Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    Sounds good!  Let's go do Beethoven's 9'th.  The hard part will be
    the vocoded Chorale patch at the end, but heck!  I need a good
    challenge!  
    
    [Notwithstanding that Wendy Carlos has already done an excerpt of the
    9th, I think that a complete, _synthesized_ 9th would be a great thing to 
    have.  
    
    Maybe a good synth 9th would even have commercial possibilities- however, 
    we should pick some worthy charity to recieve the proceeds, if proceeds 
    are necessary.    
    
    I'll nominate the Red Cross...]
    
    	-Bill

    If proceeds were somehow affiliated I think a donation to charity would
    be great.
    
    I was thinking more along the lines of the 5th, only because it might
    be slightly ahead of the 9th in mass appeal. Not to mention it doesn't
    run 70 minutes...
    
    ...but either would be cool. The choral part might make it more phun!
    
    Edd

    
    humph.
    
    I *thought* we were discussion just HOW you measure the distance
    from earth to the sun at the Bim. Now I understand that it has
    to do with LudwigVan. Ok. 
    
    I volunteer to do vocoded vocals for mass work. 
    
    Hey! Lets do Missa Solemnus!
    
    well, whatever, as long as it doesnt have to be an exact COVER,
    and can have some #9th chords for color....
    
    rr
    

    Or pick the fifth Brandenburg concerto by Bach.  Not anywhere near as
    long, and fewer parts, but a really wicked harpsichord cadenza with
    lots of opportunities for tempo changes. voicing changes, and
    subtleties of velocity.  My copy of the score has *pages* of 32nd notes.
    Also, baroque music is easier to get sounding right.
    
    The hard part is picking a standard interchange format.  MIDI files is
    obviously the way to go at final assembly time, with a computer-based
    sequencer.  But those with dedicated sequencers (with those tiny
    windows) will have to play their results into the final sequencer,
    in real time.

    Sequencing....
    
    Wouldn't it be possible for everyone to show up with {whatever}
    sequencer and just MIDI everyone to the "conductor"?
    
    I have this bizarre image of a stage with SGUs parked on chairs while
    a sequencer is plopped on a podium with it's power cord to the
    audience.
    
    Edd

    I've always thought that Bolero would be a neat piece to beef up using
    synths but hacking significantly at the basic rhythms, perhaps munging
    the meter but preserving the hooks.  You could have an outdoor performance 
    (getting the necessary permits) and show off not only your synths, but 
    also some amps.  Nice thing about the tune is that it builds from dead 
    quiet up to max volume.  I'd want to drastically change the ending
    after the climax, too.  Instead of the crummy ending it now has, use
    the climax to be a lead into a jam session.
    
    Steve

    I can't listen to The Bolero without thinking about Bo Derek.
    
    ;^)
    
    Edd

    re: .7
    
    	Is that bad??? ;-)
    
    		Mark
    

    ron ross ron ross ron ross. OK I'll remember your name.
    I don't remember talking aobut this.  Was this after I left?
    I have already sequenced the allegro moltoo from beethovne's 9th
    symphony.  I can play it into a sequnecer if len wanted to orchestratee
    it (I used liszt's piano transcription).  
    The recording is on the current commusic tape that john is going to
    send out soon (right john? ;-) )
    I have a idea, but it won't appeal to rockers.
    Its orchestrate the counterpoint in Art of Fugue by BAch any way you
    want.  It has several different pieces, you could almost pick the one
    you like.  I have already scored thefirst one for orchestra so I would
    use that or a similar treatment of another one.
    Tom

    Hmmm.  I guess Bo does know Bolero ...
    
    Steve

    I think we all ought to get our guitars and each of us learn a single
    line guitar part for the 9th ... then everyone play thru one Marshall
    stack at full bore. 

    Of course, since I live close to 1000 miles from you guys, I won't
    have to endure the pain ...

-b

    
    tsk tsk.......uh huh. "Marshall stack" gave him away.
    
    A real Midiot would use a KB300 of course.
    
    {name deleted}
        

    
    
    re .13
    
    Correction....guitarists can count to 11!  ;^)
    
    

    
    
    
             Duh...      Kitty Hawk Roolz!!!!!  
    
                                
                               oops..
                                 
                                        wrong conference.
                              
                                                 
                               
                                                     RC*^}
    

    Kitty Hawk Drools!!!!
    
    :^)
    
    Edd (who knows where he is and wouldn't say that otherwise)

	If you try to sequence a large scale classic, do us all a favor and
	don't try to emulate the proper sounds with samples or similar
	sounding instruments. If I want the sound of a live orchestra,
	I can buy a CD. I'd like to hear some creative applications of
	sound. Make it an effort worth the challenge (like Wendy Carlos
	did, at least to some degree, with Switched on Bach).

								Jens

    
    I agree with .18; we shouldn't try for a complete imitation (aside:
    I bought the Carmina Burana Synthesized- boo!!!  Waste of good 
    polycarbonate.  It sounds like a mediocre conventional C.B.)
    
    I'd suggest against any of the Brandenburgs because Carlos has 
    already done them all (Switched-On Brandenburgs, in two volumes. 
    Very good, too).
    
    -----
    
    It seems that everybody wants to do the vocoded choirs in the 9th!
    
         -Bill
    

    A vocoded 9th would be imitative too.  Carlos has done it all before.
    
    But using some similar tonal colors that *don't* sound anything like
    a voice would be ok.  Something different.
    
    Another suggestion:  Mozart 21st piano concerto is very pretty.  Needs
    lots of attention to velocity in the piano solos.  (I have the
    Ashkenazy recording.)  I suggest that it would actually be more
    difficult to pull off due to the delicate rubatos and amplitude
    changes.  Also since we would want to do it *not* with a piano.

    Let me try to spell out what I think are the criteria for choosing
    a subject piece:
    
    	1) It should be reasonably complex (i.e., potentially many parts),
    	   so lots of us can play.  This means things like small chamber
    	   pieces (trios, quartets) and sonatas probably don't qualify.
    
    	2) It should fairly distribute the sequencing load, so one
    	   particular instrument doesn't get stuck sequencing half
    	   the notes.  This probably disqualifies a lot of concerti,
    	   especially piano concerti (aw shucks - one of the Mozart
    	   concerti for synth and synthetic orchestra would probably
    	   be a blast).
    
    	3) It should be reasonably short, so we don't spend the rest of our
    	   lives trying to sequence it.  This means if we do something
    	   symphonic, we're probably going to have to limit ourselves to
    	   one movement.
    
    	4) It should be amenable to "non-imitative synthetic
    	   interpretation".  This could either suggest or discourage
    	   some masterpieces of orchestration (Richard Strauss comes to
    	   mind).
    
    	5) The score should be readily available, so we don't have to try
    	   to transcribe orchestral parts by ear.
    
    	6) It should be fun to do, and the resultant performance should be
    	   quasi-spectacular.  
                 
    Easier said than done.
    
    len.
                            

    The unbalance of a concerto could be solved by parceling out the work
    to different people.  This also allows more variety of interpretation.
    One guy gets the first solo, another guy gets the second, someone else
    does the big cadenza, etc.  There is still a symphony orchestra to do,
    of course.  One guy does the strings, another the woodwinds.  (breaking
    it up by similar tonal colors)
    
    I bought my score for the Mozart 21st in Cambridge for about $4.  Those
    little yellow pocket-size scores.

    The problem I see with using non-imitative timbres is "who makes the
    decision?". What I think may be a gorgeous patch to use for the
    woodwind part may cause you to vomit.
    
    Criteria for selection: One more thing. I think it should be fairly
    pedestrian so that lots of people will recognize it, in spite of
    whatever timbre is used....
    
    Edd

RE < Note 2249.23 by WEFXEM::COTE "Bain Dramaged" >

	Along the same lines, someone may need to take the responsibility to
act as the "producer".  When you're talking non-imitative, or even imitative
for that matter, you may have great individual patches, but when you put them 
together, you may end up with collective do-do.

