Re: Bug in articulate.ly

[H. S. Teoh]

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:40:29PM +0100, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> Am 28.02.2015 um 20:11 schrieb H. S. Teoh:
[...]
> >Another example is that you could indicate "tempo rubato" and then
> >specify as interpretation one of the many possible actual tempo(s) that
> >would be used for rendering the MIDI.
>
> If I may chime in with my opinion on this: there may be some point in
> translating articulations into midi, but tempo rubato is in itself
> meant to be subjective and thus marks the point where a human
> performer cannot and must not be replaced by a machine. Thus I find
> the sketched approach more than a little absurd, if you permit the
> remark. It’s neither possible, nor rewarding, nor even desirable to
> substitute real music making by electronic simulation, (at least for
> most kinds of music, and certainly every music which can be reasonably
> typeset with lilypond belongs in this category).
[...]

I agree with you that a human performer cannot and must not be replaced
by a machine. But I don't see this so much as the machine replacing the
human, but rather the human coding his performance into the machine.
Sorta like recording a human performer on a MIDI device, except on an
even higher level, where I get to tweak almost every note (should I wish
to) to a precision beyond my own capabilities to perform. The intent is
not that the MIDI becomes "the correct interpretation" of the score,
supplanting the human performer's role, but rather a "representative" or
"sample" interpretation as preprogrammed by me. The score remains open
to interpretation, but the MIDI gives an idea of what a real
interpretation might sound like.


T

-- 
Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things, because that 
would also stop them from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn