nuance, a very good pianist could produce it directly at the keyboard in seconds, and if not satisfied, could modify it in a minute to his satisfaction while practicing.  I do not see artificial electronic realization as being able to produce ravishing beauty as well as an artist playing from his heart and soul. A computer and program can never quite duplicate deep human feelings projected in music from the piano.

These, of course, are just my opinions.  We have agreed on a few things, but will probably have to agree to disagree on some others.  That's to be expected.

P.S.  Out of curiosity, I believe it would be a very interesting comparison, fahl, if you were to submit here one of your own actual piano recordings (as all of us do), and separately your electronic realization file of the very same piece.

David  

[perfect_pitch]

Hi rachfan,
let me first thank you for your serious kind of discussion. Thats why I dare to answer, while I am still a bit afraid others might missunderstand our discussion in the way "perfect_pitch" already does.

OH FIRST OF ALL... Don't even go there. I understood everything you were trying to say, despite your incredibly bad english grammar. HOWEVER, I'm not going to lecture you on your language skills.

I'm sick of people who assume that if you don't like their ideas, then they misunderstand. I've grown up with narrow-minded people like that and it sh!ts me off.

Do NOT try to label me as being some idiotic cretin who just didn't 'get' what you were trying to say... I'm not an idiot.

But don't try and drag me into this discussion. I already made my argument clear in the last thread, and made it very bloody clear. I didn't drag your name into other threads - so don't DARE drag mine into yours.

[lostinidlewonder]

I agree, I dislike fahls creations because they are no better in my mind than other midis I have seen online (and in fact other midis I have listened to  spend a lot more time on tempo control which makes the music sound a lot better). But because we say this he believes that we are being narrow minded, are foolish or whatever else he can come up with. We have explained why we find his recordings not really anything special and the fact that he admits he spends months and months if not years on these midis is very saddening for something that doesn't actually need that much effort if you played the piece with your own hands and THEN edited the midi. Trying to create the music by simply putting the notes in a computer program is a maxim of inefficiency and not very musical no matter how you try to package it.

[Steffen Fahl]

@lostindlwonder and @ perfect_pitch
Obviously you tend to defeat everything beyond your "open" minded concept.
Obviously music is a matter of taste, and if your taste differs that much from the taste of the 50 000 hits I've got for my music in my site in the last few month, than it is just a pitty - for you.
Dont think you may drag me in any way to that kind of behavior that you are obviously used to show.
I've made my point. This thread is not made for people like you but for those who are interested in the certain recordings i've made and will seriously discuss them, so I will no longer react on postings like yours.
best
fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

This thread is not made for people like you but for those who are interested in the certain recordings i've made and will seriously discuss them, so I will no longer react on postings like yours.

So this thread is not meant for people who disagree with Fahl. If you do not agree that his productions are masterworks then you are not taking this discussion seriously. What funny rules you apply to your threads. Comical. I am being serious that your works lack musical understanding, we have seriously highlighted that fact in previous threads. But you tend to believe that what you produce is something special, perhaps to the uneducated few who do not know what a piece should sound like once played by a master on a real piano. In this new thread of yours here you even go so far to say that what you do requires more knowledge than the traditional musician, which is even more hilarious!

[Steffen Fahl]

But you tend to believe that what you produce is something special, perhaps to the uneducated few who do not know what a piece should sound like once played by a master on a real piano.

To call the University of Hamburg and the "Hochschule für Musik und Theater Hamburg" which both used several of my recordings as soundexamples for their official Webprojects "the uneducated few" shows, that your Idea what might be "educated" and what not must be gone really far beyond what is accepted academical standard.
best
fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

I am amazed they haven't started to do a course at their university dedicated to your work.

[perfect_pitch]

@lostindlwonder and @ perfect_pitch

OH THAT'S IT!!! So we're a bunch of morons who can't think for ourselves are we? We fahl (fail) to see your point of view, so we must be a bunch of idiots??? Silly me - we should obviously get on our knees and gratify your massive ego, which seems to be completely incapable of dealing with rejection.

