 |
|
The theme of this article: If one wants to PRODUCE a modest midi recording--with a straight melody line and conventional harmonies for personal use, that is fine. BUT, if one wants to CREATE something extraordinary... there are many methods and tools to help achieve this. A song which you produce for the Internet can be listened to by hundreds of thousands of people, therefore it should showcase not only your musical talents but also your sequencing skills. It is our intent to motivate those who wish to improve the end product by utilizing the many sources of information available. Many of the tools and techniques discussed herein will be demonstrated in depth at the Workshops and Seminars here at the MIDI Studio Consortium's Faculty of MIDI Music.
It seems like yesterday. Bright young people had just discovered how to link synthesizers by means of patch cables. Then, other possibilities appeared. Such as coupling an electronic keyboard to a desktop computer, and thus generating musical sounds that could be recorded digitally, edited, reproduced. Midi-computing was born, and it’s still experiencing growing-pains as it matures.
Over the past ten years, the pace of technological change has been astonishing: sequencing programs, accompaniment applications, notation software, sampling techniques... Incredible, sometimes astounding, electronic gadgetry.
Simultaneously (a punster might say, "On another track") digital music has developed dramatically. Libraries of classics in midi format emerged (in Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Australia, etc.), providing us with convenient means of enjoying the genius and talent of Mozart, Jerome Kern, and contemporary musicians.
Just a few years ago, only a few midi sites existed--places where midi files were available for downloading. This phenomenon is exploding, worldwide. It is the caliber of these recordings, the quality of the music, that may now deserve a little more attention. At least to a degree comparable to our infatuation with sound cards, configuration controls, reset switches, midi channels, drivers, banks of sound modules.
Consider, for example, the state of popular midi music.
Few of us are fortunate to have been born musical prodigies. Or brilliant composers. Or ingenious arrangers. Or gifted musicians. Nevertheless, virtually all of us who labor in the arena of midi-computing love music. Sometimes because it’s exhilarating. Or pleasant. Or inspiring. Or for other reasons. Fun, for example.
Moreover, we have our own musical preferences. Charlie, over there, may prefer a steel-string guitar lead because it's more emphatic. Sam may like a nylon-string instrument because it's mellow. Henry might find a string-section intrusive. Taste, like beauty, seems to be quite individualistic.
Nonetheless, as one meanders around the Internet, one senses a continuum
in midi recordings, ranging from the banal (commonplace, dreary, trite)
to the extraordinary (remarkable, outstanding, exceptional).
Banal <---<----------------------------->--->
Extraordinary
There are carpenters, chefs, plumbers, seamstresses, neurosurgeons, computer-programmers, airline pilots... And there are distinguished neurosurgeons, superior chefs, exceptional seamstresses, skillful pilots...
It's the same with those of us who struggle to put together midi song files. Whatever the scope and limits of our ability, most of us try to create something notable, something worth listening to. We aspire to a better musical performance, a more interesting orchestral arrangement, something authentic that will impress others.
But Nelson Riddle, Quincy Jones, Oscar Peterson, Itzhak Perlman, Yo Yo Ma, Wynton Marsalis we ain't. What’s left? Perhaps only a resolve to do our best with the ability we have. To stretch for quality musical recordings. Not necessarily fancy works of art. Just good sounds.
And some people are achieving this. One need only visit the libraries in the Classical Midi Archives in Hong Kong [www.prs.net/midi.html] or the Piano Education Page in New Mexico [www.unm.edu/~loritaf/pnoedmn.html] to recognize how brilliantly musicians are recreating sonatas, preludes, rhapsodies, etudes, nocturnes... All with the computer applications we use.
In the field of popular music (rock, jazz, country, ballroom, Latin, etc.) there are internet sites where the midi files are delicious to hear.
If big-band arrangements are a genre you enjoy, Gary Wachtel’s site is worth a visit [http://garyw0001.com].
In various parts of the world, some composers are creating original pieces that display considerable talent and imagination. And some midi files on the Internet are professional-sounding piano solos--with skillfully embellished chord harmonies. There is some ingenious guitar improvisation here and there.
But...
Unfortunately, much of the popular music recorded in the midi mode, in realtime or by means of step recording, is somewhat disappointing. The song files are what jazz musicians refer to as "bread and butter" arrangements. A few chords and an awkward one-note melody line. Perhaps they have been assembled hurriedly, or too casually. Perhaps there's more wannabe than dedication. But the result, too often, is a display of something with insufficient substance.
So, what can we do about this? How can we match the triumphant progress
of midi technology with a corresponding improvement in our musical achievment?
