 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2007-04-13 11:31
That's odd. I didn't know that there was a basset horn version of the Mozart clarinet quintet.
It's been reconstructed in the presumed basset clarinet version.
That's some very nice basset horn playing (if it really is a basset horn) - sounds more soprano clarinet-like.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-04-13 11:35
I can still tell it's sampled -- the cello has an electronic blare, the clarinet tone gets too bright at forte, the clarion A is dull -- but the articulation and nuances are right on.
We'll soon be obsolete.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kev182
Date: 2007-04-13 14:49
to be honest I personally think that guy has a horrible sound on the basset.
David Shifrin's sound playing the quintet on his basset is in a different league
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2007-04-13 15:06
The techs sure like a lot of reverb in their mix.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-04-13 15:28
Kevin -
It's not "a guy." It's a computer. A guy played each note on the clarinet once (or more likely a bunch of times). The notes were recorded, digitized and then accessed one at a time to play the Mozart.
There's obviously a lot more to it, since scales are played as a continuous line, with musical nuances added (such as appropriate crescendos and decrescendos and various articulations). But there's no human clarinetist involved.
As such, I think it's remarkable, though, like you, I'd still rather listen to Shifrin
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-04-13 15:40
I guess "instrument samples" are still like early typographic applications.
In the latter case, the individual letters (read: individual sampled notes) are simply strung together; only later one was able to use kerning tables (not every two adjacent letters have the same distance from each other, eg "TAg" or "TWeak"). With smaller prints, one needs to use hinting and generalizations (one cannot just scale down the letters and expect everything still looks good).
Same for samples - one should have samples for each and every combination of notes, for all possible dynamics, the occasional grunt on a long B etc etc.
I am sure some day we will see or rather hear that, as computers become faster and sampling and assembling algorithms more elaborate. But for those who love to make music, there will only be the real thing, ever.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2007-04-13 16:38
Interesting to hear, but not much musical pleasure in it.
The "virtual basset horn" sounds clunky, tubby, and out of it.
Still thanks for the link. As for live musicans becoming obsolete; remember the player piano....
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-04-13 18:42
What about the Wurlitzer player harp? Are there any of these still in existance?
As my harp playing is definitely on hold right now, I'd like one.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-04-14 08:42
This one doesn't sound as good as other sampled instruments I've heard from them, but it's still pretty good.
"We'll soon be obsolete."
If they can make it sound just as good as a human player, then it could possibly replace players when the music is all known in advance and they have time to program it (maybe music for films, etc).
For those who make music the computer is not a replacment no matter how good it sounds, because the computer is controled by a person who doesn't have the exact same ideas as every person making music, and can't copy them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2007-04-15 00:05
Uh, I hate to take the wind out of anyones' sails, but (in large part) the "musician" is already obsolescent, though not obsolete.
As I've said many times, in the 1910's the AFM was a massive union, full of members who played wherever there was a need for live music. At the same time, we didn't have a huge public school system turning out massive numbers of semi-competent to competent proto-musicians.
Then, in short order, we had:
• Reasonable recordings of music in the form of non-cylinder records.
• Voice radio broadcasts
• Motion pictures with synchronized sound
When the talkies hit the theater system, according to my AFM member grandfather, the union took an immediate and almost fatal blow. From that point on, things only got worse (and, perversely, better at the same time).
We're now faced with virtual orchestras, compact disks that reproduce every nuance of a live performance, television and "music" that totally avoids the reed instrument family. And, as all of this occurs, we are at the same time generating thousands of very good college students who can all play at a high professional level, coming out of their apprenticeship-equivalent training, all to do what?
The AFM died as a trade union as soon as most music users could go to the recorded article. Once that happened, a few "studio folks" (and I've been one on a couple of occasions) play it once, and it gets reused many, many times. Now the AFM is a "craft" union, still representing its members, albeit in very reduced numbers.
(In effect, the AFM has now started down the long slope to join such other unions as the Flint Glass Worker's Union, the Typographer's and Linotype Operator's Union, and others where their specialty has more or less died out. With flint glass no longer in common production, and with writers and editors typing, cutting and pasting electronically, the typesetting and lino boys out completely, they've gone the way of the buggy whip manufacturer's employees - mere historic curiosities of what used to be. Sad, but inevitable I'm afraid.)
Think about it: when was the last time that you went somewhere where there was a background musical group larger than a trio? In the 1920's, every hotel in every city around the world worth its salt had a house musical group, ten or fifteen in number, who played for background as well as for dancing.
DJs? No such thing in the 1920's. If you had a wedding or dance, you paid for a musical group. On any given weekend in Houston, the papers are full of weddings from the upper crust, each of which often has a musical group performing at the reception. Not seen are the hundreds of others who don't pay for the big announcements. Some of those have music, but far, far more have a DJ.
Mind you, Petrillo fought the good fight back in the mid-Twentieth Century, and those who play for recordings are at least getting something for their troubles. However, it was a sacrifice that the purchasers were willing to make, saving as it does the huge amount of wages that would otherwise have to be paid.
In effect, we are paying many fewer musicians a lot more to get the quality music that everyone wants to hear but doesn't feel like buying at the market, live rate.