Life doesn't work that way unfortunately. So, since I really don't have the energy to insult you once again, I've taken the liberty of posting this lovely screenshot of the last time we had this argument which put you in your place.

I'm sure many of the forum users will get a kick out of it.  



You want to gratify yourself...? Get a porn mag and gratify yourself the ol' fashioned way.    

[stevebob]

Hi fahl,

Thank you for that lengthy description of your work method.  It was helpful to better visualize and understand it.

A couple of things:  

First, in your process you seem to bifurcate or split the composer's score and the pianist's interpretation into two separate components of performance.  You mention that loading the score into the midifile frees the musician to focus solely on interpretation.  I see the score and the interpretation as being inseparable.  In performance, the score is transformed into an interpretation for the listener. I never think of the pianist as "re-creating" the composer's concept as is so often asserted.  Instead, I see the art of performance as co-creating the music; that is to say, it is a collaboration between the composer and performing artist.  In some instances the artist knows the score far better than the composer ever did.  The reason for that is quite simple.  The composer committed the piece to score, then sent it off to his publisher, and next turned his attention to several other works in progress, perhaps never to revisit the score in question or to perform it himself.  By contrast, an artist might spend years or even a lifetime with that piece, always gaining new insights.  

The way I work, for example, is to first study the the score away from the piano.  This includes things like analyzing the form and structure of the piece, understanding tempo and mood, deciding the best techniques for executing certain figurations, scrutinizing tricky rhythms, figuring out some difficult ledger line notes, studying all the dynamics, accents and performance directions, jotting in some tentative fingerings for certain passages, tracing the melodic line, etc. etc.  When I go to the piano it's to gain a sense of the piece and to decide on a concept.  Once I get through the "mechanical" practicing, I turn attention to musicality. Then I allow my imagination to actualize the concept and to guide the flow of the music to attain the desired result.  For all intents and purposes, I regard and score, piano and myself to be inextricably bound together.  That is, I try to become the music to the extent possible. Dealing with midifiles one note at a time would not work for me.  I need to feel the sweep of the music, and in the moment determine what I need to do musically to put the music over to the audience convincingly.  I must add that I imbue my playing with emotion derived from my own life experiences that seem appropriate to my concept which I believe to be congruous with the composer's concept.  The piano and I are totally connected as I express the score, tinged with a bit of my own individuality, through the instrument.  I cannot imagine myself working with key velocity counters, a sequencer, etc. as it would somehow be overly objective, detached, mathematical and sterile--to me at least.  It would be impossible for me to work at communicating music in that virtual way.  

This is the same reason that I refuse to edit any of my recordings, while there are some other pianists who edit to differing degrees.  I consider my recordings to be authentic music making in the moment, and that's exactly what I wish to document and convey.  In an exciting performance where I take some risks, a few wrong notes mean nothing to me, as long as I have put the piece across to the listener effectively and successfully.  There is no perfection in artistry or any other endeavor in life, including producing electronic realizations. If that were not true, then we would all be gods.  We strive for perfection, but in our lifetimes we never actually attain it.  If an artist comes close to perfection just once in his
experience, that will forever be an mystical and unforgettable moment for him.

The second major point I want to make is this: I'm not at all convinced that making electronic realizations is even efficient.  In the arduous hours that it might take the programmer through trial and error to produce a lovely nuance, a very good pianist could produce it directly at the keyboard in seconds, and if not satisfied, could modify it in a minute to his satisfaction while practicing.  I do not see artificial electronic realization as being able to produce ravishing beauty as well as an artist playing from his heart and soul. A computer and program can never quite duplicate deep human feelings projected in music from the piano.

These, of course, are just my opinions.  We have agreed on a few things, but will probably have to agree to disagree on some others.  That's to be expected.

P.S.  Out of curiosity, I believe it would be a very interesting comparison, fahl, if you were to submit here one of your own actual piano recordings (as all of us do), and separately your electronic realization file of the very same piece.

David  

I really appreciated this post, rachfan.  You write beautifully, and I think this exemplifies the sort of critical thinking and respectful attitude that this forum could use more of.

And to fahl:  "Illegitimi non carborundum."  

[tds]

i agree that pianosamples can be/is valuable for sampling music that has never been recorded before. however, in my humble opinion, it is by no means can replace the outcome of top artistry of traditional music making done by great masters.

interestingly tho, i prefer listening to well done artificial recordings than bad performances by mediocre students. tho i must say, i cannot endure listening to either kind for any long period of time.

thank you for sharing your pianosamples, fahl5. God bless

warmest,
tds

[tds]

I really appreciated this post, rachfan.  You write beautifully, and I think this exemplifies the sort of critical thinking and respectful attitude that this forum could use more of.

yes, there are only a few masters of etiquette in this forum. no doubt, rachfan is one of them.

[rachfan]

Hi stevebob,

Thanks for that compliment!  I don't consider myself to be much of a writer.  But I do always try to be diplomatic and tactful.  I find I can still get my points across that way.

[rachfan]

My thanks to you too, tds.  I appreciate that.  It's certainly easy enough to get into a pitched battle with someone over an issue, but I find that it takes no more effort to be civil and congenial.  It goes back to the old adage, "People may disagree, but do not have to be disagreeable about it." 

[birba]

Stevebob, I'm just curious.  Illegitimi non carborundum -what does that mean?
I've tried to avoid getting into this discussion.  It doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.  I enjoyed the Bartok immensely, midifiles or whatever notwithstanding.  Of course, I listened to it with a different attitude when I found out that a "real" pianist wasn't playing.  (I was floored by the brilliant technique the first time I heard it!)  More than anything, I'm overcome by the work which must have gone into the creation of this robot!    Hours and hours and hours I imagine.  I bet there are nuances not to be dreamed of that can be incorporated into such a work.  At least we can say that the cold unfeeling computer has been put towards the creation of music!

[Steffen Fahl]

My thanks to you too, tds.  I appreciate that.  It's certainly easy enough to get into a pitched battle with someone over an issue, but I find that it takes no more effort to be civil and congenial.  It goes back to the old adage, "People may disagree, but do not have to be disagreeable about it." 

Especially because I know your scepticism about the things I do I am realy thankful, that most of you manage to discuss their opinion as respectful as you do. I just read your long answer rachfan. Let me first thank you for that, since a serious debate like that is what a forum like this should be all about.

I think I do perfectly understand your point and I can imagine that as far you have developed your personal musical thinking and language in long years in practicing the piano the Idea to try to say the same things with totally different means must at least seem to you as if you were japanese and some demands you to explain your deepest feelings in chinese which you never spoke before. It ist impossible and so it also must appear for you unthinkable.

I myself just wonder every time how steven hawkins is able just to rule his comunicative demands in daily life having just a computer to let him speek. But he still manage to hold complete lectures with it and therefor is one of the most exciting thinkers of our time.

What I dont think like you, is the role of the composer. From the view of the interpret I do understand what you mean with co-composing while playing. But I dont agree with the Idea, that good composers do not imagine the interpretational potential of their musical Ideas. And also I personally do believe, that a warm musical thought will find its way to the ear no matter what technic is trained or not. A good composer has that thaught no matter if he is performing pianist or not. So why should we not try to formulate thoses musical thoughts with whatever mean we can imagine are able to express what we intend.

I dont want to replace any living music made by any living musical soul. I know my project to try to bring the modern musical means to seriously musical speech and meaning, is mostly uncommon. But it is not at all aimed to replace, but moreover to contribute to the world of music. And it is indeed my yearlong project to learn and to develop this way to speak more and more musically.

