Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
In a message dated 10/05/2007 02:14:29 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (like the time I went to The Bartered Bride in Bloomington and my companion thrilled to the real chickens on stage). Reminds of the time I played a gig which called a goat on stage. I was appalled to find that it was paid more than I was (and I didn't c*** on the stage, which is more than can be said for the goat). Cheers, Lawrence lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 5/9/2007 02:57 PM, Randolph Peters wrote: For the fun of it, I gave the quiz to my 15 year old. He is a serious violinist, but is not that familiar with electronic instruments. He got it right as well. I was curious as to what gave it away for him and he said the attacks of each note, especially in the strings, was too uniform. He said a good phrase would have more variety and direction in each note. I thought that was an interesting take and not the first thing I would have noticed. I guess we focus on the things that we are trained to notice. Right. I noticed that the clarinet attacks sounded fake, right away. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 10:46 PM -0400 5/9/07, David W. Fenton wrote: On 9 May 2007 at 22:29, John Howell wrote: Kodály had it right when he said, Only the best musicians should be PERMITTED to teach children. Many people confuse the best musicians with the best performers, the determiment of the students involved. That's a very wise observation, David. Every time we have had finalists for a faculty position in music on campus, it seems that what everyone is most interested in is their performance audition. Not that that doesn't also reveal a lot more about musicianship and all sorts of things, but our JOB is to teach students. Role modeling by playing at a high level IS part of that, but only part, especially when it comes to voice teachers. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Porgy and Bess, by some chance? Aaron J. Rabushka [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.waymark.net/arabushk - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake? In a message dated 10/05/2007 02:14:29 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (like the time I went to The Bartered Bride in Bloomington and my companion thrilled to the real chickens on stage). Reminds of the time I played a gig which called a goat on stage. I was appalled to find that it was paid more than I was (and I didn't c*** on the stage, which is more than can be said for the goat). Cheers, Lawrence lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
For the fun of it, I gave the quiz to my 15 year old. He is a serious violinist, but is not that familiar with electronic instruments. He got it right as well. I was curious as to what gave it away for him and he said the attacks of each note, especially in the strings, was too uniform. He said a good phrase would have more variety and direction in each note. I thought that was an interesting take and not the first thing I would have noticed. I guess we focus on the things that we are trained to notice. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 11:43 PM -0400 5/6/07, Aaron Rabushka wrote: Hmm--I wonder if Respighi's nightengale (sp?) record caused the same furor. (Not to mention that it may take a period-instrument mindset to bring it off with a 78-rpm turntable rather than a laptop computer nowadays!) Don't be silly, Aaron. A true period-instrument person would insist on using a real nightingale, or possible a small flock of them, since it has proved rather difficult to train birds to respond to a conductor's cues. Somewhat like opera singers. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Yes--my experience with Czech, Polish, and Slovak engineers (my recordings were produced in Moravia) was astounding--I can honestly say that I never thought of recording engineers in terms of musicianship before, but I cannot split the two now. Turns out that they had to GRADUATE the conservatory before learing the audio stuff. Aaron J. Rabushka [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.waymark.net/arabushk - Original Message - From: John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake? So each musician needs to become an engineer and learn what works best to deliver the correct sound when amplified, like Eric Friedlander has done. It's not easy, but it's too important to be left to folks who couldn't pass the music department audition and so entered the Recording Technology department. No, and teaching is too important to be left to the same kind of people. Kodály had it right when he said, Only the best musicians should be PERMITTED to teach children. But our Music Technology majors DO have to pass an entrance audition on an instrument or voice, AND a playing Continuation Exam two years into their degree, and they have to take and pass exactly the same core music courses as performance majors. So this is not in any way an either/or situation. Yes, we do have some Tech majors who don't seem to be as GOOD musicians as some others, but that's simply individual variation. And I expect that to improve. We used to have failed performance majors move into music education. No more. They have to pass everything the performance majors do, INCLUDING the Continuation Exam (a mini-recital and interview) at the end of their sophomore year, or they are not ADMITTED into the upper level music ed program. (I know that last sentence is probably not fair to the many sensitive recording engineers who entered the field in order to do a great job in any amplification situation, but at least for two colleges I know about, my sentence just about sums up the situation.) One reason we insist on our audio engineers being musicians is that part of their job is to translate arcane tech-talk into language musicians can understand, often under the pressure of recording deadlines. They have to speak--and translate--both languages. Back a number of years a colleague in grad school at Indiana was asked by Igor Kipnis to participate in a recording of the Bach multi-harpsichord concertos in Germany. He came back amazed by the recording engineers, who could not only read music but could read full score and instead of saying, there's something odd sounding just a little before letter G, they would say, the third harpsichord is playing a Db instead of a D in measure 97. That's not a bad set of role models!! John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
On 9 May 2007 at 22:29, John Howell wrote: Kodály had it right when he said, Only the best musicians should be PERMITTED to teach children. Many people confuse the best musicians with the best performers, the determiment of the students involved. [] Back a number of years a colleague in grad school at Indiana was asked by Igor Kipnis to participate in a recording of the Bach multi-harpsichord concertos in Germany. He came back amazed by the recording engineers, who could not only read music but could read full score and instead of saying, there's something odd sounding just a little before letter G, they would say, the third harpsichord is playing a Db instead of a D in measure 97. That's not a bad set of role models!! The student recording engineer who did my viol consort's recent recording project was just such a person -- he read the score, he had comments on various *musical* aspects of the takes and was a very, very valuable collaborator in helping us get down the best playing we could accomplish. I can't wait to hear the final results. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Mark, Obviously, the nature of the amplification depends on the nature of the music. For some music, subtle amplification is just meant to bring you closer to the instruments -- like Reich's Music for 18 Instruments, in which everyone is amplified. The sweeping, dramatic crescendos and diminuendos are only possible with amplification. Here, the ideal amplification is very subtle and doesn't change the fundamental character of the instruments at all. Instead, it creates an acoustically impossible space, so that it sounds as if your ear is just a few inches away from *all* of the instruments. It's the audio equivalent of close-up photography. I just had a show at Roulette featuring violin(/ehru), cello, koto, two percussionists, two multi-reed players (I went with oboe and bass clarinet) and laptop. Obviously, we needed amplification -- a fair bit for the violin and cello (especially in pizz. passages), a little less for the koto, just a touch for the winds, and none at all for the percussion. (The laptop player chose to use his own amp instead of the house PA.) But the sound people at Roulette actually know what they are doing, soundwise, so the amplification was virtually undetectable by the audience. They just heard a balanced sound, most of it acoustic, with just a touch of subtle reinforcement for the instruments that needed it in order