Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    A traditional work?  I don't.
    
    But Frank Zappa wrote a piece of music for a quintet once. 
    Unfortunately it was too hard for them to play, but they had committed
    to a concert.
    
    So Zappa whipped up a tape on his Synclavier and that's what was
    played - the musicians just sorta "faked" it.  And NO ONE NOTICED!
    In fact, he had given them a 15 ips reel-to-reel tape but due
    to obscure reasons they ended up using a noisey cassette copy
    of it, which makes it even more amazing that people didnt' notice.
    
    Zappa said that THAT is when he decided to go back to doing rock
    music.
    
    	db

    It all depends on what the audience came to listen to. My guess
    is that 'Fool' is a bad word, since it implies that the audience
    is stupid. My assumption is that if the music sounds familar, and
    is done as the aduience expects it to be, a majority wouldn't care
    how it was done, and the rest wouldn't worry about it. But then
    again, why not just play a CD??
    
    							Jens

    Well, I learned something when I heard sounds coming out of my
    stereo speakers while a tape was playing and said to myself, 'Now,
    those are real strings ...'   Nope.  That's a tape.  No humans around
    but me.  At one time a 'real' musician was playing an instrument,
    but so what?  Same thing is true of a sampler.  Somebody playing
    one note into a sampler isn't music (minimalism aside).  It's music
    when a composer puts it together and somebody hears it.  There's
    something kind of silly about playing one tape on your stereo and
    calling it music, then putting another tape on the stereo and then
    saying it's not music because 'real' musicians weren't used in the
    sample/track/final mixdown.  What if I (somehow) sample 30 minutes of 
    the BSO?  When I press the key on my sampler (and hold it for 30
    minutes) is the result music or not?  ;-)
    
    Steve

    Reading the title to this note, "Fooling the public with MIDI bands,"
    brings up a question in my mind.  (This could be another topic,
    but here goes).
    	I was just wondering what your opinion is on MIDI bands;  you
    know, the real MIDI bands, with two or three people playing guitars
    and singing along with a sequencer, which in turn makes them sound
    like 5 or 6 (or 40, with sampled strings).
    	Do you feel this is cheating;  that they are playing along with
    "canned" music, and that it is not really a "live" band?  Or do
    you think that the programmer's creativity in producing the sequences
    is just as valid as having the performers play the parts live?

    	My opinions aside, I'd like to hear what you guys think about
    this.
    
    		Ron

    I find the topic title to be somewhat prejudiced, of the 'when did
    you stop beating your dog' variety. 
    
    My assumption is that if you've seen a film in the past 10 years,
    you've been 'fooled' by samplers.
    
    Once again, if it were a superb orchestral 'emulation', how would
    you know ?
    
    karl

    I played for a coupla years in a three piece band that relied on
    sequenced synths to beef up our arrangements.  We did some stuff
    strictly three piece, some stuff effectively six piece.  The
    alternative was to not do the material (a lot of mainstream covers;
    we wuz just a bar band, ya know, so don't get on my case about covers
    and originality; we've already had *that* discussion elsewhere)
    or to pad out the band with extra musicians who'd want to play all
    the time, even when it wasn't necessary for them to.  It also gave
    us some flexibility; we had a bass player who could also play 6
    string, so on some two guitar tunes we'd use sequenced bass and
    the bass player would play 6 string.  We also used the sequencer
    and drum machine (eventually I played on a mixed acoustic/electric
    kit) to provide percussion parts that would have required another
    player.  I.e., we used MIDI to add spice to our sound that would
    have otherwise required more bodies and thus diluted earnings.
    Validity and such never entered into our considerations.  It was
    simply "we want to play this stuff and we don't want to pay any
    more people to make it possible".  Our audiences seemed to agree
    with us; in fact, it seemed as if they never noticed some of the
    instruments were "playing themselves".
    
    len.
    

>DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "The height of MIDIocrity"         16 lines  10-JUN-1988 13:53
>                          -< Nice to have Frank back >-
>    A traditional work?  I don't.
>    
>    But Frank Zappa wrote a piece of music for a quintet once. 
>    So Zappa whipped up a tape on his Synclavier and that's what was
>    played - the musicians just sorta "faked" it.  And NO ONE NOTICED!
>    
>    	db
Good example, but it doesn't answer the question of whether you believe
he could have fooled the audience with a faking orchestra and a tape of
a synclavier orchestra.  Could he have?

>TYFYS::MOLLER "Vegetation: A way of life"             8 lines  10-JUN-1988 13:56
>    It all depends on what the audience came to listen to. My guess
>    is that 'Fool' is a bad word, since it implies that the audience
>    is stupid. My assumption is that if the music sounds familar, and
>    is done as the aduience expects it to be, a majority wouldn't care
>    how it was done, and the rest wouldn't worry about it. But then
>    again, why not just play a CD??
The question is, could MIDI instruments fool an audience on tape or live
into thinking it was an acoustic orchestra?

>MIZZOU::SHERMAN "Baron of Graymatter"                15 lines  10-JUN-1988 14:23
>
>    Well, I learned something when I heard sounds coming out of my
>    stereo speakers while a tape was playing and said to myself, 'Now,
>    those are real strings ...'   Nope.  That's a tape.  No humans around

I don't care about taped acoustic orchestras fooling people.  
I'm asking if a MIDI orchestra could fool a listener.
>    but me.  At one time a 'real' musician was playing an instrument,
>    but so what?  Same thing is true of a sampler.  Somebody playing
>    one note into a sampler isn't music (minimalism aside).  It's music
>    when a composer puts it together and somebody hears it.  There's
>    something kind of silly about playing one tape on your stereo and
>    calling it music, then putting another tape on the stereo and then
>    saying it's not music because 'real' musicians weren't used in the
>    sample/track/final mixdown.  What if I (somehow) sample 30 minutes of 
>    the BSO?  When I press the key on my sampler (and hold it for 30
>    minutes) is the result music or not?  ;-)
I'm not asking if it's music.  I don't believe in music at all anymore.
I'm asking if the audience would be fooled by the sampled recording of
the BSO.  Basically, you don't have 30 minutes of sample memory, so
you couldn't do it so no it wouldn't fool anybody.  I'm asking about
CURRENT MIDI instruments.  
Ever hear of the Turing test?  I may not remember it perfectly,
but if you are in a closed room, communcating over two terminals directly
with 2 others, one a machine and one a person, 
and if you can't tell which one is a human and which is a
computer, has the computer achieved artificial intelligence?
>    
>    Steve
>Note 1445.4           Fooling the public with MIDI bands                  4 of 6
>                                -< MIDI bands >-
>    Reading the title to this note, "Fooling the public with MIDI bands,"
>    brings up a question in my mind.  (This could be another topic,
>    but here goes).
I don't care about other questions.  I want to know if you can fool
an audience (or a listener to a record) that a MIDI orchestra is an
acoustic orchestra.

>SALSA::MOELLER "Toward a dork-free workplace"        10 lines  10-JUN-1988 15:06
>    I find the topic title to be somewhat prejudiced, of the 'when did
>    you stop beating your dog' variety. 
No, it isn't prejudiced.  It's a very important fundamental question for
the future of electronic music, AFL-CIO AFM, the movie industry and television.

>    
>    My assumption is that if you've seen a film in the past 10 years,
>    you've been 'fooled' by samplers.
What do you mean?  The photograhs of people?  I always knew those were
shadows on the wall.  
>    
>    Once again, if it were a superb orchestral 'emulation', how would
>    you know ?
CAN A SUPERB EMULATION BE DONE NOW????
>    
>    karl
>Note 1445.6           Fooling the public with MIDI bands                  6 of 6
>DRUMS::FEHSKENS                                      23 lines  10-JUN-1988 15:14
>                       -< Crass Motivations?  Who, Me? >-
>    I played for a coupla years in a three piece band that relied on
>    sequenced synths to beef up our arrangements.  We did some stuff
>    strictly three piece, some stuff effectively six piece.  The
>    len.
Did anyone in the audience think that you were playing all the parts live?
Were they fooled?
TOM

    
    re: .0
    
      My MIDI-band played for a gymnasium full of people. As this
    particular group does reggae, some parts of which bore me to death,
    we decided to sequence the drums, bass, and the more boring back-beat
    piano parts. 
    