If it had any succes should  judge others  and as I said before I do respect their personal judgement since it is a matter of taste and what I do is far from being perfect. But if I would be able to come to the point that someone just by listening say, "hey, thats nice" whatsoever, does it count which technic was used to come to that point, because the difference if you use the technic from the 19th century or the technic from 20/21th century is in my view not that important as the things you do with that technic. And if you learned other technics so good, that it is more efficient for you to rely on traditional technics than it is obviously quite reasonable for you, while it might be just the other way round for someone else.

Since I play other pieces (more traditional and well known repertoire) than I produce there are not that much examples by the hand to give you that comparison. Perhaps I might let you compare a piece I have played while I am studying piano and "sampled" it recently out of curiosity which different if I will find. but this demands a) another thread, b) some more time which I really dont have in the moment. So please be patient in this regard.
Let me thank you once again for your interesting and respectful way to take part in this thread.
best
fahl5

[thalbergmad]

Illegitimi non carborundum -what does that mean?

Don't let the bastards grind you down, or something along those lines.

Thal

[stevebob]

Stevebob, I'm just curious.  Illegitimi non carborundum -what does that mean?

It's a Faux Latin translation of "Don't let the bastards wear you down." 

[lostinidlewonder]

Usually when I respond it is because someone said something amazing, something hasn't been said, or someone says something completely crazy. Fahl says a lot of crazy things, fine english may not be his first language but this does not give him the right to say ridiculous things about us traditional musicians.

When I ask him to explain himself he evades explaining himself and again fools everyone else in thinking that he is trying to present something with serious discussion. In fact he is NOT interested in any opinions that may be negative on his projects. This is fair enough and understandable as all of our personal projects should be held close to our hearts. But for heaven sakes, if you post something in a PUBLIC forum expect to get responses that you might not be happy with. The fact that you cant support yourself and merely think we are picking on you like school bullies perhaps is madness.


So I again ask Fahl to become more clear

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY YOUR METHOD REQUIRES MORE CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL MUSICIANS?

I am suprised that no one else is amazed by this statment by fahl and kindly greet him where he has already elevated himself above your work.

[Steffen Fahl]

So I again ask Fahl to become more clear
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY YOUR METHOD REQUIRES MORE CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL MUSICIANS?

First it would be easier to understand your questions, if you would concentrate a bit more on the things you realy want to know. So even if I thought I was often enough clear about that, I will try it again:

I dont mean that subconcious influences to the interpretation while a traditional performance are in any way something negative. No in my opinion thoses aspects are a fundamental part of the traditional musical language and as far this is nothing any programm knows by it self, I have to reflect on many things, which the traditional interpret will do more by intuition and not in every moment by explicit intention.

So it is a challenge for me to understand the music and the way it must be performed so good, that I can even reflect thoses subtle nuances that belong to the human kind of thinking music. If you understood any kind of criticism on traditional interpretaion in my words, than you totally misunderstood my point. The musical tradition is for me as inspiring as it propably is for evryone else who is seriously interested in classical music. I just tried to indicate, that my way to realize an interpretation demands to reflect more conciously on those nuances in order to reach the same kind of musical language and meaning.

In short I love thoses marks of humanity in music in so far I would like to show them likewise in a musical reasonable way in my way to produce music to. I hope this was easier to understand.
best
fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

First it would be easier to understand your questions, if you would concentrate a bit more on the things you realy want to know. So even if I thought I was often enough clear about that, I will try it again:

Are you crazy? It is your very own statement, I am asking you to elaborate on something that you said which is very simple but look at the response you give, you are certainly not fooling me, maybe your babble confuses others;

I dont mean that subconcious influences to the interpretation while a traditional performance are
in any way something negative.

I did not imply this i merely asked a simple question about the CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE, you now go off into subconscious. If you do not know the difference I am very scared for you and if this is the case you better go practice your English elsewhere or at least accept that we will look down upon what you have to say because we will have to constantly guess if you actually know the meaning of the words you are using. I am sure you know how to use a dictionary and translator so I will put this down to you trying to spin a reply off into a tangent into your oblivon of talking to yourself which you always do when people ask you to be more concrete or disagree with what you have said. Funnily enough whenever someone agrees with you are you fluent and perfectly clear in your English. Unfortunately your tactic of broken english and creating new situation to confuse the topic has no effect on me. YOUR JEDI MIND TRICKS CANNOT WORK MWHAHWHAHWHAW lol.