to create a balanced sound. You wouldn't have know the PA was even on unless you went and put your ear right against it -- or if you knew how hard it was to balance that combination of instruments without amplification. In other circumstances, you may want a different type of amplification, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to deliberately seek to alter the sound of an acoustic instrument. The hamon muted trumpet is a great and uncontroversial example of that kind of technique -- without amplification, a trumpet played with harmon mute sounds *nothing* like the expressive, intimate sound we associate with Milles Davis recordings. Acoustically, the harmon is thin and tinny, totally inexpressive and barely audible. But if you stick a microphone right in the bell of the harmon mute, suddenly it's possible to hear the expressive mellow center of the sound, and the bright metallic buzz becomes just color around the edges, instead of being the only sound you hear. Miles was so successful using this technique that it's become totally standard and unobjectionable -- but amplification opens up many such possibilities, for many different instruments. Why be bound to the acoustic sound if that's not what you want? Amplification is not somehow immoral or impure (like, didn't Dylan settle this question back in 1965?), and playing purely acoustically shouldn't be an end in itself. If the sound you are looking for can only be achieved without amplification, by all means, put the PA away. But there's no reason to assume that acoustic music is prima facie aesthetically superior to music that requires some form of amplification to get its point across. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 08 May 2007, at 1:37 AM, Mark D Lew wrote: On May 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists. Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and bad amplification. I come out of the opera world, which is populated by anti- amplification fundamentalists. (I should clarify: the die-hard opera FANS are anti-amplification fundamentalists. The performers, on the whole, are not nearly so rigid.) I thoroughly agree with you that there is good amplification and bad amplification. To me -- and maybe to you, too? -- the measure of good amplification is how unnoticeable it is. For me, it's an aesthetic thing. I just like the sound of live instruments. I don't like amplified sound, and I hate poorly amplified sound. The more it sounds like amplified, the less I like it. If they manage to amplify in a way that I almost can't tell the difference, that's pretty good. Funny thing about the opera snobs -- as much as they rail against any amplification of the voice, they adore all their perfectly mastered CD recordings. Not me. I don't much care for recorded music either. It doesn't satisfy me like live instruments do. I'd rather go hear a crummy community orchestra live than listen to the finest recording in my living room (and that in spite of the fact that I'm hermit type who generally prefers staying home to going out). The nearer to the instruments the better. I don't much miss attending symphony concerts. I do miss being in the room when the orchestra rehearses. I don't like electric guitars either. Bleah. Probably my least favorite instrument. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Darcy James Argue wrote: [snip] Therefore, Erik has spent a lot of time and effort figuring out how to get the best possible amplified sound in a variety of situations. He [snip] That one sentence says it all -- amplification is not necessarily an evil in any situation. *Poor* amplification is horrible in any situation, and it needs to be each musician's responsibility to learn what works best for their instrument and have the strength to demand it. I think that those who react strongly against amplification have been the victims of poor amplification, which would give them the right to complain. In my limited world, I have found that quite often those who run the amplification are failed musicians. People who started playing an instrument but couldn't handle the discipline or never really wanted to work hard in the first place. And so they are not the best judges of what the final sound should really be. They are full of book-learning which really isn't appropriate in a real world where the human ear should be the final arbiter, and have learned the 'ideal' settings for EQ or balance, but who have never really listened to what an acoustic instrument sounds like (the full tonal spectrum, overtones, resonance) and therefore can't ensure that the audience hears that sound through the amplification system. And unfortunately they get hired to amplify rock bands where often the only goal is volume, so when the do a good job there they get positive reinforcement of bad behavior, so they think they're gods and won't listen to some fool of an acoustic musician who complains about the tonal color of their instrument when amplified. So each musician needs to become an engineer and learn what works best to deliver the correct sound when amplified, like Eric Friedlander has done. It's not easy, but it's too important to be left to folks who couldn't pass the music department audition and so entered the Recording Technology department. (I know that last sentence is probably not fair to the many sensitive recording engineers who entered the field in order to do a great job in any amplification situation, but at least for two colleges I know about, my sentence just about sums up the situation.) And even worse is when it's left to people who have no education but who simply bought some amplifiers and microphones and opened their own Main Street Sound Reinforcement Company or some such business. The poor people who hire them have no clue what they don't know. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 6:26 AM -0400 5/7/07, dhbailey wrote: Raymond Horton wrote: I don't see the fuss. A guy is trying to prove he can replace _live_ musicians, but does so by posting _recordings_, some of which are so badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live players, even though the recordings were once made from live players. His computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as some of the badly reproduced recordings. This proves nothing as far as a computer replacing humans. It proves that computer reproduced sound is inconsistent, no matter what the original source. Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no electronic amplification_. That is the only test would mean anything. I'd go one step further, since live acoustic instruments influence the vibrations in the air vastly differently than loudspeakers do, and so I would have both the computer and the live musicians in separate rooms, amplified through the same set of loudspeakers in the room where the testing was being done, so that the listener would hear both sound sources through the same speakers. Hi, David. I think you missed Raymond's point. If the claim is to replace live musicians, the comparison should be with live musicians, as in acoustic and not amplified. The claim is NOT to replace recording studio musicians; that happened a long time ago for those to whom actual musicianship isn't important. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake? (long)
At 10:29 AM -0400 5/7/07, Christopher Smith wrote: On 7-May-07, at 6:41 AM, Phil Daley wrote: I have been to live musicals where there was no pit band. The music played there was far superior to this sample. But, I suppose the music could have been recordings made from live musicians. There was a synthesizer guy present, and some of the sounds were obviously from him. This was part of my point about the kind of argument that could be made for shows. There was a big mega-musical produced here in French a few years ago; by all reports it was pretty spectacular. But the orchestra and chorus was entirely pre-recorded. Only the principals sang their parts live, and even then if one of them was not in voice that day, or wanted to save his/herself for a TV show or the second show that day, then their track was turned on and they lip-synched. In the summers of '78 and '79 I directed The All American College Singers shows at Disneyland and then at Walt Disney World. At that time they were prerecording not only those shows, which were part of a program to select and train outstanding college performers for possible future hiring, but the Kids of the Kingdom shows, who were their professionals on year-round contracts. They hired the best in the business to do the prerecords--I think it was the Ray Charles Singers (the OTHER Ray Charles!)