	I'd love to participate in this, but I may have a move coming up.  I'll 
know in a few weeks.

	Dan

    re somewhere back there - I think having the performance style change
    throughout a given instrumental part (e.g., the piano in a concerto)
    "compromises the artistic integrity of the performance".  Is this just
    MIDI busy work, or are we trying to actually accomplish something
    worthwhile as a group while having some fun at it?  If the latter,
    then I suggest each of the participants "owns" some role in this
    performance.  Dan's suggestion of the need for a "producer"
    ("conductor"? both?) is right on the mark.
    
    Another thing to consider is where multiple instruments play in unison
    or "divisi", we should sequence each instrument separately and when we
    perform it, use different SGUs.  So if the score calls for two
    clarinets, two people each sequence the clarinet part, and we use two
    different clarinet patches (yeah, yeah, this is an "imitative" example,
    but it just an example).
    
    One advantage of MIDI is we can do an "imitative" performance and
    an "off the wall" performance, and all we have to do is change the
    "orchestration", i.e., the assignment of patches to particular
    channels.  The sequenced data is not likely to have to change a whole
    lot.
    
    len.
      

    > MIDI busy work or...something worthwhile as a group...?
    
    My sentiments exactly. I don't need any more busy-work, gahk, I have
    enough of that now!
    
    len's nailed exactly what I thought of. Have each person sequence one
    (or more, depending on how many get involved) instrument and then
    some-how sync everyone up. Just like a real orchestra. Learn your part
    at home and come in and contribute...
    
    This is actually generating a lot more discussion than I thought it
    would. Does this mean there's actually some solid interest in doing
    it????
    
    Edd

    Didn't somebody suggest Ravel's Bolero somewhere along the way?  It
    does in fact have many of the desired properties.
    
    We gonna do the strings as dozens of solo instruments, or a handful
    of "subensembles"?  I'm inclined to vote for the latter (e.g., two or
    three each 1st and 2nd violins, violas, cellos, basses - that's 8 to 12
    people used up just doing strings).
    
    len.
    

    Using a TX81Z as an example, one person could do up to 8 parts using
    a single SGU. I'd suggest doing DIFFERENT parts, that is, one person 
    could do 1 each violin, violas (voilas!), cellos, basses, etc., while
    another person could do that same parts, and letting the various synth
    archetectures work together, rather than having the "FM Violin
    section", the "PD Horns", and the "LA something else"....
    
    Edd

RE < Note 2249.25 by DRUMS::FEHSKENS >

	Len's mention of the "tutti" sections brings up a thought...  Should we
set any rules for how exact the parts should be?  There's usually some 
give-and-take in a live performance.  Should it all be step entered or in the
very least, quantized?

	My thought is to allow freedom for individual expression for individual
lines (say a solo instrument) but when a part becomes a piece of an ensemble
section, it must be exact.  Since there won't be any interactive give-and-take
in the sequenced performance, parts that would normally work to blend together
at the heel of a conductor's baton would need to be perfect to blend well.
Consideration may need to be given to "gate-time" (i.e., usually a note marked
as a whole note doesn't get played for the full four beats, etc.).

	Dan

	Or how about this (concerning tutti sections)...

	One person may sequence a part, but others may provide sgu's for the
ensemble effect.

	So, say I sequenced the string section for a certain passage.  I could
have my matrix-6r play it, but someone else could contribute some voices from 
their TX81Z (or whatever) to be layered with the part I sequenced.

	Dan

    Conversely, wouldn't my subtle interpretive variations vs. yours of
    the same score add a touch of "humanness"?
    
    Edd

RE < Note 2249.31 by WEFXEM::COTE "Bain Dramaged" >

	Oh, I agree, but it seems like it could go either way - it could either 
sound very human or totally obnoxious, depending on many factors.

	Dan

    This will never happen.
    Tom

Oh Tom, let's not be so cynical, eh?