      Technical problems aside, 700+ people apparently had a great time,
    dancing up a storm. 
    
      After the set, we asked a lot of people (>50) "What did you
    think?"...
    
    We had quite a few "Your drummer was excellent! Loved the bass,
    he played right on!" type of responses. Apparently the people in
    the back of the hall couldn't see the stage and the HR-16 and the
    MIDIbass had 'em fooled. 
    
    I suppose, with enough money, and the right orchestral arrangement,
    you could do it. Wouldn't be cheap, but I say it's probably been
    done already and I didn't notice.
    
    /pjh

    Tom,
    
    I think the answer to your question isn't "yes" or "no".
    
    I think it's "not yet".
    
    	db

    Tom, you dodged Karl's point.
    
    Most of the music you hear in a movie today is produced synthetically.
    Sometimes that's obvious. Sometimes it isn't.
    
    I really don't believe you're so naive that you'd think all the
    music you hear is being produced by 'real' instruments, so I
    wonder what the hidden agenda is...
    
    In a nutshell, YES, you can fool some of the people some of the
    time.       
    
    Edd

    I don't know about orchestral stuff, but when Brian Goss asked me
    to help him do a cover of "In My Life" by the Beatles (which features
    a baroque style electric piano solo), I sequenced the bass, drums
    and solo (on harpsichord) and sent him a dub of the instrumental
    parts so he could practice the guitar and vocal parts before we
    printed tape.  After listening to the tape and playing it for some
    friends, he said "I didn't know you could play bass!  And where'd
    you get a harpsichord?"  I explained that it was all sequenced
    synths.  He refused to believe me until he saw me push start on
    the MC500 and I did things like change the tempo or the mix.  And
    I think Brian's got a pretty good ear; he said it wasn't only the sound
    that "fooled" him, but the playing style as well.
    
    So, yeah, I think you could fool most of the people most of the
    time with *today's* synths, if you put the effort in.  There are
    some instruments that you just couldn't pull it off with, but for
    a fairly typical orchestral mix and non-"edge of the envelope" playing
    styles, with enough overdubs you could make a convincing emulation
    of an orchestra.  You couldn't do it with an arbitrary piece, but
    I'd bet there's a fairly substantial repertoire that could be done. 
             
    len.
    

    I have a tape called "Sound Spectacular II", played by 2 keyboardists
    plus sequencing.  All sounds come from a Wersi Spectra, a
    2-keyboard-and pedals device that at first glance you'd call an
    "organ" (it has sampling, LA-like, FM, other synthesis techniques,
    MIDI and sequencing).  Here are some of the comments from people
    who've heard the tape (not EXACT quotes, but to best of my memory):
    Oh, the tape has examples of many styles of music, from dixieland
    to jazz, classical to "techno-pop".
    
    "That jazz guitarist knows his stuff ..."
    
    "Sounds like a 5 or 6-piece dixieland band ..."
    
    "Those horns sound synthesized ..."
    
    "You mean that's just TWO guys?! (looks of puzzle/amazement) ..."
    
    "I can even hear the banjo strummin' ... there's no banjo?! ..."
    
    "That classical piece sounds like a small orchestra ..."
    
    "The piano doesn't quite sound real ..."
    
    "Nice solid bass player..."
    
    ----------
    So, I guess you can "fool some of the people some of the time" ...
    
    	-Jim

    It's not surprising that len et moi would attempt to say the same
    thing at the same time, but what did we just see, *4* people all
    saying "some/most of the people some/most of the time"????
    
    ...wavelength.
    
    Edd

    Well, Edd, you practically *begged* for somebody to say "Yes" to
    Tom, so we all came out of the woodwork and said "pretty much".
    
    len.
    

    To answer Ron's question about how I feel about MIDI bands:
    
    I'm going to presume that you mean bands that use MIDI sequencers.
    
