Let's Talk about MIDI in a New Light

Hola, gang--

I'm relatively new here, but in the 3 or 4 weeks I've been hanging, I've seen many remarks about MIDI that suggest it somehow robs the music of emotion and expression.

I have a radically different point of view, but it requires a certain understanding of technology.

Simply put, crappy samples and bad programming sound bad. Great Midi sounds great. A few of the audio clips I've heard here have used the lowest quality sounds and programs that sound like what they are. This is really not the way to judge Midi--bad samples are not Midi's fault. Unless you enter your notes one at a time, Midi is simply a language that translates your live performance into commands to play an audio sample so quickly that you shouldn't hear any kid of gap between pressing the key and hearing the sample played back.

In essence, it's a tapeless tape recorder. If you feel there is some kind of noticeable timing discrepancy, this is something that can be addressed by the power of your computer and the settings on your sequencer. But things like an artificial sounding decay on a piano note...that's the fault of the sample itself, not the act of programming into Midi as opposed to tape. A great performance on a mediocre piano or flute sample will sound exactly like that. But a great performance on a great sample? I've heard Midi piano, brass, percussion and even strings that would no doubt fool many of us.

Take a look at my thread in the Major Works forum, and try out one of the 6 movements of my extended piece. Try movement 1 or 2, or 4 to see what I'm talking about. Yes, there are other-worldly sounds mixed in with more traditional ones, and I am not the world's greatest programmer either. But I think you'd be stretching it to suggest that it sounds like one guy with a $500 computer program (Logic 8) and a $500 software synth (Omnisphere).

I'm not going to say it ain't the tools, because honestly the tools are a big part of whether your midi track sounds fresh or stale.

Just my two cents.

Doug

I think you more or less said it yourself. MIDI isn't one or more sounds, it's an instruction protocol. Note on/off messages can be directed towards the Vienna violins or an OS's stock MIDI softsynth, or anything in between. If you know what you're doing and you have decent samples then yes, it's possible to create nice mock-ups which are significantly more realistic than out-of-the-box GM playback.

midi is a protocol. When people say midi sucks I think they are referring to the GM (GENERAL MIDI) SOUNDSET that most people associate to be used with the midi protocol.

Obviously if you purchase a 1000$ program (like the omnisphere you suggested) then it's no longer using general midi sound banks but the sound samples that are in omnisphere. Of course no one is saying EWQL, VSL, SI samples sound bad, it's the GM sound sets that people usually consider bad even though I understand what you're saying, EWQL, VSL, SI, etc etc all use "midi" protocol if you compose with those sound libraries in a notation software rather than sequencer.

So the three of us are in agreement about this, and I'm sure many are as well--though like I said, I have seen a couple of comments about midi robbing a piece of soul or something a long those lines.

I guess my question is this: you don't need to spend $1000 for better samples (Omnisphere, which probably wouldn't be the right tool for straight classical mockups) is only $500. Keyboard Magazine is constantly reviewing cheap software packages that could leave notation software samples in the dust. Don't most composers here want their demos to sound as close to finished as possible?

I dont have the time to add every detail of interpretation to my pieces. Every tempo gesture or dynamic colour. Doesnt work for me at all.

"I dont have the time to add every detail of interpretation to my pieces. Every tempo gesture or dynamic colour. Doesnt work for me at all."

Do you mind if I ask 'why not'? And by that I mean why don't you have the time to do it? Don't you think that it would help the listener better understand your point as a composer if your demo more closely resembled a finished product?

There is no question that adding realism to a midi mockup requires some time and new skills for some of us.

I guess this is getting me to think about my own modus operandi. Aside from being a perfectionist who hates any suggestion that something I did was amateurish, I get things as close to real as possible for two main reasons:

If I am instructing a group of players how to play a piece of written music and I give them a demo as well as individual parts, the demo gets us all on the same page pronto. As a musical director, I am always open to different interpretations...but usually the clock is ticking and I'd rather start by them doing it my way first.

And the second reason is that occasionally, for an indie film or album project, my demo tracks have been used as the final musical product or have become the foundation for the final product.

I understand that simply producing the work for our own enjoyment doesn't have those kinds of goals in mind, but I was listening to someone's new funeral march here last night. Even though some found things to suggest about improving it, I'll bet that if he had a friend making an indie film where some of that work would be appropriate, the director would snap up a high-quality 'mock up' like that one and use it, which would create a bit of revenue and exposure for the composer and give him something to add to his resume'.