--and the best arrangers as well. I can tell you exactly what the corporate reasoning was. To entertain the crowds moving around the parks, they required two things: (1) One-hearing acceptance--they weren't out to educate ANYONE! (2) Since a guest might only hear a show--or even part of a show--once, they could never afford to have a show at less than its very best. Don't forget that these were movie people, and illusion was their business. My two shows were the only ones i know of in that series of College shows that were done 100% live. They were experimenting to see if it could be done and still maintain their standards, and they were also experimenting with using a swing couple as active understudies for all the tracks in the show. We proved that both could be done (and hiring swings became standard not long after that in all the theme parks). The first summer I was at Disneyland, doing the show live, while a colleague directed the same show in Florida using prerecorded tapes. By August my kids were still full of energy and still putting on great shows, and when we saw tapes of the Florida shows everyone realized that they were logy and bored looking. They'd lost their edge and they'd lost their energy. In part it was because of the way we used our swing couple. Every day they would go in for a different couple in the regular cast, which means that every day someone would be sharing a mic or dancing with somebody different, and it kept them on their toes. And every day a different couple would swing out of the show. The first time out they were required to watch the show from the audience, and come backstage to give notes to the cast, and BOY was that a learning experience. After that, on the days they would swing out they would work in different departments in the park depending on their interests. This worked great until we got hit by illness or injury, and there was one day in Florida when my cast of 14 went on with only 8 effectives, and our swings saved the show by moving smoothly from one track to another to cover everything! They were amazing. (And I picked them on the audition tour!!) But what's even more interesting is that the prerecords for the Kids of the Kingdom were used very differently in the two parks. In Anaheim, the choreographers were in charge of the shows, the voices were about 90-100% tape, and there were times when the men, say, would be singing about the Big Bad Wolf, and there were actually no men on the stage!! But in Florida the Live Entertainment Director was a former studio singer himself, and he insisted that all the singing be live with the tapes used simply at about 40% to ensure consistency, which means that (remember that this was the late '70s) the choreographers had to choreograph the mics, the mic stands, and the mic cables!!! Also, for whatever it's worth, we did have a complete 8-piece live Showband each summer, but additional instruments, additional percussion, etc., was on tape, and the drummer in each show controlled the cues and tempos using a click track on headphones. I picketed that show, partly on a live-music argument, but mostly because it was fraudulent. Good for you!!! Both arguments are good and both are true. There was NO mention of a recorded orchestra and chorus ANYWHERE in the publicity, nor in the program, yet full ticket prices were charged. The onstage chorus, mostly dancers, even lip-synched along with the recorded chorus. If the illusion were perfect, it would have been undetectable, but obviously it
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
The Elephant in the living room is the issue of monitoring vs. house sound. In any live amplification environment, the performer hears their sound mixed with the rest of the ensemble through a monitor speaker or internal ear piece. This mix is usually quite different from what the audience hears through the main speakers directed at them. The truth is: in any amplified performance environment the sound engineer is the most important person in the band. Brian Williams ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
On May 7, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: But there's no reason to assume that acoustic music is prima facie aesthetically superior to music that requires some form of amplification to get its point across. I have no quarrel with your general principle here. I'm just saying that for me it's a matter of taste, and I really do like the acoustic music better. Same idea as having a particular instrument you don't like. (Funny you should mention muted trumpets) mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
I don't see the fuss. A guy is trying to prove he can replace _live_ musicians, but does so by posting _recordings_, some of which are so badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live players, even though the recordings were once made from live players. His computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as some of the badly reproduced recordings. This proves nothing as far as a computer replacing humans. It proves that computer reproduced sound is inconsistent, no matter what the original source. Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no electronic amplification_. That is the only test would mean anything. Raymond Horton Christopher Smith wrote: On 6-May-07, at 6:51 PM, shirling neueweise wrote: the differences would be even more evident at a higher resolution, the aliasing significantly alters much of the real sound: winds suffer almost as bad as percussion instruments. the thinness of the wind sound at 15-18 (ex. 1) is typical of lower quality compressed audio, and at these resolutions the poor quality of the sound gives the fake an unfair advantage. the omnipresence of mp3s and compressed audio playback units would actually benefit the development of machine performances, once the reference of the live orchestra played on decent-quality recordings on passable systems disappears (on an individual basis i mean). Good point. I didn't say that the sound quality of the examples was not high, but that was certainly a factor in what affected my perception. I admit, I was almost fooled by the steely clarinet in example 2, but that was just the player with a bright sound, and you could hear the flanging from the compression in his sound, which would have been a giveaway of a sample. (crap sound should be spoken with a glaswegian accent by the way, i think it has more impact: e's go'a crrap sound) I hear you! I wonder if we are thinking of the same sound engineer... Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
I doubt they played the low-fi files for the Juilliard and Berklee profs. I think they probably just compressed the hell out of the online versions to save on bandwidth, but I would assume they would have used CD-quality audio when they administered the test in person. Otherwise, it would be the first thing they would have complained about, since it offers a convenient excuse for them not having spotted the fake on the first round. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Kim Patrick Clow wrote: I got it the first time. Not sure why but I didn't have any trouble making a choice. Very cool post though,thanks for sharing this. It's very interesting reading the reactions on this list, and how some have guessed correctly the first time, others needed a second or third listening and still others didn't guess right at all. But it's important to note that many of the people who got it right first time work with samples all the time -- the bigger question would be If these recordings were played to the general public, would any of them guess that it wasn't live musicians playing? Would the average concert-goer, even, pick up on the reverberation issues or the non-matching vibrato issues? It will be very interesting to see where that whole project finally leads. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Raymond Horton wrote: I don't see the fuss. A guy is trying to prove he can replace _live_ musicians, but does so by posting _recordings_, some of which are so badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live players, even though the recordings were once made from live players. His computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as some of the badly reproduced recordings. This proves nothing as far as a computer replacing humans. It proves that computer reproduced sound is inconsistent, no matter what the original source. Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no electronic amplification_. That is the only test would mean anything. I'd go one step further, since live acoustic instruments influence the vibrations in the air vastly differently than loudspeakers do, and so I would have both the computer and the live musicians in separate rooms, amplified through the same set of loudspeakers in the room where the testing was being done, so that the listener would hear both sound sources through the same speakers. And have professional sound engineers who have nothing at stake either way control the amplification. To have a person who is trying to prove a point provide the sounds does nothing more than gives us all a clear example of why independent testing agencies are a good thing. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 02:12 PM 5/6/2007, John Howell wrote: Woodwind groupings also are strange in that the vibratos don't match each other. It is more than just being in tune with each other, live musicians also phrase, breathe and vibrate in ways that mesh with each other. You can have the world's biggest sample library and still not achieve that kind of collaboration. Absolutely! Especially the phrasing and breathing. I'm not as sold on the vibratos, since I've never been aware of orchestral woodwinds attempting to match vibratos. You have, after all, the clarinets in there, traditionally playing with straight tone. But you're absolutely right about their striving to think together. Even gigging orchestras can come close, but play with the same 8 people for 10 years and it can be quite beautiful. Ok, I had to go try it out. I got it right away. I think the note beginnings (articulations) sounded fake. But, I also agree that the vibrato didn't sound right either. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 5/7/2007 06:02 AM, dhbailey wrote: But it's important to note that many of the people who got it right first time work with samples all the time -- the bigger question would be If these recordings were played to the general public, would any of them guess that it wasn't live musicians playing? Would the average concert-goer, even, pick up on the reverberation issues or the non-matching vibrato issues? I have regular 4 computer speakers, ie. not very good at reproducing music. I have never worked with samples. Sample 1: Sounds good, seems real to me. Sample 2: It started out with something different, and I thought, maybe this is the one, but by halfway through, it was sounding normal. Sample 3: This is bad music. I'll bet this is the one. Sample 4: Yep, this sounds normal. I rarely listen to _any_ recorded music. To me, it seemed simple that #3 was bad. I have been to live musicals where there was no pit band. The music played there was far superior to this sample. But, I suppose the music could have been recordings made from live musicians. There was a synthesizer guy present, and some of the sounds were obviously from him. (Theatre by the Sea, Portsmouth, NH) Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
On 7-May-07, at 6:41 AM, Phil Daley wrote: I have been to live musicals where there was no pit band. The music played there was far superior to this sample. But, I suppose the music could have been recordings made from live musicians. There was a synthesizer guy present, and some of the sounds were obviously from him. This was part of my point about the kind of argument that could be made for shows. There was a big mega-musical produced here in French a few years ago; by all reports it was pretty spectacular. But the orchestra and chorus was entirely pre-recorded. Only the principals sang their parts live, and even then if one of them was not in voice that day, or wanted to save his/herself for a TV show or the second show that day, then their track was turned on and they lip-synched. I picketed that show, partly on a live-music argument, but mostly because it was fraudulent. There was NO mention of a recorded orchestra and chorus ANYWHERE in the publicity, nor in the program, yet full ticket prices were charged. The onstage chorus, mostly dancers, even lip-synched along with the recorded chorus. Now, not many people demanded their money back, even once it became clear that they were watching a sort of karaoke show, because the lighting, sets, costumes, and choreography were mighty entertaining even without live musicians. But can you imagine a symphony concert where it's a chamber-sized ensemble onstage with a laptop and speakers? First of all, the sound of music through speakers is nowhere near the quality of acoustic sound. There is no question of whether or not anyone could tell the difference between a LIVE orchestra in an acoustic space and a recording, no matter how high the sound quality. For a show, already amplified, that difference is smaller. But all that aside, why does anyone go a concert at all these days? You could probably get a better performance from a CD of your favourite orchestra, in the comfort of your own living room. For that matter, why does anyone go to a hockey game? You get better sightlines, great camera work, professional commentary, cheaper snacks and more comfortable seats watching it on TV for free in your own home. Once that question is answered, any talk about replacing orchestra musicians with laptops should subside into an embarrassed silence. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 5/7/2007 10:29 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: But all that aside, why does anyone go a concert at all these days? Good question. I go to local performances where I personally know the musicians involved. I used to be a music teacher and I know that the current directors appreciate it when local people show up for the concerts. For that matter, why does anyone go to a hockey game? Whoa, I would never go to a hockey game or an NBA game, for that matter. Way too much money for something I wouldn't even watch on TV. You get better sightlines, great camera work, professional commentary, cheaper snacks and more comfortable seats watching it on TV for free in your own home. Exactly, I love football, I watch 3 or 4 games a week during the season. And, I get a much better view on TV than I could get in the stands. I also love college basketball. But it is too far to drive to see a preferred game. I have to take what they put on TV. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
On May 6, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Aaron Rabushka wrote: Hmm--I wonder if Respighi's nightingale record caused the same furor. For decades, even after the advent of musique concrète, this recording was regarded as a cheap gimmick, and was invariably cited as such by Respighi's detractors. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
No, that would miss the point. The guy is trying to replace live musicians in a live performance space, unless I read incorrectly. Do the test in a live performance space, not through speakers. Live instruments are always at the mercy of poor reproduction. This is what I do for a living. We play our best music in our smallest, best acoustic spaces, with no amplification, to our smallest crowds, and we play our worst music in our largest spaces, with bad amplification, to our largest crowds. Such is the life of most orchestral musicians nowadays in this fine country. RBH dhbailey wrote: Raymond Horton wrote: I don't see the fuss. A guy is trying to prove he can replace _live_ musicians, but does so by posting _recordings_, some of which are so badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live players, even though the recordings were once made from live players. His computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as some of the badly reproduced recordings. This proves nothing as far as a computer replacing humans. It proves that computer reproduced sound is inconsistent, no matter what the original source. Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no electronic amplification_. That is the only test would mean anything. I'd go one step further, since live acoustic instruments influence the vibrations in the air vastly differently than loudspeakers do, and so I would have both the computer and the live musicians in separate rooms, amplified through the same set of loudspeakers in the room where the testing was being done, so that the listener would hear both sound sources through the same speakers. And have professional sound engineers who have nothing at stake either way control the amplification. To have a person who is trying to prove a point provide the sounds does nothing more than gives us all a clear example of why independent testing agencies are a good thing. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 3:21 AM -0400 5/7/07, Raymond Horton wrote: I don't see the fuss. A guy is trying to prove he can replace _live_ musicians, but does so by posting _recordings_, some of which are so badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live players, even though the recordings were once made from live players. His computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as some of the badly reproduced recordings. This proves nothing as far as a computer replacing humans. It proves that computer reproduced sound is inconsistent, no matter what the original source. Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no electronic amplification_. That is the only test would mean anything. Raymond Horton Thank you, Raymond!! My college ensemble carried a Roland digital piano on the road, and of course it was played through speakers. The regional orchestra I played with had a live jazz trio (very good, too!) as guest artists, using a large concert grand piano, but also miked and played through speakers. My conclusion, after listening VERY critically, was that our Roland sounded just as good as the Steinway, when the Steinway was miked, even though it would never come close to the actual acoustic sound of the Steinway. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
