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.
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.
And does this mean that the gentleman using the software to create his realization is a true musician and artist?
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....
....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.
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...
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.
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.
So if ever you like to understand anything or at least criticise understandingly you are wellcome.
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.
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.
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.
@lostindlwonder and @ perfect_pitch
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.
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."
Illegitimi non carborundum -what does that mean?
Stevebob, I'm just curious. Illegitimi non carborundum -what does that mean?
So I again ask Fahl to become more clearWHAT 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.
.....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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Certainly not more so than the traditional musician, you have not defined how your approach requires more knowledge still.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Topic: Bela Bartok Burleske op.8c 