I don't know, just thinking aloud.

*more fat for the fire*

I have no desire to see my stuff realized as a digital facsimile. My only intent is to present my music in a format readable and performable by real people.

For me, filtering my music through real people is what gives it life and while MIDI can be useful for finding rhythmic/harmonic errors and copying issues, the overall performance from it is useless for my intents and purposes.

:shifty:

...If I am instructing a group of players how to play a piece of written music and I give them a demo as well as individual parts, the demo gets us all on the same page pronto.....

This is one very good point scored for the mock-up. ... still won't ever work for me, but I can see how using the mock-up to zero-in on performance issues can be useful.

"For me, filtering my music through real people is what gives it life and while MIDI can be useful for finding rhythmic/harmonic errors and copying issues, the overall performance from it is useless for my intents and purposes. "

I can see why, especially as a trombonist (not that you don't play other instruments, but as my main axe is a keyboard, composing via midi enables me to experiment with radically different tonalities without wandering too far from my home base).

it does help that I'm also a drummer, a bassist and a guitarist as well--I have a head start creating midi performances of those instruments because I usually know how I want them played, which is the way I'd play them!

I don't spend any time (well, hardly any) on virtual realizations because my work will be played by flesh and blood musicians. My "demo" mp3's are never used for any purpose other than spot checking or as a vague "teaser".

At most, I may play with the tempo for a little realism, but that's about it. My minutiae time is spent on the score, not the realization.

I can see why [MIDI might be useless for you], especially as a trombonist ...

...creating midi performances of those instruments because I usually know how I want them played, which is the way I'd play them!

It's not so much an issue of translating it through MIDI, but I take issue with forcing my music into boxes...boxes into which it will not fit.

Also, perhaps I'm mistaken, but there is really no way to have No tempo with MIDI...am I correct? Everything gets quantized into some sort of subdivision... which doesn't work for me.

Also, it's really hard to MIDI-cise the interaction and spontaneity which is so important to me and my music.

Square peg, round hole ;)

I feel I should just toss in my perspective, if only to demonstrate another possible scenario.

In my case, the MIDI "mock-up" of my work IS the final product almost always. I don't have the luxury of getting my work performed, but my clients still demand the utmost realism and production quality when it comes to the things I write for them, and so I have no choice but to make the best of my MIDI-fu and aim to produce the most convincing mock-up I possibly can. While it would be great for me to be able to get things performed and recorded, it's simply not practical at this stage in my career, so for me the proportions are reversed — I don't give two poo poos about the score, since only I'm ever going to see it, but I care a LOT about the sequencing end of things.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this boat, considering it's the boat of most incidental music composers at my level these days. Anyway, that's just my two cents. :)

Flint, just a quick question--do you feel you have to explain more things than you'd like to when you post your mockups? Do you think that listening to your mockups and following the score gives us a complete enough overview of what is happening?

I play quite a bit with flesh and blood musicians myself. Well, at least they are fleshy. ;)

"It's not so much an issue of translating it through MIDI, but I take issue with forcing my music into boxes...boxes into which it will not fit."

I was going to ask what you meant, but in the following comment you mention quantization so I addressed that below. But putting that aside, I don't really know what you mean. How does midi put your music into boxes? I mean, playing the trombone compared to playing a trombone sample--absolutely, I get that.

"Also, perhaps I'm mistaken, but there is really no way to have No tempo with MIDI...am I correct? Everything gets quantized into some sort of subdivision... which doesn't work for me."

No, there is absolutely no problem recording midi with no tempo, no quantization. Think of it as a tapeless tape recorder in that sense. If I can trouble you to listen to two portions of my major works piece--movement one? No tempo, I played everything in real time while listening to the various parts I'd already laid down. Movement two? A tempo grid which was very helpful laying down multiple parts since it was such a sprawling and wild performance.

Movement 5--again, totally tempo-less, zero quantization. Each part was played live with a bit of after the fact editing to correct a clam or two, since I was composing and recording very close to simultaneously. The two pizzicato parts playing off of each other in the middle of this section were sequential improvisations--first the cellos, and then the violas. You'll see what I'm saying, but the music breathed just the way I would have been happy with in a live ensemble performance.

It is always my goal for the listener to not be aware of tempo grids or quantization...unless the music calls for it, which does happen from time to time.