Lacking the option of enrolling in a Department of Musicology at an Ivy-league university, we will focus on the tools that are readily available, our sequencing programs, for instance.
Utilize the features more fully: Sequencers, like computers themselves, have a multitude of features that some of us overlook. Like reverb, which controls the depth effect of a selected instrument. And panning, which moves the focus from, say, one section of an orchestra to another. Here is what Gary Wachtel has to say about these features: "Reverb (#91) is one of the most powerful controller messages one can add to...sequences. ... How much you use depends on the type of music..."
"Panning," he says, "is a must for all types of music."
There are an array of other features that can differentiate the banal sequence from something extraordinary. Some instruments are simply too loud; some are timid-sounding. So, we have to distinguish velocity (key pressure) from volume (loudness), and use each controller appropriately. To complicate matters, the default settings for some instruments are sometimes in the wrong registers, bass, for instance. Solution: transpose them an octave.
A "wooden-sounding" arrangement may lack expression, which can be manipulated by Controller # 11.
If one can read musical notation, one has the opportunity to scrutinize this display in a sequencer. Can the chord harmonies be strengthend? Would the addition of a counter-melody make the song more tuneful? Is the sax section voiced properly? Does it sound harsh? Do the snare-drum beats jar and irritate us, or impel us to kick off our shoes and start dancing?
Consider some of the other wonderful tools that are available in most sequencing software. The Tempo setting, allowing us to avoid extremes in musical performance (too frenetic; too listless). The Transpose switch. The Retry button (keep or cancel a take). The Drum sound display. The Note-duration window (sometimes labelled the "Piano Roll.") The Event list (which allows copious editing of key signatures, patch changes, text events...) The animated graphics (e.g., a "live" piano or guitar--versatile for teaching). The Notation or Score window. The Find Mistakes feature (for those occasions when we clumsily multi-strike notes). The capacity to quantize or humanize our recordings.
Accompaniment programs. Since infancy, many of us have relished the sound of music. We enjoyed singing, whistling, dancing, listening... And we liked to make music. It was an exciting moment when the computerized accompaniment programs appeared on the scene, like Band-in-a-Box. We could simply type in guitar-chords (like C7), and the computer magically offered "side-men," like bassists, drummers, piano-players... Then, as this popular computer application developed, we were presented with other ways of flaunting our expertise.
We could perform a wide-range of rhythmic styles. For Jazz, for instance, we could select big-band, Dixieland, cool, Swing... Latin style offered Bossa Nova, Chacha, Rhumba... Pop/Rock: Shuffle, Funk, Hip Hop... Country/Pop: New Age, Bouncy...
But there was more prestidigitation to come! Our melody patterns could make us sound like Wes Montgomery, Jimmy Smith, George Shearing, Les Paul, Errol Garner, Miles Davis, Joe Pass, Nat Cole... Then, when Version 7 of BIAB arrived, the mind-boggling software would create improvised solos in the style of Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong, Gary Burton, Dave McKenna...
Look, Ma, I'm making music!
And we were doing just that--thanks in large measure to this clever program. One can hardly exaggerate its profound influence in the growth of midi-computing ideas. If, on the other hand, the motivation is primarily ego-related, the scenario is easy: Pick a tune, type in the chords, select a musician to emulate, choose a soloist, then show the world how you make music.
To create midi files that reflect our ideas, we can, of course, start with the patterns of the accompaniment programs, but then we had better put our brain in gear. If the bass line sounds too chromatic (up and down the scale), lay down a new bass line. Can the brass section be made to sparkle? Is the rhythm guitar too prominent? These suggest the tweaking that may transform a stereotypical arrangement into something unique, something worthwhile. And we can begin asking those wrenching but essential questions: Is my midi song boring, tedious, artificial, muddled, amateurish, juvenile...? Or will it be memorable? Will it impress someone with taste?
Variety: Obviously originality is important, but so is variety. One might argue how significant this value is to life itself, but it does seem to add an ingredient--a seasoning--to musical arrangements. Thirty-two measures of a vibraphone lead in a popular song may be pleasant, but a few patch changes enroute, or some tasteful improvisation, might reduce monotony. Rhythmic style changes during a chorus could enliven things. Substitute chords (stronger, fuller) are available. Harmonies and chords can be embellished, for example by adding a sixth tone or a major-seventh. Unexpected silence can add variety, and sometimes relief!