    The answer, in my case, is not simple.  The best way to articulate
    it, is that my reaction is based on WHY I think it's used.
    
    o Expense or convenience
    
    	If it's used to save expense, it bothers me.  I'm not a purist.
    	My objection isn't based on depriving musicians of income, nor
    	on any of the typical notions.  The whole point of me WATCHING
    	a band is to see human performance.  It's the performance that
    	makes it interesting for me.  If someone doesn't have a drummer
    	cause they can't get one, or don't want to pay one, I feel like
    	I'm being deprived, maybe even ripped off.
    
    o Playing the hard parts
    
    	if the seq is used to play stuff that the people couldn't play
    	themselves AND what the seq plays is an essential part of the
    	music, I don't like it.
    
    So when don't I mind it?
    
    I don't mind it when the sequencer is not the heart of the band and is
    used as a support tool for purely artistic reasons.
    
    	db

    re .15 and "saving expense".  In order for us to avoid paying
    additional musicians who were not necessary most of time (we should
    have kept a string section, a brass section, a woodwind section,
    a keyboardist and a percussionist in the wings so we could use each
    of them on the one or two songs that required that particular
    instrument, out of the 60 or so we played each night?), I shelled
    out a couple of thousand dollars for hardware and we invested many
    hours of programming effort.  The alternative was, as I said, to
    not do the material.  I believe most of our audience would have
    felt more ripped off by the latter than by what we did.  The three
    of us *did*, after all, play on every number.  I don't think it
    was that important to most of the crowd in the bar to actually see
    a string section sawing away in the background on the tunes that
    had strings.
    
    len.
    

    I don't go to movies.
    Tom

    
    Given unlimited equipment and time, you could do a good job of it.
    The unlimited articulations and subtleties of expression would drive
    you crazy.
    
    It's not too hard to simulate an unimaginative orchestra that plays
    rather woodenly.
    
    For instance, just think about making a list of all the different
    ways to hit suspended cymbal!  You could spend all day, then months
    trying to sample or synthesize them, then more time executing and
    recording them. The same goes for ways to attack a trumpet note,
    play a note on the violin, etc.  The clarinet alone can sound like
    three or four different instruments.....and what about the bass
    clarinet??
    
    However, it's easy to fool people with a rather bland string pad...
    
    

    It was Banks & Marinelli, pp. 66 in the Sept. ,87 KEYBOARD, I think.
    They did the score for 'Pinnochio and the Emporer of the Night'
    on samplers which is in the soundpage.  In the article, KEYBOARD
    challenged readers to rent the video 'The Best of Times' with
    orchestra scored by Arthur B. Rubenstein wherein Banks and Marinelli 
    spliced simulations with the real orchestra.
    
    Steve

NPR's (National Public Radio) "Weekend Edition" had a piece several
months ago which looked at the synths..midi..obsolete musicians
story.  They gave a history, talked a bit with Moog, Kurtzweil,
and Wendy Carlos, and played snippets of some *very convincing*
baroque and orchestral works.

I don't know if *MIDI has it NOW* -- there were no A/B comparisons,
the clips were short, and WBUR is a tad noisy from Worcester --
but it is close and getting closer.

Finally, there's a lot of room in the classical *sound* for MIDI to
sneak in.  People already accept that each orchestra, conductor,
concert hall, or recording engineer inherently sounds a bit different.
MIDI doesn't NEED to provide an exact match to any 'standard' classical
sound, because there's no such thing.  It only needs to sound 'real',
and real is a broad target.

Sure, there are a hundred ways to hit a cymbal, but only a cymbalist (?)
can spot all hundred.  The rest of us could be fooled with a manageable
subset, say five or ten.

Enjoy,
Dave

    You can also fool people going the other direction...
    
    I listen to a lot of synthesized music, and my friends know it.
    Several times I've put on a Steve Reich CD (like, say, "Octet/Violin
    Phase/Music for a Large Ensemble" or "Music for Eighteen Musicians")
    and they say "Hmm, what kind of synths are those" or, "This is on
    keyboards, right?" To which I reply, no, Steve Reich is all acoustic,
    except for the occasional electronic organ. And they demand to see
    the liner notes, and they see pictures of lots of people playing marimbas...
    				- HBM