And trust me--my most ambitious work so far has been a 10-movement piece called A Forest of Americas, which combined jazz, classical and preHispanic instruments and styles. I loved my demo mockups, but this was a piece that was far better with the 9 musician ensemble I assembled for the premiere.

Flint, just a quick question--do you feel you have to explain more things than you'd like to when you post your mockups? Do you think that listening to your mockups and following the score gives us a complete enough overview of what is happening?

I haven't had to explain much; my scores are usually extremely clean and precise. In recent memory, the only time I've had to comment on the audio was related to a cadenza - I just indicated that it was a rough mockup, since I could literally spend days and weeks adding nuances into a solo cadenza. Since the cadenza would be performed differently each and every time, I felt it was pointless to go into the detail required and I felt satisfied with a relatively un-affected rendering.

Normally, when I give my works to conductors, they've never heard it. They may play through the score on their own, but I would be unaware of that - that is their own learning process in conducting. The bands, orchestras, and chamber ensembles I've worked with never hear the music before the first time they read it. Good musicians don't need to hear things before playing them; they interpret the written page. So I always try to make my written parts and score completely clean and clear so the musicians can do their job. ;)

With jazz (and perhaps certain types of popular music), I can understand wanting to give the "feel", particularly if it's unusual and can't be relayed in simple terms ('funk', 'swing', 'heavy 2&4'). But certainly just a small taste of feel would be required? A short explanation or maybe a 4-12 bar example right before reading?

For 'classical' music I just don't think it's necessary. As a teacher, particularly, I always taught my students to learn the music first, and then later in the process I would suggest recordings to review and compare. Relying too much on listening before they learn it actually impedes their musical understanding of the work, in my opinion.

Interesting discussion!

...How does midi put your music into boxes? I mean, playing the trombone compared to playing a trombone sample--absolutely, I get that.

I don't mean so much trombonistically....perhaps compositionally, or even spiritually or psychologically.

MIDI forces me to fit my music into their structured world. Granted, that world allows for A LOT of control, but for me I'm more interested in a lack of control! I don't want to have to dictate pitch/duration/velocity/etc...

I want an organic interpretation as opposed to a sterile patchwork.

When MIDI can interpret "green" I'll reconsider. ;)

----------

No, there is absolutely no problem recording midi with no tempo, no quantization. Think of it as a tapeless tape recorder in that sense. If I can trouble you to listen to two portions of my major works piece...

I will re listen and get back to you after further investigation...

I'm still skeptical - on some level it must drop the info into a grid of some sort, no?

As mentioned, it all depends on whom your demo/mock-up is intended for. If you make a demo for a movie director or video game developer who isn't a musician her- or himself, it's definitely useful to give them an accurate, audible idea of what your end product will sound like - especially since those endproducts are sometimes sample-based in the first place, as Marius said.

It's a totally different matter when you're working with professional musicians. I'd expect any professional conductor, composition teacher, judge in composition competitions, performer, etc. to be able to get an idea of what it sounds like by reading the score. And none of these have ever asked me to show them an audible mock-up.

And since so far, I haven't written for any movie directors, video game developers or similar, I've never felt the need to create "realistic mock-ups", since my goal is always the real performance. (And since I know that for many people a score is not enough, I never upload my compositions here unless I have the recording of a live performance. - But with that I don't mean to say I have any issues with uploading sample mock-ups in principle. I too like it when I can actually listen to music and not just read it.)

P.S. Personally I also wouldn't like showing a mock-up to my performers, exactly because it's so close to the "real sound". I don't want them to interprete a performance of my piece, but my composition as an abstract structure which still is changed through interpretation. The performers are as much artists as I am, which I find a very important part of the whole music creation process, and I find it quite valuable to leave some room for their interpretation, instead of giving them a finished sound to "copy". If it's the latter I wanted, I wouldn't use live musicians in the first place. And sadly, if you are very familiar with a "recording" (be it live, or made by samples), your interpretation will automatically be very influenced by this.

In notation I can make a very clear distinction between things I strictly determine (by writing them down), and things I leave open (by not writing them down). I don't have this clear distinction with a mock-up, where it's never clear what parts of it are my definite decisions as a composer, and what parts are simply artefacts from the computer-realisation.

All that being said: MIDI is great. It's a very useful standard for numerous applications, and the fact that so many different companies managed to decide on a common standard and stick by it for so many years alone is rather amazing. Sure, it has some definite flaws (like resolution, especially pitch resolution), but I still love it for its universality and relative ease of use.