No in my opinion thoses aspects are a fundamental part of the traditional musical language and as far this is nothing any programm knows by it self, I have to reflect on many things, which the traditional interpret will do more by intuition and not in every moment by explicit intention.

Errrrm when are you going to answer my question about HOW IS YOUR APPROACH REQUIRING MORE CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MUSIC THAN THE TRADITIONAL MUSICIAN.

.....I just tried to indicate, that my way to realize an interpretation demands to reflect more conciously on those nuances in order to reach the same kind of musical language and meaning.

How so? You are merely saying it again but in different words. How is your approach requiring more conscious knowledge on the nuances? It does not and you are not, or at least, we are still waiting for you to become more concrete with this.

In short I love thoses marks of humanity in music in so far I would like to show them likewise in a musical reasonable way in my way to produce music to. I hope this was easier to understand.

I understood all your words but you failed to address my question again.

HOW IS YOUR METHOD REQUIRING MORE CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE THAN THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH.

If you said conscious thinking then I might agree because your method is extremely inefficient as you work on the notes one by one (something that you can avoid by playing the piece with your own hands then editing it, which produces a much finer result if you ever researched into midi creations).

But you have said conscious KNOWLEDGE. And not only did you say this you said this is your great interest, I couldn't be bothered quoting you again it is up there in this very thread. You are very interested that your method has more conscious knowledge than traditional musicians approach. What an arrogant and stupid thing to say, especially around us musicians who would be very interested to see how your approach opens new doors to musical understanding. It does not, or at least, you have not revealed any of this to me in any way or form.

[Steffen Fahl]

Hi lostindlewonder,
since in all you write I still understand a question to understand, I will go on trying to explain.

If you play a piece on the piano, many things you are doing are not the results of aktual immediat concious decision but often trained habits. Those things makes a good part of the personal tone of an Interpret. It is "programmed" in his habit and yearlong expirience to play. If you would play the piano, it would not be so difficult to understand this as it actually seem to be.

If I will now programm a musically living, and personal telling kind of interpretation. There is no instance like habit or expirience that might contribute this information to the sequencer. Therefor I have to reflect very much, what little influences might have impact on the interpretation beside the score and the analytical and emotional understanding of the piece. The more I understand all those things that have influences the better will I be able to reasonable programm all those little irregularities and aberrations from the naked mathematik of the score. This is why it is for me necessary to make those things concious, will mean by explicit decision.

Please let me know if there is still anything left unclear for you, meanwhile I invite other if they might help to interfer, if my bad english may give you problems to understand what I am trying to explain.

But it is true I have no Idea what problem you ever might see in this certain aspect.
best
fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

If you play a piece on the piano, many things you are doing are not the results of aktual immediat concious decision but often trained habits. Those things makes a good part of the personal tone of an Interpret. It is "programmed" in his habit and yearlong expirience to play. If you would play the piano, it would not be so difficult to understand this as it actually seem to be.

You give too little respect to peoples intuition at the piano. This is developed with constant study of the piano over an entire lifetime. It is not learnt in a few years like you may to get proficient with midi programs. So you might take a long time to put in a piece of music in your computer program, but musicians have spent years and years to come to a point where they can apply their knowledge. So in fact we must consciously consider our music a great deal more than computer musicians because we apply conscious knowledge of the thousands of pieces we have learned in the past to make decisions on a piece we are currently learning.

I will now programm a musically living, and personal telling kind of interpretation. There is no instance like habit or expirience that might contribute this information to the sequencer.

I totally disagree as someone who works with sequencing as well. I know general procedures to ensure certain melodic lines are kept standing out or a rise in volume or change in tempo is done with good taste. We do not have to listen to it note by note even by computer standards, we can do an effect listen to the phrase and then adjust. If you are caught up listening to one note at a time on your sequencer then you have not developed your skills with the computer very far at all.