The whole paradigm of "providing music" shifted with the developments of Edison and others. But, holding back progress (as the Wreckers and the steam jenny folks found out in "the earlies") is virtually impossible. Pure economic reasons force its advance, and no one who has tried to hold it back has ever been successful for very long.
I'm just glad that there're still some opportunities left, even though at times we get hired more for the bragging rights ("Yeah, they had a live band and everything!" has been uttered about more than one party or wedding over the years) than we are for the music we produce. Mind you, I've been paid good money (in some cases, very good money) to do just that. It's a bit humiliating to realize that you are there more for appearance than you are for your performance, but the extra money (and that for a few hours spent doing something that I like to do) does ease the sting...
The old days are gone, and this newer electronic stuff is just a variation on what happened before. Then, it was wax and sapphires, now it's electrons and CR tubes, but the principles remain the same. Now, the samples may lack life, and they are not strung together quite that well. But, every year things get better, while we (the live music folks) do not.
Thirty years ago, people would have laughed about someone trying to get precise recordings (like a CD on a good system offers) with anything short of a full-scale recording studio and playback system. Now, you can purchase the same thing at your local electronics store for ever-decreasing amounts.
Thirty years ago, movies were either live action or skilled model work (such as in Star Wars, in which it is relatively easy to detect the flaws in the technique). Now, we map textures to wire frame, can animate (through electronics) the slightest detail, and even create a Jar Jar Binks out of nothing but electrons.
Sure, it's not the same as a real walking and talking dinosaur (as if such a thing ever existed). But, it's pretty damn'd good and realistic looking, all the same.
I draw your attention to the Hollywood bomb Pearl Harbor, brought out in 2001. While laughable in many areas (the romance with Kate Beckingsdale, the modern US Navy frigates that stand in for the antiques that were actually at Pearl Harbor), some of the computer animation was top drawer, first rate.
When you can pay attention to such minor details (like contra-acting trim tabs mounted in elevators and rudders on the attacking Japanese aircraft, and varying engine oil leaks on the same), you are getting into some fine grain detail, stuff that most will not notice. And, that was seven years ago.
Similarly, with music, the synthesized version is drawing ever closer to the live performance, like it or not. It may never get to a point where we specialists can accept it as "just as good" but, like it or not, we are a very small minority
in the vast world of music consumers. Most people think that a synth patch for an oboe or English horn sounds just fine, and (without giving them something to compare it to) they would be more than satisfied if that was what they were being fed.
Plus, there's what I call the "butter" factor. Due to damage to my "smeller" in the military, my sense of taste is somewhat limited. (No jokes, please; remember that we now think all ex-military folks are heroes, and I am one, so to speak.) As a result, there are many foods that are perfectly good for everyone else but that to me taste like cardboard. Try chewing up some moist cardboard sometime if you really want the actual effect - it's quite disgusting (and a great weight loss aid).
One of these problem foods is margarine. Originally invented by a French chemist working for their Navy, and made from the ullards of sheep (you can look it up if you want to), it has never been (and probably never will be) an adequate substitute for butter. There's some component missing in margarine that is present in butter, and I can tell the difference every time. Butter tastes like - well - butter. To me, margarine tastes like vegetable shortening.
Yet, in nine times out of ten, when you ask for "butter" in anything but a top-tier restaurant, you get margarine. It is to the point now where margarine is seen as butter by hoi polloi, and if you try to point out the difference and ask for the actual article, you are viewed as some sort of weirdo.
Right now, I can hear many of you thinking "What's the big deal about it anyway?" Well, for you it may not be a big deal, but in my situation (with diminished taste sensation) it is a big deal.
For me, plug in most people in the world, and for butter, substitute "live music" and there's your problem. Those of us with "special tastes" can't abide a synthesized patch, but for the vast majority it's just fine, thank you
Well, "music" is now at another crossroads, one even bigger than the recording one of the Twentieth Century. Given a choice, many folks just don't care and would just as soon have Reba do their wedding (through CDs spun by a DJ) as they would have a poorer quality (not studio recording quality, in any event) live performance. Some still prefer the live article, but as money gets tighter, Reba on a CD starts to look very attractive.
(As an afterthought, country music (and some rock) has gone down the "synth" road a long. long time ago. All of those country singers who seemed to have a guitar grafted onto their bodies were often only playing for the appearance that the guitar furnished to their reputation as a "musician"; the real musical work was being done behind them by the session folks in the backup group. We all know about Milli Vanilli, and rock stuff (even in live concerts) gets "goosed" all of the time with loops and other processing. Lip-syncing in movies is almost a necessity (due to production limitations, so you could add that to the list as well.)
I recall a saying about some woman from Greek mythology, Niobe I think, crying for her lost children. Well, that's what we're doing when we complain about how "synth" music isn't as good. And, it's hard to sell the live stuff at the price we want to be paid now, and will only get worse.
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
Post Edited (2007-04-15 00:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2007-04-15 11:19
Technology is replacing the DJ now. Canton Chair Rental has been advertising the Quebbie "DJ in a Box":
http://www.cantonchairrental.com/planner/AudioVisualEquip.asp
I wonder what the DJs think when their radio station plays a commercial about renting a Quebbie rather than paying for a live DJ?
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