Flint says:

"Normally, when I give my works to conductors, they've never heard it. They may play through the score on their own, but I would be unaware of that - that is their own learning process in conducting. The bands, orchestras, and chamber ensembles I've worked with never hear the music before the first time they read it. Good musicians don't need to hear things before playing them; they interpret the written page."

\

Now, now-- I was with you right up till that. ;) I don't think its about 'needing' to hear it before they play it. I'm a strong enough player that I can listen to someone else's version of a piece and take what I want from it, leaving the rest behind. Certainly, this is pretty much impossible to avoid (hearing previous versions) in the field of jazz unless you play only original music--always my preference, but pretty much impossible unless you work with the same group repeatedly.

I actually have mixed feelings about giving mockups to musicians I don't know well. I'm a good enough drummer that some drummers get competitive when they hear that I can play a piece as well or better than they might be able to, and this can get in the way. I try to moderate my approach according to the personalities. Right now, my drummer is a wonderful player who digs my approach which is quite different from his, due to our cultural differences. He always asks me to sit at the kit and demonstrate what I'm thinking, and it always comes back better from my point of view, even though it doesn't sound at all like me.

" So I always try to make my written parts and score completely clean and clear so the musicians can do their job. ;)"

I agree that in the worlds of orchestras and pit bands and studio musicians, sight reading is a large part of their job. Maybe I'm just used to working with great players who simply humor me when I give them a demo of a tune we'll be recording next week. But at the same time, I've had wonderful in-depth conversations about the pieces leading up to the sessions with these musicians, who wanted to offer suggestions

or get clarification about my intent after listening--this might not have happened had they only been looking at their own parts, as opposed to hearing them in context with the other parts of the ensemble, even in a less-than-perfect mockup.

RJ says:

"MIDI forces me to fit my music into their structured world. Granted, that world allows for A LOT of control, but for me I'm more interested in a lack of control! I don't want to have to dictate pitch/duration/velocity/etc..."

You already dictate pitch, duration, tempo and volume (what would translate to velocity in midi) with written scores, though. Of course, live players always have the option of ignoring your suggestions and playing out of tune or holding notes longer than you'd intended, and those moments can be magical. Randomness is gorgeous and spiritual, and filled with happy accidents. It's why I love jazz so much. But all of my music isn't live jazz.

"I want an organic interpretation as opposed to a sterile patchwork."

Ouch, I think! ;) Still, I can't understand how me sitting at my wonderful weighted 88-note keyboard and playing a multitude of cool sounds live into my computer is sterile compared to me doing the same thing on my Kawai baby grand into my computer. The first method captures the sound as commands that in turn perform what I played exactly as I'd played it; the other captures the sound as digital wav files, a series of 0s and 1s, and then translates those into audio. If I were recording onto magnetic analog tape as in the old days, there is even more black magic involved--translating magnetic particles into audio? Spooky! But it all works.

I wonder if you might be assigning more importance to the techniques involved with capturing sound than is necessary?

"When MIDI can interpret "green" I'll reconsider."

I guess this is a good example of what I was saying: midi doesn't interpret. Nether does your trombone, for that matter. It is the job of the player to interpret on his instrument, whether that is a piece of plumbing or a box with strings or a plastic melodica or the sound of a Bosendorer Imperial Grand sampled at insanely high sampling rates and played on a Yamaha keyboard.

I'm reminded of an old story--and stop me if you've heard this--that has been attributed to at least two famous musicians but I'll use the Chet Atkins version:

A fan approach Atkins after a show and said "You have the most amazing sounding guitar! Every note is clear and expressive, it's just a beautiful sounding instrument."

Atkins set his guitar on a chair and leaned forward with his hand cupped around his ear, waited a moment and then said "How does it sound now?" ;)

"I'm still skeptical - on some level it must drop the info into a grid of some sort, no?"

If it's a grid, then it is vast enough to appear infinite to the user--much like the number of times we inhale and exhale probably falls into a finite range every day, yet seems infinitely random to us.

But to get less cosmic--I just tried that on for a second!--don't you imagine that I, as a jazz player, would notice if midi made my performances conform to any kind of grid?

It's funny, because I am a late adopter of electronics. I said many of the same kinds of things, and maybe back in the '80s when midi was new they were true. I just don't feel that way today, and I'm glad to have it in my arsenal.