Therefor I have to reflect very much, what little influences might have impact on the interpretation beside the score and the analytical and emotional understanding of the piece.

Certainly not more so than the traditional musician, you have not defined how your approach requires more knowledge still.

[Steffen Fahl]

You give too little respect to peoples intuition at the piano. This is developed with constant study of the piano over an entire lifetime. It is not learnt in a few years like you may to get proficient with midi programs. So you might take a long time to put in a piece of music in your computer program, but musicians have spent years and years to come to a point where they can apply their knowledge.

Sorry, but I've got the impression you try by force to misunderstand me.
However will you judge how many years of my lifetime are spent to study and play the piano?

So in fact we must consciously consider our music a great deal more than computer musicians because we apply conscious knowledge of the thousands of pieces we have learned in the past to make decisions on a piece we are currently learning.

So you are trying to tell me you are no computer musician but are playing thousands of pieces you have already learnt?

I totally disagree as someone who works with sequencing as well. I know general procedures to ensure certain melodic lines are kept standing out or a rise in volume or change in tempo is done with good taste. We do not have to listen to it note by note even by computer standards, we can do an effect listen to the phrase and then adjust. If you are caught up listening to one note at a time on your sequencer then you have not developed your skills with the computer very far at all.

So you are trying to tell me now that you are the better computer musician, because you dont care so much for every single note?
Sorry, meanwhile this seems to me already contradict you statement you just made above, the only three examples of midisequencing I have ever found under your name didn't proof any thing of thoses pretentious theories you write here. If I am wrong, please let me hear your so superior sequencings! I am just curious to learn other ambitious midi sequencings.
 

Certainly not more so than the traditional musician, you have not defined how your approach requires more knowledge still.

I've got the impression you constantly try to defy any chance to understand what I wrote. I have explained my approach in this forum more than twice and you seem to be in the moment nearly the only one who has still any question about. But slowly I get my doubts if you do seriously have any interest to understand anything at all. And even if it were so, I have nno problem with it, thats your decision, but why do you write here so much things that seem at least to me as emotional overheated as poor in sense and reason?
Sorry that I became so clear, but slowly my questions about your integrety are rising more and more.
fahl5

[lostinidlewonder]

You fail to respond to any of my questions which merely highlights your purposeful ignorance. Your responses to my quotes are filled with irrelevance (something that you do on purpose to confuse threads). You are unable to focus on questions asked of you which is sad because if you answered some questions then you might be taking the issue more seriously.

Nevertheless I still find it so amusing that fahl quotes people but then goes off talking on his own about something that we are not even interested in. For example:

Sorry, but I've got the impression you try by force to misunderstand me.
However will you judge how many years of my lifetime are spent to study and play the piano?

If we ignore his stupid response and look at what I proposed. Fahl said that his method requires more conscious knowledge because you have to do so much more consciously where a real musician merely uses their intuition to solve the problems. But this highlights fahls utter disregard for how long it takes to develop ones intuition at the piano. He then thinks that musical intuition is learned very easily and that his method has more conscious knowledge. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about music will feel his comments here are totally fishy and made up.

So you are trying to tell me you are no computer musician but are playing thousands of pieces you have already learnt?So you are trying to tell me now that you are the better computer musician, because you dont care so much for every single note?

You are being foolish here. I said that you need thousands of pieces to develop this intuition that you are talking about I was not talking about myself at all. It might take hundreds for some and not thousands but the fact remains it takes many years to develop an intuition for the piano, where you suggest it does not and that it is learned very fast and your method requires looking at note for note thus requires more knowledge.

You also totally ignored my critique on how you work because it hits at the core of how weak your method of sampling is. You admit that you work on a note by note basis and do not listen to entire phrases at a time when solving the small interpretive issues when sampling? First of all, 1) None of your samples highlight any carefully crafted sound, they sound just like other midis 2) One does not have to work on a note by note basis to sequence music when solving the interpretation of sound. We can make a change then listen to the entire phrase and then make another change. How you propose to do it is look at a single leaf of a tree then try to describe the entire tree by working leaf at a time. The result is a sequence that has no phrasing knowledge and thus everything else fails.

