|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 23, 2017 11:22:37 GMT
I think the quality of the samples is important too Bob. So far as I know, notation s/w cannot access cc's at present (true?) and it is right there where the music can be made more convincing. So even if we all have the same high end sample set, the DAW is still going to be more convincing and musical - on the assumption that the operator is also competent - due to the fact that it can manipulate the sound in a more musically detailed way, which is really what it is all about, yes?
Ultimately, we listen to music and that experience if it is to be pleasurable, has to be done as best it can be, given the nature of its recording.
A competition of this nature seems skewed from the start given that the 2 sides are mis-matched when it comes to producing a final product. Sure, notation s/w can produce decent results, but on the assumption that notation s/w cannot access ccs', a DAW can give an extra layer that makes the mock-up more palatable to trained ears. An example of this would be in accessing the release parameters in some sample sets, which gives a beautiful natural end to notes and phrases, subtle, but important for realism. A Daw can programme release at will along with so much more, like ebb and flow in the dynamic level and as much articulation change as is needed to take the sound away from the monotony of say a sustained sound. I'm sure you Bob, or somebody else out there will tell me if these and other parameters can be accessed from within notation s/w, so please do.
High end reverb and hall impulses are also almost standard for DAWs as is an ability to mix and produce to pro standard. Better integration of DAW and notation s/w is surely on the horizon, but until then....
I do agree though that some sort of competition will reveal a lot about the programmers musicianship, especially when it comes to correct choice of articulation, interpretation of dynamics and sense of phrasing, but I venture that the sound is more important in a mock-up and at present the DAW is the best bet for the most musical result.
Sorry Dave we are heading off-piste a bit here....
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 23, 2017 20:32:57 GMT
" the DAW is the best bet for the most musical result."
And I never said otherwise.
But to answer your question, I can control the velocity, timing, and, I believe, pitch, of every note. No one does all that because it is a lot of work, and not the point of notation software. But it's there. And a sound stage of sorts. Trumpet two (for example)is not just a copy of trumpet one. But is made to sound like it's coming from a different part of the stage. Release parameters could be dealt with, but would entail notation changes.
"especially when it comes to correct choice of articulation, interpretation of dynamics and sense of phrasing,"
I would submit that none of those things is set in stone. Take the case of a Vivaldi trumpet concerto that I used to have recordings of.
1. Boston symphony, late 1960's. Slow, loud, bombastic. I loved it. Glorious. Surely this is what the high Baroque was all about.
2. German chamber orchestra recorded in the 70's. Light, fast, spirited. Cause for re-thinking the Baroque period.
Both are articulated, phrased, and otherwise performed as opposite from each other as can be. Yet conceived by topnotch directors and musicians. One might be more stylistically correct, but both are certainly musical. And, it seems to me that "musical" then, is in the ear of the beholder. No two people will hear anything the same way. We're all listening for something different. I think that's OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 23, 2017 22:22:08 GMT
Mike: I think it's incorrect to say that NS does not have access to CC's. I'm pretty sure the capability is there in all modern NS; the more pertinent question is, (1) how easily accessible it is, and how conducive is the interface for the user to make use of it in a meaningful way; and (2) whether NS users actually bother to make use of any such functionality their NS may provide them.
Take my NS, Lilypond, as an extreme example: its MIDI output is basically a note-for-note, beat-for-beat transliteration of notation, with a flat mapping of a small set of dynamic markings to a fixed set of velocity values. This is the default setting, which, obviously, results in a very mechanical performance, and almost certainly will not make use of any special articulations programming you may have in your instrument libraries. However, Lilypond does have a powerful (if arcane!) programmatic interface, so it is in fact possible to do things like writing a macro to translate single-note crescendos, for instance, into a series of MIDI expression events that will accomplish the effect in the audio. And I'm sure that, with further customization, it could be coaxed to do a lot more.