I'm glad folks are enjoying talking about this--I'm really enjoying your comments.

You already dictate pitch, duration, tempo and volume (what would translate to velocity in midi) with written scores, though.

Often, I don't. ;)

Ouch, I think! Still, I can't understand how me sitting at my wonderful weighted 88-note keyboard and playing a multitude of cool sounds live into my computer is sterile ...

Okay...'sterile' is a harsh word. Bear in mind, I'm being intentionally extreme here - I know some guys, yourself obviously included, can coax wonderfully creative things from computers. For me, it requires undue patience, time, effort, and a LOT more experience and study to get to that level. Anything I would produce would be a rickety and shoddy representation of any music.

I wonder if you might be assigning more importance to the techniques involved with capturing sound than is necessary?

Perhaps... :whistling:

...midi doesn't interpret. Nether does your trombone, for that matter. It is the job of the player to interpret on his instrument...

Touch

"Bear in mind, I'm being intentionally extreme here - I know some guys, yourself obviously included, can coax wonderfully creative things from computers. For me, it requires undue patience, time, effort, and a LOT more experience and study to get to that level. Anything I would produce would be a rickety and shoddy representation of any music. '

I appreciate the compliment, though there many who are more accomplished than I. I think one of the biggest differences may be our primary instruments--it really is, first and foremost, a keyboard player's medium. Yes, there are many other ways to work with midi, but most of the R and D has gone into the simplest and most common interface--the piano keyboard. I play a little trombone and a little trumpet, and sometimes I can't even get out a major scale without breaking into a sweat. I did, however, record myself playing both in a 5-horn ensemble and to hear it, you'd never guess in a million years how long it took me to nail those simple little parts!

"xAlso, re: the grid thing... I realize it's a pretty microscopic view, and is probably nothing perceivable by humans, but I feel aligning music to a grid - however detailed it may be - would, on some spiritual level, rob it of some slight bit of humanity... call me sentimental."

Well, obviously we'll disagree here, as I believe that all human behavior, let alone the notes you lay, are part of a very large grid to begin with. or did you really not see the Matrix? ;)

Seriously, though--that nice recording you posted--it was captured on what? analog tape? a computer recording program? Either way, your performances where broken down beyond a sub-atomic level and in fact translated into bizarre scientifically-predictable non-musical languages, and then mechanically regurgitated to create an audio wav that we find pleasing. I wouldn't be too worried about anything else after all that. ;)

I could probably start a new thread about this, focusing on arranging, but it occurred to me that as an arranger, whether I do a demo or write a chart, as much as I love the beauty of collaboration--it's my arrangement, and I want it played the way I want it played. Free jazz notwithstanding, think about it--my favorite arranger in jazz is the late Don Grolnick. When I hear one of his arrangements, I know almost instantly that it is his. Why would he want players putting their own spins on his musical intentions? he has a sound, and it's a great sound--why not try to re-create the sound he had in his head instead of trying to 'improve' it without even understanding what he was going for in the first place?

And of course, I'm not talking about subsequent versions, just the original ones that he himself was involved with.

Contrary to popular belief, most General MIDI sounds, such as SmartMusic Soft Synth, which comes with Finale, do not sound that bad. The problem is that most people do not use a major tool which helps make MIDI sound more real: reverb. MIDI sounds without reverb consist of attack and sustain, but little or no release (meaning that the instrument's release isn't tapered), which is what gives good old natural, acoustic sound its characteristic ring (not literally a ring; you know what I mean :)). Adding reverb to some crummy sounding MIDI does wonders. If you haven't been using it, try it today :toothygrin:; reverb capabilities are built into every Finale version (and, I assume, all Sibelius versions).

i think midi is a good tool. i myself am not the greatest piano player, so when i have a complicated accompaniment part to work out, i like to use midi to play around with ideas, rhythms, etc.

its nice to be able to hear rough outlines of orchestration of how the individual parts might sound... it makes the first rehearsal go much smoother because you don't have to worry about rhythmic/harmonic notational issues, as you've already worked through those...

the problem with midi is its just a tool... a poster above was making the argument that a good "live" midi performance (and i think he's using midi in a much different context that most, by playing into it live, so its a "recording" except with better samples) is as good as a live recording with mics. that may be true, but a live recording is never as good as the real thing regardless of whether its midi, .wav, .mp3, cd, cassette or Vinyl.

nothing is as good as a real performance.