] [Thread Prev
Re: Basic intro (OT)
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:59:42 -0400, "Liebig, Steuart A."
>** i think that i'm not even talking about frequencies - - you could just
>deal with sine waves, and that could be pretty boring, no?
Of course not! As the FFT demonstrates, *all* sound is essentially just
a series of sine waves. ;)
>there's so much more information in any given note played on an
>- and even when the same instrument is played by a different person in the
>same room in the same basic time frame.
Not when you strip away all the options. A piano-voice D on a portable
keyboard that doesn't have velocity sensitivity or aftertouch will sound
exactly the same no matter who plays it, just as a sample would if all
you did was press the "play" button. Different environments provide
different options; when you press the D on a piano harder, it makes
certain things happen. I can make roughly the same things happen, but I
have to modify several parameters to do that. It's not as quick, as
easy, or as visually impressive -- in fact, it looks really stupid.
>does a sample really capture all of that?? i don't know.
It captures it from the original performer, insofar as it is expressed
purely in the audio. The guy who uses the sample, however, adds his own
expression (or lack thereof) and can modify that content.
>do you feel that
>there is nuance and humanity in your samples? does it matter to you?
I feel there's a great deal more nuance and humanity in samples than
there is in a MIDI-triggered performance. Samples capture *some* of the
original's emotional content, which can be carried over for further
effect. Duplicating a performance by MIDI, no matter how carefully done,
always feels just a little sterile. And if I don't quite feel what the
original performer was feeling, playing it myself isn't going to feel
right to a listener either. Of course, if I want to DRASTICALLY alter
the emotional content of a piece, chances are I'll have to play it