One can alternate solo instruments and ensembles. One can change keys. All of these devices are part of our armamentarium when we begin the adventure of constructing a midi recording. Does the listener expect saxes, trumpets, trombones, clarinets? Surprise him with a recorder, bassoon, oboe, or a pan flute, all of which are part of the General Midi specification.
Since midi-computing is still experimental, we all have plenty of room for innovative thinking. Not infrequently we will reinvent something hackneyed, or limp. Or come up with a musical sound that is inauthentic or adulterated. Nonetheless, the opportunities for fresh ideas are there. In fact, the only real constraint is the scope of our imagination. We can produce something the equivalent of a child's computer game ("Over the wall, down the hole, splat!"), or maybe create an elegant piece of music.
Sound effects and sounds. Any sophisticated midi musician will appreciate the difference between these two creatures. Sound-effects are fun to play with, electronically. General Midi offers us presets of a tweeting bird, gunshot, applause, a helicopter, a telephone ring, etc.
Musical sounds are something else. First, and foremost, to be so qualified, they must be music.
The advent of midi (composing, arranging, performing) provided us with something ingenious. Something exhilarating. New musical sounds. On a keyboard, or in a midi arrangement, we could now combine the sounds of instruments, like merging piano and violin tones. Moreover, we could split musical effects, such as putting a string-section in the left hand voice and a solo trumpet in the right-hand. And dozens of other maneuvers. Admittedly there is something hypnotic in the possibility of inventing novel musical sounds.
But this freedom imposes some responsibility. Without seeming preachy, one can simply say: Restraint, judgment, respect for the cannons of musical composition. Sounds, not sound-effects, if the excercise is musical interpretation. A muted trombone is a musical sound (a preset on the Proteus chip). A seashore is a sound-effect.
Standard songs: Performing an old song in a traditional way is comforting for the nostalgia buff, like an old pair of shoes. But, while preserving the best, a new interpretation, new texture (e.g., different rhythmic style), new ideas, a fresh version--this might be even better.
Time and Effort: Who knows how long it took Mozart to compose his "Dissonant Quartet?"
Midi-composing, arranging, recording cannot be effectively done in a few minutes, even if one uses an Accompaniment Program as a crutch. Even if we perceive our talent as incalcuable.
Prolific isn't necessarily meritorious: This is a fancy way of pointing out that some Internet sites seem to have an over-abundance of popular midi recordings of questionable merit. More girth than muscle. As an analogy, we are reminded that a dramatic sales record may reflect effective hyperbole and marketing, not necessarily the quality of the product. Given this situation on the Internet, perhaps fewer might be better.
The vast horizon: If we have inclinations toward composing, midi-computing offers a cornucopia of possibilities. Want to write a lullaby? A waltz? A country ballad? A jump-tune, blues, bollero, march, polka...?
All such activity can be neat. Enjoyable and self-fulfilling.
There is a difference, however, between playing a song on the old upright for Aunt Matilda, and publishing it on the Internet. The latter might be a bit presumptuous.
* * * *
Surely it's downright hazardous to express sentiments like this. "Is he elitist?" "Is he prejudiced against another genre (like acid rock)?" "Is he insensitive or derisive to the aspirations of novices?"
Nope.
All of us have winced at criticism of electronic music. ("It doesn't sound like a violin!" "Get unplugged!" "Nothing can emulate the sound of an acoustical instrument!") And the critics are often right. Some patches do sound counterfeit.
Given the remarkable progress of midi technology, perhaps we should be alert to another type of criticism of some of the music we are assembling: its limitations (as well as its strength).
Of course we don't need any of the aforementioned shenanigans to create a truly intriguing midi recording, rather than a piece of fluff. But the purpose of this article has been to raise a provocative question: Are our midi recordings of popular music all they might be?
If one lacks professional scores (like Gary Wachtel skillfully uses), there's a scary element of trial and error. Cacophony? Dissonance? Is the composition derivative (a euphemism for stolen)? Is the tune cloying? Painful though it might be: (1) Deep breath; (2) Delete; (3) try again.
None of these comments should be interpreted as condescension. The intent is to improve what we are developing. If there are techniques, tips, tricks, procedures to produce respectable music, to move the body of our work along the continuum from banal to extraordinary, now is the time to visit the Workshops and Seminars here at the Faculty of MIDI Music.
That is, if we’re interested in musicianship.
* * * *
Gene Confrey Ph.D
Bainbridge Island, Washington
July 1, 1998
©1998-1999 MidiStudio.com. All Rights Reserved
Created: July 5, 1998 - Last Update: July 9, 2003
This site is owned, designed and produced by Business Technologies,
operated by Les. Gorven