Colin, I do admit my comment was a great generalization, that even I don't completely agree with. And this all started with with my opinion that Coda should spend most of their resources improving the notational problems that still exist rather than added midi capabilities.
I can't write without checking things at the piano and where my feeble piano skills fail me it is nice to have a midi playback verify that the parts are fitting together as I expected. But this is for pitch and rhythmic integrity and I usually leave it with a piano patch. I can certainly interpolate what it will sound like with other instruments. If when writing, you can't imagine what the line will sound like with the combination of flute and clarinet, then why was that decision made? Is it totally arbitrary and wishful thinking? And if you don't know what that combination will sound like, I don't think a midi implementation is really going to answer that for you. That's when a budding composer/arranger needs to get some buddies together and hear what the actual acoustic instruments sound like together. I imagine if you have some high end samplers and already have a perception - let me repeat - already have a perception of what it should sound like you can probably get a reasonable midi playback. But to get it right, you do have to already know what you want it to sound like. What set me off, was my perceived insistence of others who feel, in the composing process, that a complete midi playback with every element accounted for is needed for their proofing purposes. Colin, surely you do not need to hear a line played back in midi with a crescendo to verify that you want that crescendo. Not to sound cruel, but if composer doesn't have the imagination to hear thinks like that, how will he/she have the imagination to write any music? Now on the other hand, if a realistic as possible midi representation is needed for others in a decision making process, then that is a real need. While the composer/arranger should be able to hear and understand what those differences will be, we can't expect the other listeners to have that same understanding. But again, to get that level of midi playback, you have to already know what it should like to get all the tweaking right. With all the variables involved to get that level of playback, no set of defaults will work in all situations. If you need that level of playback, isn't it time to dump the Finale midi data to a program better suited to that purpose? Finale is a music notation program that can do midi. It's strength is notation. When you want fine detail over notation, use Finale. Logic is an example of a music sequencing program that can do notation. It's strength is sequencing. When you want fine detail over midi (and digital audio) playback, use Logic. Use the right tool for the job. Harold >There is so much wrong with this generalisation, I don't know where to >begin. > >The fact that a composer/arranger does or does not compose using piano, or >does or does not compose using computer, says nothing at all, i repeat: >nothing at all about their skill as a composer, or lack thereof. Like >anything else, it's just a tool which, in the hands of one person will >produce wonderful results while in the hands of another, won't. > >As to how I work, I compose using Finale, playing back bits and pieces >constantly. I know fine well that that's not how a cello really sounds or >that a particular brass chord will sound much brighter than MIDI in reality, >but that doesn't stop me checking the pitches, rhythm and general pacing of >a piece. Before I did this I used to compose at the piano (about a year >ago) then handwrite the score, then put it into Finale. The tool was >different, but the process was pretty much the same, with the addition of >also handwriting the score. The process of composing straight into Finale >is for me generally a considerably quicker one, as the composing and the >notation are taking place at exactly the same time, not one before the >other, and so I am able to remove one extra stage. Furthermore, I have >enough control over my craft to not let my compositional decisions be overly >influenced by the technology. It says nothing about my skill at all - it's >just another way of working. > >Regards, > >Colin. >--------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- >---------------------------- >Colin Broom, composer >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >www.inventionensemble.com >--------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- >---------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > >If >> they don't already know what it will sound like, how do they >> determine what to write in the first place? > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
