>** 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. ;)
** i suppose i should have been more precise in my wording of this. how about "pure sine waves"? that is, not mixing of numerous sine waves bu just pitch frequency series played by pure sine waves - - that sounds boring to me. ymmv. (and the fft may "demonstrate," but what do *your* ears tell *you*?)
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.
** i guess it depends if you call triggering one note on that keyboard "playing." i wouldn't. to me what you just described is a midi-triggering event (see your comments below), not actually playing the instrument, which would require more than one note in succession - - or the usage of that one note in the context of being played with other people in time or space, in which case it would definitely sound different depending on the person playing it (and whcih i would call "playing"). and you are only discussing the variables in playing things that are mostly (midi or not) triggered sounds, i'm not sure that you would necessarily sample those items. don't you usually sample more traditional instruments being played by people, or electronic instruments as used in an already existing pices of music? it seems to me that the reason *you* would sample those would be because of the non-generic and personaliazed sound of those events.
>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.
** i'm not convinced that a sample can really truly capture that "essence," but this is probably a whole other kettle of fish.
>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.
** don't necessarily disagree - - most of the samples people use tend to be of "natural" occurences (i.e., people playing instruments, singing or talking, or sounds that occur in real space and time - - city sounds, nature sounds, etc.).
Samples capture *some* of the
original's emotional content, which can be carried over for further
** interesting, this almost seems to be somewhat contrary to your statement above - - or maybe that's what i'm driving at.
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
** the interesting thing that strikes me *right now* about this whole sampling thing - - in terms of how i understand *your* usage of it - - is that is *referential* rather than *generational* . . . in other words it doesn't necessarily *generate* any new information (particularly emotional), rather it *refers* back to someone else's generation and attempts to recontextualize it. not a bad thing and obviously a useful one to many people, but it definitely presents a grind to me.