John Howell wrote: [snip] through speakers. My conclusion, after listening VERY critically, was that our Roland sounded just as good as the Steinway, when the Steinway was miked, even though it would never come close to the actual acoustic sound of the Steinway. the problem in such situations is that the best amplification/microphone combinations aren't always used. A properly mic'd and amplified Steinway should sound like a Steinway, and be very different sounding from a Roland. But that runs into microphones which cost over $1000 each, and most live amplification setups which groups like regional orchestras can afford don't use that sort of equipment, choosing to use a couple or three Shure SM57 mics. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists. Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and bad amplification. Good amplification is rare, but good anything is rare. Good amplification can actually allow for a more intimate sound, bringing the instruments closer to the listener than would otherwise be possible. What amplification did for singers (the artistry of Billie Holliday or Frank Sinatra would be impossible without amplification), it can also do for instruments -- think of Miles Davis's harmon mute sound, which is vastly more expressive than a harmon mute played without amplification. It makes it possible to bring together fresh and distinctive instrumental combinations that would not be possible to balance acoustically. Amplification is what makes it possible to have a rewarding listening experience in spaces that were not designed with acoustics in mind -- for example, every jazz club ever. And I don't have the even slightest trouble telling the difference between even a poorly mic'd acoustic piano and a digital piano. The differences are vast -- for starters, digital pianos can't (yet) come close to reproducing the effect of all those sympathetic strings for big chords, or passages with the sustain pedal is down -- let alone the nuances of half-pedaling, etc. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 May 2007, at 6:59 PM, dhbailey wrote: John Howell wrote: [snip] through speakers. My conclusion, after listening VERY critically, was that our Roland sounded just as good as the Steinway, when the Steinway was miked, even though it would never come close to the actual acoustic sound of the Steinway. the problem in such situations is that the best amplification/ microphone combinations aren't always used. A properly mic'd and amplified Steinway should sound like a Steinway, and be very different sounding from a Roland. But that runs into microphones which cost over $1000 each, and most live amplification setups which groups like regional orchestras can afford don't use that sort of equipment, choosing to use a couple or three Shure SM57 mics. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Listening to music through speakers (on recordings, or through a microphone feed) is like getting kissed on the telephone. Jerry Rosen - former associate concertmaster and pianist of the BSO (freely quoted). Not exactly - it's more like eating a picture of food. Bill Dobbins - jazz pianist/arranger/composer (also freely quoted). The only time I will allow microphones to be used in my performances is for singers. If I perform outdoors (which I try to avoid), it is unavoidable and rarely sounds good to me. Guitar amps - OK, a necessity, bass amps almost never. Amplified grand pianos - ugh. Chuck On May 7, 2007, at 3:40 PM, John Howell wrote: At 3:21 AM -0400 5/7/07, Raymond Horton wrote: I don't see the fuss. A guy is trying to prove he can replace _live_ musicians, but does so by posting _recordings_, some of which are so badly reproduced they could never be mistaken for live players, even though the recordings were once made from live players. His computerized recording sounds as good, or better, as some of the badly reproduced recordings. This proves nothing as far as a computer replacing humans. It proves that computer reproduced sound is inconsistent, no matter what the original source. Put the computer producing the sounds in a blind test in the same room alternating with live musicians, _who are playing with no electronic amplification_. That is the only test would mean anything. Raymond Horton Thank you, Raymond!! My college ensemble carried a Roland digital piano on the road, and of course it was played through speakers. The regional orchestra I played with had a live jazz trio (very good, too!) as guest artists, using a large concert grand piano, but also miked and played through speakers. My conclusion, after listening VERY critically, was that our Roland sounded just as good as the Steinway, when the Steinway was miked, even though it would never come close to the actual acoustic sound of the Steinway. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
On May 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists. Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and bad amplification. Good amplification is rare, but good anything is rare. Good amplification can actually allow for a more intimate sound, bringing the instruments closer to the listener than would otherwise be possible. What amplification did for singers (the artistry of Billie Holliday or Frank Sinatra would be impossible without amplification), it can also do for instruments -- think of Miles Davis's harmon mute sound, which is vastly more expressive than a harmon mute played without amplification. It makes it possible to bring together fresh and distinctive instrumental combinations that would not be possible to balance acoustically. Amplification is what makes it possible to have a rewarding listening experience in spaces that were not designed with acoustics in mind -- for example, every jazz club ever. Yes, I forgot harmon muted trumpet in a solo role in front of a rhythm section. No Mic - no chance. But I have played in many jazz clubs where the theory that squeezing the sound of the band through microphones into wires and amplifiers in order to bring the sound closer didn't do what it was supposed to do. And it is ludicrous to think that a Steinway or a tenor saxophone is unable to reach from the bandstand at the Village Vanguard to the last guy standing at the bar. (All that mics do there is encourage the customers to talk louder.) I didn't use an amp or mic in that club when playing there with Bill Evans, nor in the Concertgebau in Amsterdam (something like 3000 seats) , or at Carnegie Hall with Benny Goodman. This is a choice made from my own esthetic experience. Others may choose otherwise, but it inevitably has a less powerful emotional effect on me. Case in point: I write for the Metropole Orchestra so that the woodwinds and strings are balanced in the room. That is different from the way almost all the other arrangers do it. Then we play in reasonable sized halls without microphones (except for the recording mics), and I get the balance and effect that I want. Fine - until the 8 measure solo I purposefully wrote for the lead trumpet player (at a comfortable mf), knowing he is at the back of the band, and that it will sound slightly distant, is changed by the sound engineer (in the recording) into an exaggerated, oversized, up-front, 2 dimensional experience. I don't suppose it makes any never mind to most listeners, but I wanted the depth and the balance I conceived. Bringing it closer to the listener did not bring the experience I tried to design closer, it prevented it from happening. People who like amplified sound are free to choose it, and there is a lot of political and economic pressure in that direction. (There are big investments in equipment and people making a living turning knobs.) But, given the choice, I go for acoustic sound and balance almost every time. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re(2): [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Hi Chuck, I've got a jazz quintet with double bass, piano, drums, trombone and viola. Any suggestions about getting a balance between the bone and the viola without amplifying the viola? I'm using Finale for the music (just to keep this on-topic!). We're going to be playing in a smallish space and I'd prefer not to amplify anything. **Leigh On Mon, May 7, 2007, Chuck Israels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only time I will allow microphones to be used in my performances is for singers. If I perform outdoors (which I try to avoid), it is unavoidable and rarely sounds good to me. Guitar amps - OK, a necessity, bass amps almost never. Amplified grand pianos - ugh. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Re(2): [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Arggh! hard to balance. Trombonist play soft - with various mutes. String quartets are balanced - jazz quartets are not, but they can be - with careful playing on everyone's part. By careful, I don't mean passionless, nor even that there should not be moments when some instruments drown out others. There can be drama in the juxtaposition of viola with drums, but the drama must be handled with care. It's an interesting problem and should stimulate interesting solutions. Good Luck, Chuck On May 7, 2007, at 7:10 PM, Leigh Daniels wrote: Hi Chuck, I've got a jazz quintet with double bass, piano, drums, trombone and viola. Any suggestions about getting a balance between the bone and the viola without amplifying the viola? I'm using Finale for the music (just to keep this on-topic!). We're going to be playing in a smallish space and I'd prefer not to amplify anything. **Leigh On Mon, May 7, 2007, Chuck Israels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only time I will allow microphones to be used in my performances is for singers. If I perform outdoors (which I try to avoid), it is unavoidable and rarely sounds good to me. Guitar amps - OK, a necessity, bass amps almost never. Amplified grand pianos - ugh. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Chuck, Everything you say makes perfect sense, and clearly you know best what's best for your own music. Obviously if you *want* the sound of distance, you wouldn't want to sabotage that with close-mic'ing. However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the Vanguard, by a happy accident, happens to be one of those incredibly rare jazz clubs with decent acoustics. Even so, my experience at the Vanguard always been much better up close than back at the bar. I saw Guillermo Klein's band there last year a couple of times, and the first time I was at the very back and wasn't much impressed. I went back again a few nights later, at the insistence of a friend, and in the the front row, the music was transfixing. I realized that I like to hear the music as the musicians playing it hear it, and good amplification makes that possible -- as in, makes it an *option*, if that sound is appropriate for the music -- for a greater number of people to have that experience, especially in venues with sub-par acoustics. If you're in an acoustically great space like Carnegie or the Konzertgebau, well, okay, that's one thing (and frequently amplification in those halls is ruinous). But you're in some random NYC basement or loft that happens to have a music series, amplification becomes essential. It is also essential for allowing instruments not normally associated with jazz to participate on an equal footing. It just wouldn't be possible for Erik Friedlander to play in an ensemble that includes a drummer and horn players without having a mic on his cello to bring him up to a level where he can balance with a trumpet or tenor sax. Therefore, Erik has spent a lot of time and effort figuring out how to get the best possible amplified sound in a variety of situations. He actually had a blog post on this not long ago: http://cellomakeitcount.blogspot.com/2007/04/live-sound-flexibility.html Playing over the Jazz Standard I was struck again about how good it is to be a little flexible. I much prefer just using my microphone to play live but I was sitting in and the spot on stage chosen for me was in front of the drums. I like being near the drummer, that's where the action is! But it makes it tough to use my Schoeps mic as the sound man gets a lot of drums and not too much cello..I hate not being heard. So I had my Realist strapped on and I had brought my Grace 101 preamp which I used with the pickup. The mic was setup away from the drummer for use in quieter moments. If you have a good sound person (thanks Aaron!) this can work. Playing cello in a live situation with drums, guitar is tough. The cello lives in the mid-range and so do all those other instruments so, unlike a violin, you don't have a sonic spectrum to yourself. Having the pickup is a real help, even if it's not the greatest sound. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 May 2007, at 9:42 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: On May 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists. Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and bad amplification. Good amplification is rare, but good anything is rare. Good amplification can actually allow for a more intimate sound, bringing the instruments closer to the listener than would otherwise be possible. What amplification did for singers (the artistry of Billie Holliday or Frank Sinatra would be impossible without amplification), it can also do for instruments -- think of Miles Davis's harmon mute sound, which is vastly more expressive than a harmon mute played without amplification. It makes it possible to bring together fresh and distinctive instrumental combinations that would not be possible to balance acoustically. Amplification is what makes it possible to have a rewarding listening experience in spaces that were not designed with acoustics in mind -- for example, every jazz club ever. Yes, I forgot harmon muted trumpet in a solo role in front of a rhythm section. No Mic - no chance. But I have played in many jazz clubs where the theory that squeezing the sound of the band through microphones into wires and amplifiers in order to bring the sound closer didn't do what it was supposed to do. And it is ludicrous to think that a Steinway or a tenor saxophone is unable to reach from the bandstand at the Village Vanguard to the last guy standing at the bar. (All that mics do there is encourage the customers to talk louder.) I didn't use an amp or mic in that club when playing there with Bill Evans, nor in the Concertgebau in Amsterdam (something like 3000 seats) , or at Carnegie Hall with Benny Goodman. This is a choice made from my own esthetic experience. Others may choose otherwise, but it inevitably has a less powerful emotional effect on me. Case in point: I write for the
Re: Re(2): [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
You will need to either ditch the drummer and write exclusively hushed, intimate music -- or mic the viola. If this is a regular group, you should consider adding a sixth member -- the best soundperson you can find. They are worth their weight in gold. You should also check out this YouTube video on options for cello amplification -- a lot of this is directly applicable to the viola: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBcykSiocO4 Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 May 2007, at 10:10 PM, Leigh Daniels wrote: Hi Chuck, I've got a jazz quintet with double bass, piano, drums, trombone and viola. Any suggestions about getting a balance between the bone and the viola without amplifying the viola? I'm using Finale for the music (just to keep this on-topic!). We're going to be playing in a smallish space and I'd prefer not to amplify anything. **Leigh On Mon, May 7, 2007, Chuck Israels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only time I will allow microphones to be used in my performances is for singers. If I perform outdoors (which I try to avoid), it is unavoidable and rarely sounds good to me. Guitar amps - OK, a necessity, bass amps almost never. Amplified grand pianos - ugh. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
On May 7, 2007, at 7:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists. Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and bad amplification. Good amplification is rare, but good anything is rare. It's like the vinyl versus CD debate. The vinyl is CAPABLE of better fidelity, but it so rarely happens that in practice you are better off with a CD. If the band CAN sound good without amplification, definitely forgo it, as it opens up a can of worms that only the best sound man can get through (nice mixed metaphor, there!) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Re(2): [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
If you don't mind staying soft, find a good drummer who can play softly. I heard Joey Baron (who can wail away with the loudest of them) play softly enough in a master class that we could hear the singer perfectly without a mic, and he swung like a mother! If you ever want to get above a mp, then the viola will need to be amplified. This is tough to accomplish musically, and it changes the instrument (think of amplified bass and guitar; not the same instrument as the unamplified version, is it?) Hopefully you will get good advice from Darcy's link. But tell your violist to be ready for some fussing around, as the sound will never be plug-and-play. Christopher On May 7, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: You will need to either ditch the drummer and write exclusively hushed, intimate music -- or mic the viola. If this is a regular group, you should consider adding a sixth member -- the best soundperson you can find. They are worth their weight in gold. You should also check out this YouTube video on options for cello amplification -- a lot of this is directly applicable to the viola: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBcykSiocO4 Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 May 2007, at 10:10 PM, Leigh Daniels wrote: Hi Chuck, I've got a jazz quintet with double bass, piano, drums, trombone and viola. Any suggestions about getting a balance between the bone and the viola without amplifying the viola? I'm using Finale for the music (just to keep this on-topic!). We're going to be playing in a smallish space and I'd prefer not to amplify anything. **Leigh ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