I'm up for it.  After someone decides to be producer (not me :^), then he/she \
can let me know what part I can do.

Dan

    Thanks, Tom, for your touching faith in us.  In the mean time, it's fun
    just talking about it.  I think some of us might have as much fun
    proving you wrong as just doing it for its own sake.
    
    Regarding conventions for sequencing - as Edd implied, one of the
    things that makes an ensemble sound human is the absence of total
    consistency of execution.  So I'd recommend we *not* all step time
    sequence, with the same gate time ratios, etc..  Obviously, we need
    some consistently applied notion of how we should sequence staccato
    vs. legato, but the way a "real" ensemble deals with these problems
    is if it sounds yucko because some player is out in left field the
    conductor (or maybe the producer in a recording situation) is
    responsible for bringing him/her back into the fold.  Players who
    persist in independence to the detriment of the ensemble usually get
    fired.  Our "conductor"/"producer" is/are going to to have the same
    responsibility.  And we're going to have to "rehearse" this thing,
    and the resulting edits (suggested by the conductor or producer or other
    players) will converge us towards a successful ensemble sound.
    
    Regarding Edd's concern about "an FM brass section, a sampled woodwind
    section, and an analog string section" (to paraphrase), if we sequence
    each instrument in these sections separately, and assign our SGUs
    right, we'd have, for example, a horn section with three horns,
    one FM, one analog, one sampled, a woodwind section with an LA
    bassoon, an FM oboe, an analog clarinet, etc..  This should give us the
    timbral variety we need.
    
    This raises the question of what MIDI channels to use, and how to get
    more than 16.  I think this is a straightforward "management" problem
    that can be resolved fairly quickly once we've chosen a piece and have
    a score.  We're clearly going to need multiple MIDI busses, and I
    suspect we'll have to adopt the convention that all the parts
    sequenced by a given individual have to be on the same buss
    (sequencer).
    
    len.
    

RE < Note 2249.35 by DRUMS::FEHSKENS >

>    This raises the question of what MIDI channels to use, and how to get
>    more than 16.  

	Actually, since we'd all be using our own sequencers and only receiving
"clock" form each other, I don't think its as much of a problem as you think.
If someone's sequencer serves as "Master", there's only one channel 
(potentially) that needs to be kept aside.

	It'd look something like this:


	+--------+      +----------+
	| Master | ---> | THRU BOX |
	+--------+      +----------+
			  | | | | |
                         /  | | |  \
                        /  /  | \   \
                       /   |  |  |   \
                      /    /  |   \   \
                     /    /   |    \   \	
 		    /    /    |     \   \
		+----+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +-----+
		|slv | |SLV| |slv| |slv| |slv  |
		|seq | |seq| |seq| |seq| |seq  |
		+----+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +-----+


	In this scenario, each sequencer would only have to avoid the MIDI
channel that the master sequencer was using for his own SGU's.

	Dan

	+--------+      +----------+
	| Master | ---> | THRU BOX |
	+--------+      +----------+
			  | | | | |
                         /  | | |  \
                        /  /  | \   \
                       /   |  |  |   \
                      /    /  |   \   \
                     /    /   |    \   \	
 		    /    /    |     \   \
		+----+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +-----+
		|slv | |SLV| |slv| |slv| |slv  |
		|seq | |seq| |seq| |seq| |seq  |
		+----+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +-----+

	Make the master provide nothing but the clock pulses (My TR-505
	does this & I'm sure other people have devices of similar
	capability). Then you don't have to worry about midi channels
	in use.

	On the other side of things, we'll have to think about how to set up
the sound system.  I assume each contributor will need to do a submix and
submit the sum to a main board.  What about signal processing?  Every man for 
himself?

	Dan

    While probably totally unworkable, I think the ultimate mix would be 
    to have a seperate speaker set up for each "instrument", all arranged
    in a semi-circle like a real symphony!
    
    Would effects be necessary? Symphonies don't do sound reinforcement...
    