My point, however, is that while all of this is possible, whether or not your average user will actually use it, is a different question altogether. Unlike your average modern DAW, where this stuff is automated and comes with nice eye candy and a convenient Do-It-For-Me button, in Lilypond you have to read extensive documentation, learn how to program(!), and be willing to spend the time to manually implement this functionality yourself. How likely is your average user going to be willing to do this? Pretty unlikely. But someone (ahem) could claim that since it's possible to do this, even if only in theory, then it's incorrect or unfair to say that NS is not capable of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 23, 2017 22:40:39 GMT
The touch of a button produces a fader over each note of each staff. Once one goes down that path, any dynamics in the score are ignored and the user must handle all dynamics note by note.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 23, 2017 22:52:41 GMT
Bob Porter: That's a step up from programming Lilypond scripts.  But still, the question is, does the average NS user care enough to actually tweak every single note? Maybe if you're in the final production stages you would. Still, this particular choice of all-or-nothing user interface is unfortunate, because the user can't simply go in and tweak the handful of notes where it actually matters, falling back to the default interpretation of dynamics for everything else. There's no choice of starting from the default dynamics as the baseline and working from there. Either you let the software do it all, or you take over and start from scratch yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 23, 2017 23:07:35 GMT
I suspect most users have no idea some of these things are there. Or that for many instruments there are adjustments for attack and release. Strings, in particular.
They are interested in scores, not a polished sound file.
I'll bet there are ways around the all or nothing problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 24, 2017 10:20:25 GMT
Teoh, thanks for reminding me that we are dealing with differing standards of music making in all aspects here.
Believe me when I say that a Daw is not an automated magic mix machine. You need a massive amount of technical knowledge to achieve good results. Hitting and accepting the 'do it for me button' is but one of many states of mind, knowledge and experience.
I await the day when full Daw functionality is built-in to Notation s/w and accept that producing a polished piece of music for people to listen to is not a priority for some users of Ns/w, which according to Bob is not the intention of the software anyway.
Bob,
From what you list as controllable in notation s/w, surely they are just minimun requirements! CCs, as you will be aware, have more to offer for convincing playback. To what extent can Ns/w change articulations or manipulate vibrato or any other functions available from high end samples? Mind you, I am not really sure why we are having this discussion as you seem agree with me about DAW mock-ups anyway!
Your Vivaldi examples feel a little specious to me in the context of this discussion. Playback via a computer is limited and hardly comparable to live performance. All mock-ups are artificial and as such restricted in their expressive breadth. How a composer manipulates these restrictions and to what maximal musical effect is the context to my earlier comments and nothing to do with live performance - the comments are specific to the mediums being discussed.
There are indeed many ways to interpret and also compose music, none of it set in stone as you have submitted. You will also know there are differing levels of experience and expectation which might explain why we each have such a divergent take on this topic. As a result I doubt we shall ever see fully eye to eye on this Bob, so unless an actual competition is proposed I shall bow out here - we have done this to death in another forum and I feel as though we are about to go round and round again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 24, 2017 15:06:58 GMT
Sorry, Mike. I'm not interested in arguing about anything. I am interested in learning about making music. It is not my intention to go round and round. I have no problem with not seeing eye to eye. If I learn some little tidbit from one of these discussions (and I always do), then it's worth it.
The Vivaldi examples are interesting to me because they are recordings. Much like using software to realize the same score they used. 50 people plus the conductor and the recording engineer make the recording of a live performance. The software also relies on live musicians and the recording engineer. The problem I see with any recording is that we come to depend on them for listening to music. We all have our favorite recordings. But is that all there is?
When someone posts something using general midi sounds, our first instinct might be to think, " Well, that would certainly be better using better sounds." But is that the point? There are many, many aspects to music. That's why I love it so.
It might seem that the point of any score realization contest would be to see who can come up with the best sounding recording. In that case, sure, no contest. I would think that it would be more interesting to see who can do something simply astounding with the score. To put real interpretation into the notes. Something beyond articulation and phrasing. Those things are important, to be sure, but for me, music is so much more. When I listen to a recording, I'm not listening for details. I'm listening to how the music affects me. I'm listening to the harmonic progressions, the inner voices. Yes, I know the details comprise what I'm hearing. Hearing the details is all automatic to me.