On May 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: I wlll never understand the anti-amplification fundamentalists. Like any other aesthetic endeavor, there is good amplification and bad amplification. I come out of the opera world, which is populated by anti- amplification fundamentalists. (I should clarify: the die-hard opera FANS are anti-amplification fundamentalists. The performers, on the whole, are not nearly so rigid.) I thoroughly agree with you that there is good amplification and bad amplification. To me -- and maybe to you, too? -- the measure of good amplification is how unnoticeable it is. For me, it's an aesthetic thing. I just like the sound of live instruments. I don't like amplified sound, and I hate poorly amplified sound. The more it sounds like amplified, the less I like it. If they manage to amplify in a way that I almost can't tell the difference, that's pretty good. Funny thing about the opera snobs -- as much as they rail against any amplification of the voice, they adore all their perfectly mastered CD recordings. Not me. I don't much care for recorded music either. It doesn't satisfy me like live instruments do. I'd rather go hear a crummy community orchestra live than listen to the finest recording in my living room (and that in spite of the fact that I'm hermit type who generally prefers staying home to going out). The nearer to the instruments the better. I don't much miss attending symphony concerts. I do miss being in the room when the orchestra rehearses. I don't like electric guitars either. Bleah. Probably my least favorite instrument. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
I don't remember exactly what gave it away at first. I think it was the clarinet, which sounds much too blocky to be a real clarinet. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 05 May 2007, at 8:28 PM, John Howell wrote: At 4:51 PM -0700 5/5/07, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Fun ... I missed it on the first try, but got it on the second. DEan I'm embarrassed to say that I couldn't decide. But I think the key may be in the string pizzicato, or perhaps the tuning of the woodwinds to pure equal temperament instead of tuning each chord. Darcy, what gave it away to you? John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
John Howell wrote: I'm embarrassed to say that I couldn't decide. But I think the key may be in the string pizzicato, or perhaps the tuning of the woodwinds to pure equal temperament instead of tuning each chord. Darcy, what gave it away to you? Darcy James Argue wrote: I don't remember exactly what gave it away at first. I think it was the clarinet, which sounds much too blocky to be a real clarinet. Another aspect of the fake example is the too perfect reverberation. The problem with even the best reverberation modelled on real spaces and mixed so that every instrument is clear and spacious is that it is too good, too commercial sounding. Woodwind groupings also are strange in that the vibratos don't match each other. It is more than just being in tune with each other, live musicians also phrase, breathe and vibrate in ways that mesh with each other. You can have the world's biggest sample library and still not achieve that kind of collaboration. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 8:28 PM -0400 5/5/07, John Howell wrote: At 4:51 PM -0700 5/5/07, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Fun ... I missed it on the first try, but got it on the second. DEan I'm embarrassed to say that I couldn't decide. But I think the key may be in the string pizzicato, or perhaps the tuning of the woodwinds to pure equal temperament instead of tuning each chord. I got it on the first try, because I thought it had the pure temperament problem you mention above, and also the subtle but relentless regularity of the tempo... Not a dead giveaway, however, and I was pleased, but also a bit surprised, that I got it on the first pass. Like some of you, all the years of working with MIDI and sequencing and samples probably helped. Still, it's a pretty darn good fake. The article, by the way is mostly crap, and longer than it needs to be to make any of the valid points. But spot the fake was well worth a few minutes of R and R, when I should be meeting a deadline. Linda Worsley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
On May 6, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Linda Worsley wrote: The article, by the way is mostly crap, and longer than it needs to be to make any of the valid points. It sure is! What lover of classical music is going to pay good money for season tickets to a half-synth, half-live orchestra, except where the synth is playing actual synthesiser parts (not replacing section players) as an addition to the orchestra? Now, for pit orchestras for touring dance shows, there might be an argument made. Not one that I would support, mind you, but at the least the advantages are harder (not impossible, just harder) to refute. For a concert, there is no question. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 11:10 AM -0500 5/6/07, Randolph Peters wrote: John Howell wrote: I'm embarrassed to say that I couldn't decide. But I think the key may be in the string pizzicato, or perhaps the tuning of the woodwinds to pure equal temperament instead of tuning each chord. Darcy, what gave it away to you? Darcy James Argue wrote: I don't remember exactly what gave it away at first. I think it was the clarinet, which sounds much too blocky to be a real clarinet. Another aspect of the fake example is the too perfect reverberation. The problem with even the best reverberation modelled on real spaces and mixed so that every instrument is clear and spacious is that it is too good, too commercial sounding. Woodwind groupings also are strange in that the vibratos don't match each other. It is more than just being in tune with each other, live musicians also phrase, breathe and vibrate in ways that mesh with each other. You can have the world's biggest sample library and still not achieve that kind of collaboration. Absolutely! Especially the phrasing and breathing. I'm not as sold on the vibratos, since I've never been aware of orchestral woodwinds attempting to match vibratos. You have, after all, the clarinets in there, traditionally playing with straight tone. But you're absolutely right about their striving to think together. Even gigging orchestras can come close, but play with the same 8 people for 10 years and it can be quite beautiful. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
I got it right, but I admit I was helped by knowing who conducted the other three extracts: I immediately recognised Norrington and Reiner, and the choice between the other two was reasonably easy. For me the give-aways were the solo clarinet sound and the almost too perfect balance, with the clarinet always seeming to keep the same relationship to the strings. On a second hearing I listened more to the strings and find that they sound too regular. It's amusing that Mr Liptak thought Norrington's interpretation was the computer one. On 5 May 2007, at 20:37, Darcy James Argue wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117832128175492832.html? mod=hps_us_at_glance_pursuits Apparently, the dean of composition at Eastman and the Dean of Music Technology at Berklee couldn't. I spotted the sample-based mockup within the first second, but that's probably because I spend so much time working with GPO that I'm attuned to the giveaways inherent in any kind of sample-based playback. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