    Edd

    Symphonies do effects by building nice halls.  Unless you want to sound
    as though it was recorded in a spare bedroom, use a reverb.
    Of course, an SRV2000 is BETTER than Carnegie hall, because there's not
    feet or paper rustling noise.  
    The arrangement of sequencers, which I concluded you would need 
    several replies back, excludes me.
    Have fun.
    Tom

    re numerous replies about how to get more than 16 channels - c'mon
    guys, you didn't really think I was *that* dumb didja?  Of course
    that's how you do it.
    
    BUT - are we going to assume that *everybody*'s going to contribute
    their sequencer to this effort (some interesting logistics issues
    in pulling this all together)?  Afterwards, is everyone going to go
    their own merry way content to have, for example, the oboe and clarinet
    parts to Phidelius Bonzo's "Overture to the Midiots' Delight" and
    nothing else?  *Nobody*'s going to want a merged copy of the data
    for their own fun and games?  Even the most track limited of our
    sequencers (MC-500 mk I?) has 4 tracks, meaning we could support
    64 channels, if we do it right, i.e., plan it.
    
    Yeah, I suppose we can worry about this later, and rechannelize as
    we merge/copy, but it's not that hard to do it right from the
    beginning.
    
    The clock master probably wants to be a sequencer with programmable
    tempo.  Choice of a clock master doesn't affect any channel decisions.
    Also, the clock master should probably not be responsible for playing
    anything, so that all the parts suffer the same (probably
    insignificant) MIDI transmission/clock sync delays.
    
    len.
    

    Opcode Vision (which I don't have) can handle 99 tracks playing at
    once.  Whether it can keep up with lota of stuff happening on those
    tracks sort of depends on how fast of a CPU you run it on.
    
    Different approaches depending on whether the final result is a
    *performance* (with speakers on a stage, etc) where everything
    has to run at once, or a *recording*, where we don't actually have
    to have it all playing at once through a boatload of SGUs.
    
    Independantly of whether a live performance is possible, I think it
    would be fun to get all the sequences merged into one MIDI file so
    those with sequencers capable of dealing with all that at once can
    play conductor games with it, or even new "performances".
    
    Sync will have to be ticks, as not everyone can do tempo maps and even
    if they could, they might drift apart.  So all tempo notations are
    handled by the master sequencer.

    Right, I think I said earlier the master clock should be provided
    by a sequencer with programmable tempo, and this sequencer shouldn't
    do anything else but provide clock, so all parts have about the same
    clock sync delay (it'd be interesting to know how much sequencers
    vary on this parameter).  Independent clocks simply won't work.
    
    I doubt it makes much sense to try to make a multipass recording of
    this - we'd have at best 7 tracks available (I don't know that any of
    us has access to a more-than-8-track recorder, and we'd need to allocate
    one track to sync), and it seems, at this point at least, that there
    are likely to be more than 7 instrumental parts.  Balancing multiple
    instruments per track without being able to hear all the other parts at
    the same time is a nontrivial problem.  I'm pretty much assuming
    there's no practical difference between a "performance" and a
    "recording session" - in the former case, the SGU outputs go to amps
    (and unless we've got a lot of PA systems, there's a serious question
    of coloration here), and in the latter they all go to some
    conglomeration of mixing boards.  Now *this* is an interesting problem;
    we're going to probably have to resort to several "submixers" that feed
    a "master" board that mixes the final (n-track?) output.
    
    Of course, if we just restricted ourselves to a septet or less, things
    would be a whole lot simpler...
    
    len.
    
    
    

    Just how many people would be interested in doing this? It seems the
    more people we have, the bigger the piece we can take on.
    
    Show of hands?
    
    Edd

	I can't commit until I find out whether I'm moving.  I'll know within a 
month.

	Dan

I volunteer to participate  but reserve the right to pull out at any time
for any reason.