I think that this discussion is completely relevant to Dave's piece. He posted a score and invited comments. In working with that score, we get to peek inside the head of a composer. We get to see his inner workings. There is a lot to this 59 second piece of music. Things I might do totally different. But there's more to it than that. The take away for me is that I also learn more about my own music. So the discussion for me is not about a contest, in and of itself. But about making the best music possible. Not just the best recording (as important as that is), but the best music.
I thank you, Mike, for putting up with this. I think we really do have the same goal in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 24, 2017 15:40:14 GMT
Here's a question, Bob (possibly a leading one). If you were able to have a composition of yours produced by either an amazing DAW user with the best samples, as close to realism as possible, and great mastering; or an amazing orchestra recorded with someone's phone from the back of the studio... which would you pick?
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 24, 2017 18:01:24 GMT
My guess is that Bob would pick the phone. If I understand him correctly. But I could be wrong. For perfectionist me, though, I would pick neither, but would wish for the best recording of the best live performance. Even if that's an unattainable goal for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 24, 2017 19:30:39 GMT
Dave, I suppose I would pick the DAW.
But...
It's not always that simple. I have had someone with a Daw realize a piece of mine. All the technical things about the result were far superior to my own effort. The samples, flow of dynamics, articulations, and all the other things a DAW will do that I have no idea about. But he changed the climax point so that the entire focus of the piece, as I envisioned it was totally off. Much the same thoughts that I'm sure you had listening to my mp3 of your piece. "What was that guy thinking? That's not at all what I was trying to say with this piece."
On the other hand, the church I work at has a nice pipe organ. The organist put on a small concert one day. I run the sound equipment. I was there because he needed a mic for announcements. As an after thought, I propped up my phone back by the soundboard to video the concert. He and I were surprised by the quality of the sound as captured by the phone. Was it fantastic? No. But, as he explained to me, most people close mic an organ. The sound is very clean, but can be harsh. A pipe organ is designed to match the room it is in. The whole room. Close mic doesn't involve the room. My phone captured the sound after the room had worked it's magic on it. Pipe organs are notoriously hard to record for this reason. What works for one instrument doesn't at all work for another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 24, 2017 20:55:23 GMT
Rider: which would you choose assuming you had complete control over the articulation and performance, real or virtual (and no wriggling with "not being able to control the performance is part of the process" - this is a thought experiment!)
I would always choose the lo-fi recording of a live performance over even the most expertly realised midi mockup, unless it was for a professional use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 24, 2017 21:38:27 GMT
Ah, but you added a wriggler (is that a word?) with "professional use".
My rather wriggly answer would be that it depends on the purpose and the importance of the recording.
As a music ed major in college, I was required to give a 30 minute senior recital on my major instrument. The senior recital is rather a big deal. It's a graduation requirement. As I fancied myself a composer back then, I volunteered to do an hour recital and fill it out with my own music. Including a piece for organ and trumpet, and a piece for piano, soprano, french horn, and electric guitar. There were maybe ten people in the audience. Including my parents, who made the drive up to hear me. All recitals are recorded using decent equipment. Unknown to me, the tech got hung up in traffic and missed recording my recital. My dad had recorded it on a little portable cassette recorder. To call it a not a very good recording is too generous, but it's the only one I have. This was in 1973. So A phone recording today would have been a real blessing.
I prefer to listen to a live band, rather than a recording. Even if the band is not the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 25, 2017 1:48:36 GMT
I nearly qualified myself in the original question tbh, but I wondered what you'd say if I didn't. The thrill of a live orchestra recorded badly would beat the best mockups for me, but professional sphere is entirely different. I'm only talking about personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 26, 2017 8:16:55 GMT
I would always choose the lo-fi recording of a live performance over even the most expertly realised midi mockup, unless it was for a professional use.
Me too. There is so much to be learnt from a live performance.
|
|
