On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:40:29PM +0100, Simon Albrecht wrote: > Am 28.02.2015 um 20:11 schrieb H. S. Teoh: [...] > >Another example is that you could indicate "tempo rubato" and then > >specify as interpretation one of the many possible actual tempo(s) that > >would be used for rendering the MIDI. > > If I may chime in with my opinion on this: there may be some point in > translating articulations into midi, but tempo rubato is in itself > meant to be subjective and thus marks the point where a human > performer cannot and must not be replaced by a machine. Thus I find > the sketched approach more than a little absurd, if you permit the > remark. It’s neither possible, nor rewarding, nor even desirable to > substitute real music making by electronic simulation, (at least for > most kinds of music, and certainly every music which can be reasonably > typeset with lilypond belongs in this category). [...]
I agree with you that a human performer cannot and must not be replaced by a machine. But I don't see this so much as the machine replacing the human, but rather the human coding his performance into the machine. Sorta like recording a human performer on a MIDI device, except on an even higher level, where I get to tweak almost every note (should I wish to) to a precision beyond my own capabilities to perform. The intent is not that the MIDI becomes "the correct interpretation" of the score, supplanting the human performer's role, but rather a "representative" or "sample" interpretation as preprogrammed by me. The score remains open to interpretation, but the MIDI gives an idea of what a real interpretation might sound like. T -- Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things, because that would also stop them from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