/Mitch

    I'll second Mitch. I would feel a lot better if I knew what the
    individual configuration was.
    
    eg: each "player" supplies the equivalent of:
    
    		one portable sequencer ( MMT8?)
                one SGU (MT32?)
    		(optional controller for rehearsal real time updates -
    							(D-5)
    		plus their own amp?
    
        we depend on "Conductor" producer to supply
    		power strip (grounded, spike limited,...)
    		master clock
    		Mix? or should the conductor point to each of us to
                    control our own amps in real time
    
    Too ambitious a set-up per individual will mean more time setting up
    and less fun.
    
    -Neil
    

    I'm in, for from one to 4 parts.
    
    len.
    

    If you manage to pull this off you should consider calling the 
    Guiness Book of Records people! :-}
    
    	Mark
                    

    Could we call ourselves the BSO? (Big Synth Orchestra?)
    
    Edd

    We could cut down on lots of hardware by merging various sequences
    together before-hand. Even tho the sequences had been merged, we could
    use the "originator's" SGU.
    
    Actually, we might even be able to save on SGU's. If I did 2 parts
    on my TX81Z, and someone else used the same SGU, it's conceivable 
    we good use just one...
    
    The biggest problem might be finding AC for everyone!
    
    Edd

>    The biggest problem might be finding AC for everyone!

	What do we need air conditioning for?

	Dan    

    You people have totally missed it.  If you're going to bring all your
    equipment and be together in one place, you shouldn't sequence it, you
    should play it live on a controller.  You could play an oboe part on a
    guitar controller, and a drum part on a keyboard, and a violin part on
    a wind controller.
    You're only playing one part each, right?  You can manage that without
    a sequencer, can't you?
    Tom

    Tom, would it be too much to ask you not to keep throwing stones at
    this idea at every opportunity?
    
    Edd

    Some of us are step-time only dweebs.  And it is hard enough to get a
    viola to sound right by playing it on a keyboard in real time.  Add to
    that complete lack of knowledge of viola technique.  And those goofy
    clefs.

    If it's "live", I won't be there, period.  It's too dang far to drive. 

    Like Dan, I *might* contribute if it's sequenced.  Mail a disk is a
    heckuvalot cheaper than mailing me and all my gear. 

-b

Brad (and others),

	You could just mail me the disk in Standard Midi File format since I've
got an Atari too (or couldn't you upload to a VAX and I could download it?) and 
I could combine them with my tracks on Notator.  That is, as long as no data is
lost when going from MTP -> SMF -> Notator.  For anyone else that is 'far away',
and has a PC of some kind, I'd be willing to download any sequences that people
want to make available on the E-net.

Dan

>              <<< Note 2249.54 by WEFXEM::COTE "Bain Dramaged" >>>
>                         -< $ SET MODE = GHEEEESH... >->
>
>    Tom, would it be too much to ask you not to keep throwing stones at
>    this idea at every opportunity?
>    
>    Edd
    I'm sorry.  I'm just upset.  I had been looking to forward to being part 
    of it, but due to the way it turned, I can't participate because I don't 
    have the equipment necessary.  Tom

    Well then would you consider stopping throwing rocks at those of us 
    who do? Your decision not to purchase MIDI gear is not our fault.
    Quite honestly, if you wanted to submit a sequence I'm sure I could 
    find time for you in my studio.
    
    I'm sure there are areas you CAN contribute to.
    
    Edd

    
    
     This sounds like a lot of fun, so I suppose I can volunteer to 
    contribute something.
    
    Has anybody stepped forward for conductor/producer/coordinator.
    That job is way out of my league.
         
    re .-1
    
     If you really want to test the upload/download I can upload
    a sequence from my Amiga ( Music-x or KCS). - They claim to produce
    Midi Standard Files.
          
    brien

Brien,

	We can try it.  Copy your file(s) to MIDI::MIDI$DUA0:[DAN.MIDI]*.*
and I'll take it from there.

Dan

    
    So, what's the tune already?  I'd be interested in contributing if I
    can think of anything to do  8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    
    						Brian

    Tune is open to suggestions. My knowledge of orchestral pieces is
    pedestrian at best. Beethovan's 5th, Also Sprach Zarathrusta, An 
    American In Paris (I'd like to do that), 1812, etc...
    