Sorry, meanwhile this seems to me already contradict you statement you just made above, the only three examples of midisequencing I have ever found under your name didn't proof any thing of thoses pretentious theories you write here.

My midis that where recorded by real hands (and all except one are improvisations, totally different to what you try to present) have much more variation in sound and control than any of your midi recordings. We do not have to go into this discussion again do we? Afterall you said you did not want to bring up issues that we talked about before, so you better not go against your own words. Your own midi samples offer nothing new and are devoid of expression and musical understanding. But that is what most midis are like when they are done by people with little musical knowledge.

If I am wrong, please let me hear your so superior sequencings! I am just curious to learn other ambitious midi sequencings.

Unlike yourself I do not proclaim  that my midis are anything special. Your case is totally different because you tend to believe that what you do elevates itself above what traditional musicians do. Even in past threads you said that your sequences highlight the composers intentions closer than ever before, now you say your methods require more conscious knowledge of pieces compared to traditional musicians. Every time the bad smell of fahl comes in he is trying to proclaim some greatness. And then when we call him up on it, he goes into confusing rant trying to knock us off the scent. Unfortunately I am a stubborn bastard and wont let you go until you answer my questions.

You sill have not explained how 1) YOUR METHOD REQUIRES MORE CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE THAN TRADITIONAL MUSICIANS.

But then again we can look to the beginning of this year when fahl said his music highlights the composers intentions very closely, almost like he had secret knowledge. When we tested him he never retracted his statement and merely went off into a spin of confusion. We will also see here that he will not become clear in what he says because he likes to twist threads in to his own arguing and circling around the place.

I've got the impression you constantly try to defy any chance to understand what I wrote. I have explained my approach in this forum more than twice and you seem to be in the moment nearly the only one who has still any question about.

I hope you don't take it personally, I do not know you personally so anything I say is about your words and not you personally. Please understand that.

You think that you have answered my question but please why don't you respond with a sentence that starts like this:

My method requires more conscious knowledge than traditional musicians because....


So far you said that traditional musicians need only to use intuition to create their music where you have to work "note by note". I do not see this as a valid answer. I highlighted that to craft your musical intuition requires years and a lifetime of work.You think it is very fast and easy to acquire. I also fail to understand how you can separate musical intuition to the work that you do when sequencing. You have to understand phrases of your music when you sequence, if you are merely caught up over note by note you will be unable to hear the music in sentences and simply be worried over the letters constantly. This is what results in your samples, a rendition of a piece which merely highlights notes and has little overall understanding of the musical sentences.

But slowly I get my doubts if you do seriously have any interest to understand anything at all.

You have tried to use this tactic to throw me off and to try and make other people see that I am not taking the debate seriously. Unfortunately you cannot talk for me and I do not talk for you. I merely respond, if you want to try and classify my response in terms of personal issues, then you may do this although I have no personal reasons to respond to you, I merely respond to the content of your words.

[stevebob]

You fail to respond to any of my questions which merely highlights your purposeful ignorance. Your responses to my quotes are filled with irrelevance (something that you do on purpose to confuse threads). You are unable to focus on questions asked of you which is sad because if you answered some questions then you might be taking the issue more seriously.

Nevertheless I still find it so amusing that fahl quotes people but then goes off talking on his own about something that we are not even interested in. For example:

If we ignore his stupid response and look at what I proposed. Fahl said that his method requires more conscious knowledge because you have to do so much more consciously where a real musician merely uses their intuition to solve the problems. But this highlights fahls utter disregard for how long it takes to develop ones intuition at the piano. He then thinks that musical intuition is learned very easily and that his method has more conscious knowledge. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about music will feel his comments here are totally fishy and made up.