the differences would be even more evident at a higher resolution, the aliasing significantly alters much of the real sound: winds suffer almost as bad as percussion instruments. the thinness of the wind sound at 15-18 (ex. 1) is typical of lower quality compressed audio, and at these resolutions the poor quality of the sound gives the fake an unfair advantage. the omnipresence of mp3s and compressed audio playback units would actually benefit the development of machine performances, once the reference of the live orchestra played on decent-quality recordings on passable systems disappears (on an individual basis i mean). the test would be (more) meaningful if they used a better compression format, or no compression at all. i have no doubt that the results -- even amongst less-experienced musicians/listeners -- would be radically different than with this crap sound. this said, there are enough clues independent of the crap sound. (crap sound should be spoken with a glaswegian accent by the way, i think it has more impact: e's go'a crrap sound) there are also a great number of recordings in the past 30 years (or so) of very mechanical performances, which lack the vibrancy (hate to use such a meaningless word to describe it...) of recordings with attention to the individual moments connecting notes. much has been written elsewhere about the effect the recording industry may or may not have had on this tendency, and on the effect the competition mindset has had on performers' flexibility in performance. in any case, i have no doubt that this could also contribute to the listener not recognizing the sterility of timeflow in the fake. similarly, the fact that so many students are working with computer programmes today and are not entirely aware of the differences in attack which characterize instrumental groups -- and differently in different registers and with hard vs. soft reeds etc. -- could help the fakes slip by, because any chordal entry is heard as a rigid block in synthesized playbacks. although the various humanizing plugins are built to offset this mechanicity, they do so in a very mechanistic manner, by (or rather within) a fixed percentage it would seem, so that the distribution of humanness is statistically equal... and therefore inhuman. i love listening to mingus' works exactly for this, you only need to hear the entry of one chord and you know it is mingus, everyone is on the beat but there is no consensus as to WHERE the beat actually IS! for physical reasons, this is actually built in to the string section, so would seem fairly easy to replicate in a relatively convincing manner in particular contexts, but it is something that is very difficult to fake in the rest of the orchestra, with far fewer instruments playing the same parts. -- shirling neueweise ... new music publishers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
On 6-May-07, at 6:51 PM, shirling neueweise wrote: the differences would be even more evident at a higher resolution, the aliasing significantly alters much of the real sound: winds suffer almost as bad as percussion instruments. the thinness of the wind sound at 15-18 (ex. 1) is typical of lower quality compressed audio, and at these resolutions the poor quality of the sound gives the fake an unfair advantage. the omnipresence of mp3s and compressed audio playback units would actually benefit the development of machine performances, once the reference of the live orchestra played on decent-quality recordings on passable systems disappears (on an individual basis i mean). Good point. I didn't say that the sound quality of the examples was not high, but that was certainly a factor in what affected my perception. I admit, I was almost fooled by the steely clarinet in example 2, but that was just the player with a bright sound, and you could hear the flanging from the compression in his sound, which would have been a giveaway of a sample. (crap sound should be spoken with a glaswegian accent by the way, i think it has more impact: e's go'a crrap sound) I hear you! I wonder if we are thinking of the same sound engineer... Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
It's also the brodth of the orchestra sound. And the clarinet sound, of course. But it also shows that the computer sounds are improving But I think we won't see the liveliness of the orchestra for another decade in computer sounds... Kurt At 20:37 05.05.2007, you wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117832128175492832.html? mod=hps_us_at_glance_pursuits Apparently, the dean of composition at Eastman and the Dean of Music Technology at Berklee couldn't. I spotted the sample-based mockup within the first second, but that's probably because I spend so much time working with GPO that I'm attuned to the giveaways inherent in any kind of sample-based playback. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Hmm--I wonder if Respighi's nightengale (sp?) record caused the same furor. (Not to mention that it may take a period-instrument mindset to bring it off with a 78-rpm turntable rather than a laptop computer nowadays!) Aaron J. Rabushka never a lover of using synthesizers to save money [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.waymark.net/arabushk - Original Message - From: Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake? On May 6, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Linda Worsley wrote: The article, by the way is mostly crap, and longer than it needs to be to make any of the valid points. It sure is! What lover of classical music is going to pay good money for season tickets to a half-synth, half-live orchestra, except where the synth is playing actual synthesiser parts (not replacing section players) as an addition to the orchestra? Now, for pit orchestras for touring dance shows, there might be an argument made. Not one that I would support, mind you, but at the least the advantages are harder (not impossible, just harder) to refute. For a concert, there is no question. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117832128175492832.html? mod=hps_us_at_glance_pursuits Apparently, the dean of composition at Eastman and the Dean of Music Technology at Berklee couldn't. I spotted the sample-based mockup within the first second, but that's probably because I spend so much time working with GPO that I'm attuned to the giveaways inherent in any kind of sample-based playback. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Darcy James Argue wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117832128175492832.html?mod=hps_us_at_glance_pursuits Apparently, the dean of composition at Eastman and the Dean of Music Technology at Berklee couldn't. I spotted the sample-based mockup within the first second, but that's probably because I spend so much time working with GPO that I'm attuned to the giveaways inherent in any kind of sample-based playback. I got it right away as well, but it is impressive how far these facsimiles have come. For anyone who hasn't read the article, the fake music making is much more involved and sophisticated than just using Finale HP and GPO, even though GPO and HP do a pretty good job most of the time. The article suggests that computers might revitalize classical music through economic savings. (The idea is that the laptop replaces some musicians and the orchestra doesn't have to fold.) I often include a laptop in my orchestral pieces, but it plays things and makes sounds that the orchestra can't do. (I find that a laptop with a MIDI keyboard added to the orchestra is so much better and responsive than the old way of cueing tapes or CDs.) So I appreciate the potential of computers doing music in live settings. However... There is no way that a laptop is going to revitalize anything. Even a great recording never quite rises to the level of a passionate, live performance by real people. If anything is going to be revitalized, you need to be inspired in a life changing way. And as useful as they are, laptops just can't do that. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
Fun ... I missed it on the first try, but got it on the second. DEan On May 5, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117832128175492832.html? mod=hps_us_at_glance_pursuits Apparently, the dean of composition at Eastman and the Dean of Music Technology at Berklee couldn't. I spotted the sample-based mockup within the first second, but that's probably because I spend so much time working with GPO that I'm attuned to the giveaways inherent in any kind of sample-based playback. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Of all hoaxes, the one which is my most vexing bête noire on a quotidian basis, is the cereal box top which informs simply, Lift Tab to Open. Then, To Close, Insert Tab Here . Yeah, right! In attempting to accomplish the first direction, not only the tab but also the slit intended to accept the aforementioned protuberance have both been irreparably disfigured and rendered dysfunctional. This debacle is then amplified by the misbehavior of the recalcitrant inner bag, which can not be unsealed sans mangling it, and hence, will not disperse its contents without exiting the box itself. All I wanted was a bowl of cereal. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Can you spot the fake?
At 4:51 PM -0700 5/5/07, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Fun ... I missed it on the first try, but got it on the second. DEan I'm embarrassed to say that I couldn't decide. But I think the key may be in the string pizzicato, or perhaps the tuning of the woodwinds to pure equal temperament instead of tuning each chord. Darcy, what gave it away to you? John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