    Someone else probably could do better than I...
    
    Edd

    I know a real rousing piece for orchestra and antiphonal brass choir.
    Complex percussion parts.  Camel bells.  Big timpani finish.
    Title "Estampie" I think.  I'll have to look it up at home.  I know
    sheet music must exist because my high school band played it.  Always
    made my spine tingle when I played it: the tympani were right behind
    me.
    
    Hindemith's "Symphonic Metamorphosis" is pretty good, and not too long.
    If you like John Williams-type heroic stuff, like the scene at the end
    of "Star Wars", you would like this; it is even better.  Not as
    interesting as Estampie, but a lot more people would recognize it.

    I certainly wish you all a lot of luck.  I'm sure it will go well and
    be very exciting.
    Tom

    Tom - you could probably pick up Dr T.'s KCS for the Amiga for a modest
    investment...
    
    len.
    

    Dr T is hundreds and hundreds of dollars to havethe same capabiolity of
    Deluxe Music ($65). (scoring, musical notation on screen, printing
    musical scores, sequencing MIDI and amiga voices, receiving midi input,
    yew name it.)
    I have finished all the scoring I intend to do.  It would be silly to
    spend $1000 to do one project.
    Now I am perfecting my automatic composition software.
    I finally made menus/requester/gadget work in a simpler progrma.
    Tom

 Tom,

 I have Music-X which has the capability of reading a DMCS score (SMUS file) 
and converting it to Midi standard (SMF). If you ever have the need for file
conversion let me know...

brien

    This conversation seems to have dropped off......
    
    My 15-year-old step-daughter is an excellent singer, and her high
    school choral group is considering performing a staged Phantom of the
    Opera. Last year they did Gilbert and Sullivan's "Patience" and it was
    strictly mediocre because their musical accompaniment was a plinky
    piano. How's about sequencing Phantom?
    
    I'd suggest that we each take one song from the musical and sequence
    ALL it's parts, then EasyNet them my direction as standard MIDI files.
    If my SGUs aren't sufficient (JX-10 and U-110) then I can buy some
    (Casio VZ10 for $240?!). I believe we have plenty of time: "Patience"
    was performed in March or thereabouts.
    
    Anybody interested?
    
    - Hoyt

Great idea.  The only drawback, however, is that unless the performers have the
music down to a 'T', then the sequence will be too confining.  Usually,
the accompanyment for a musical has to be flexible enough to vary tempo, skip
sections, etc. as the actors invariably muss up their parts.  Nobody's perfect!

Curt
  

    there are midi conducting products.
    tom

    All manner of possibly-talented people have no trouble lip-synching.
    There's tons of rock bands that play along with audio tapes. It seems
    like it would be no problem, since the singers will be practicing the
    tunes with the sequence. And betwixt-music pauses can be of any length,
    if each song is a separate sequence, and someone (e.g. me) is poised with
    the mouse ready to click on the next tune on cue.
    
    The pain-in-the-a$$ part will be rehearsal: "Let's start again at the
    coda." That will get tiresome quickly, but no doubt one of the students
    could handle it?!
    
    - Hoyt

    
    
    As someone who does this regularily provided the performer is aware
    that he has to follow the performance as it won't follow him it should
    be no prob.
    
    I can do the sequence from the average popette in a night. ALW stuff
    should take about 20 minutes.
    
    					Paul.
    

	The performance sequncer in the Ensoniq VFXsd allows you to
	play parts over again, or cut them out (ie, lengthen & shorten)
	during playback, without altering the standard sequence that you 
	already have. I think that this gives you the option of playing
	with the audience or a ridged set. Sequencers are getting better
	at doing these sorts of things.

								Jens

    
    	An interesting feature of C-Lab's Notator is it's Tempo
    Interpretation. Pick a key on the motherboard, and tap away with your
    conductor's rod/pole/stick/doodah. Feels wierd at first, but it works.
    

    Vision has this too.  And I think Performer as well.  Usually goes
    under the name "tap tempo".