You are being foolish here. I said that you need thousands of pieces to develop this intuition that you are talking about I was not talking about myself at all. It might take hundreds for some and not thousands but the fact remains it takes many years to develop an intuition for the piano, where you suggest it does not and that it is learned very fast and your method requires looking at note for note thus requires more knowledge.

You also totally ignored my critique on how you work because it hits at the core of how weak your method of sampling is. You admit that you work on a note by note basis and do not listen to entire phrases at a time when solving the small interpretive issues when sampling? First of all, 1) None of your samples highlight any carefully crafted sound, they sound just like other midis 2) One does not have to work on a note by note basis to sequence music when solving the interpretation of sound. We can make a change then listen to the entire phrase and then make another change. How you propose to do it is look at a single leaf of a tree then try to describe the entire tree by working leaf at a time. The result is a sequence that has no phrasing knowledge and thus everything else fails.
My midis that where recorded by real hands (and all except one are improvisations, totally different to what you try to present) have much more variation in sound and control than any of your midi recordings. We do not have to go into this discussion again do we? Afterall you said you did not want to bring up issues that we talked about before, so you better not go against your own words. Your own midi samples offer nothing new and are devoid of expression and musical understanding. But that is what most midis are like when they are done by people with little musical knowledge.
Unlike yourself I do not proclaim  that my midis are anything special. Your case is totally different because you tend to believe that what you do elevates itself above what traditional musicians do. Even in past threads you said that your sequences highlight the composers intentions closer than ever before, now you say your methods require more conscious knowledge of pieces compared to traditional musicians. Every time the bad smell of fahl comes in he is trying to proclaim some greatness. And then when we call him up on it, he goes into confusing rant trying to knock us off the scent. Unfortunately I am a stubborn bastard and wont let you go until you answer my questions.

You sill have not explained how 1) YOUR METHOD REQUIRES MORE CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE THAN TRADITIONAL MUSICIANS.

But then again we can look to the beginning of this year when fahl said his music highlights the composers intentions very closely, almost like he had secret knowledge. When we tested him he never retracted his statement and merely went off into a spin of confusion. We will also see here that he will not become clear in what he says because he likes to twist threads in to his own arguing and circling around the place.

I hope you don't take it personally, I do not know you personally so anything I say is about your words and not you personally. Please understand that.

You think that you have answered my question but please why don't you respond with a sentence that starts like this:

My method requires more conscious knowledge than traditional musicians because....


So far you said that traditional musicians need only to use intuition to create their music where you have to work "note by note". I do not see this as a valid answer. I highlighted that to craft your musical intuition requires years and a lifetime of work.You think it is very fast and easy to acquire. I also fail to understand how you can separate musical intuition to the work that you do when sequencing. You have to understand phrases of your music when you sequence, if you are merely caught up over note by note you will be unable to hear the music in sentences and simply be worried over the letters constantly. This is what results in your samples, a rendition of a piece which merely highlights notes and has little overall understanding of the musical sentences.

You have tried to use this tactic to throw me off and to try and make other people see that I am not taking the debate seriously. Unfortunately you cannot talk for me and I do not talk for you. I merely respond, if you want to try and classify my response in terms of personal issues, then you may do this although I have no personal reasons to respond to you, I merely respond to the content of your words.

[lostinidlewonder]

Stevebob you know what our altercations cause. Nothing I say is being personal, if I say YOU it is saying YOU because of what YOU write. I don't need to say that in everything I say. I do not know any of you personally so it is implied that everything i say has to do with the words that you write because I know nothing about the individual as a person.

[stevebob]

Stevebob you know what our altercations cause. Nothing I say is being personal, if I say YOU it is saying YOU because of what YOU write. I don't need to say that in everything I say. I do not know any of you personally so it is implied that everything i say has to do with the words that you write because I know nothing about the individual as a person.

That reminds me of people who adamantly claim they are not racists even as they have racist thoughts and hold racist opinions.

Your disclaimer is belied by the tone and content of your posts.