Rehersal time?

[debra]

Why wouldnit difficult to play a song together that you already can play?
Why not just play your part you already know?
Why would it be difficult to play a song in a group even if you already know the song?

The main problem with music is that music notation is a very poor representation of what the composer/arranger had in mind when writing it down. Notes are written down, some hints about dynamics too, legato, staccato, etc. but what cannot be written down is the "music".
In order to turn notes into music the players need to reach consensus on how exactly they want the song to sound, Without changing anything in the arrangement at all we still need a very long time, playing and debating, in order to reach the sound we jointly want to achieve.
When I make arrangements I use Musescore and I it can play the notes that are written down. Everything that is in the music notation is reproduced as sound, and it sounds exactly like a computer plays music notation. There is nothing really "wrong" in what Musescore plays, but there is also absolutely nothing "right", because what I want to hear I cannot write down in music notation.

 

[Ventura]

In order to turn notes into music..

I like that

 

[Ventura]

before we get to Carnegie Hall

count on Tom to help us keep it light and keep smiling

but you know, just because we are local players and it is NOT Carnegie Hall
or the Albert Hall or even Valkenburg on the weekend we can nevertheless
be as professional as any famous artist and give it all we've got

 

[Siegmund]

The main problem with music is that music notation is a very poor representation of what the composer/arranger had in mind when writing it down. Notes are written down, some hints about dynamics too, legato, staccato, etc. but what cannot be written down is the "music".

I would have said "a slightly deficient representation" rather than "a very poor" one, though it does depend on how careful the composer is. He can get away with not writing stuff down if he knows what the players will do on their own, or if he is there himself to tell them what to do.

The notation is capable of quite detailed notes about dynamics and articulation, though it is hard to teach playback software to handle articulation the same way humans do (sometimes that software only offers us 3 choices, "staccato or normal or slurred", rather than the 6 or 8 we might wish for.)

I would be interested to hear more about about what you wish you could write down but can't.

I've known quite a few composers who deliberately don't try to write everything down, because they want to let certain elements spontaneously unfold --- but usually the ones who are frustrated at not being able to write stuff down find ways to write it down.

In order to turn notes into music the players need to reach consensus on how exactly they want the song to sound, Without changing anything in the arrangement at all we still need a very long time, playing and debating, in order to reach the sound we jointly want to achieve.

A can't help wishing for more time thinking about how the composer wanted it to sound, and less time thinking about how the players want to change it. It doesn't solve everything, and you still may not agree when he's not around / not alive, but it limits the scope of the debate some.

When I make arrangements I use Musescore and I it can play the notes that are written down. Everything that is in the music notation is reproduced as sound, and it sounds exactly like a computer plays music notation. There is nothing really "wrong" in what Musescore plays, but there is also absolutely nothing "right", because what I want to hear I cannot write down in music notation.

I, on the other hand, will take a computer realization over an amateur human performance almost every time. I value precision in performances. I feel most the limitations of computer playback are caused by how time-consuming it is to tell a computer exactly what you want - while most the limitations of live performances are caused by players playing things wrong (whether it's from lack of preparation or lack of ability or willful disregard for what the composer asked for.)

I daresay my dislike of Rolands comes from the same source. If I have to put up with synthesized sounds instead of real-instrument sounds, I want a perfomer who never miscounts and never plays wrong notes to play the synthesizer.

 

[Dingo40]

I wonder how much rehearsal this required?

 

[debra]

I would have said "a slightly deficient representation" rather than "a very poor" one, though it does depend on how careful the composer is. He can get away with not writing stuff down if he knows what the players will do on their own, or if he is there himself to tell them what to do.

...

I respectfully disagree. Music interpretation goes way beyond anything you can write down in music notation. And for things you write down there is no standard interpretation either. Just as an example: There are terms like staccatissimo, staccato, half-staccato, leggiero, portato, legato, legatissimo... What do all these terms mean for the exact duration of a note (versus the note length represented by the note itself?) I have talked to music teachers and I was very surprised about how wrong their answers are. When children first learn music notation they learn about a quarter note and then staccato. The note takes the full duration and the staccato is half of that duration. This could not be further from the truth... If the staccato were half then a staccato quarter note would be the same as an eight note followed by an eight rest. The real duration of a note is so very different, and it depends on the music itself. Sometimes a staccato is not so short, sometimes it is shorter. Leggiero has many different interpretations as well... The notes played by an ensemble only become music when all the players agree on the same duration of each note, so they not only start the note at the same time but also end it at the same time.
On the accordion we have complete control of the dynamics of a note while it sounds (unlike for instance on a piano). We thus need to agree on how we "attack" the note, how the volume changes while the note plays, and how we end a note (which is more than just the choice between letting go of the key or stopping the bellows pressure)... There is just soooooo much about the interpretation that indeed what you can write down is very poor. Still, it is just enough to allow skilled musicians to play the notes and think for themselves how to play the notes so they become music.
I can understand that you may prefer a "computer realization over an amateur human performance every time" but I think it's an exaggeration. Every computer realization is very poor and for me at least completely unacceptable. I must be very fortunate in knowing many amateurs who can do much better than a computer realization. Even when not everything they play is 100% correct according to the music score putting the music into the performance often improves the overall experience much more than the few errors (in notes or rhythm) take away from the experience.
I try to provide a recording with each of my arrangements so that people can get a vague impression how the arrangement could sound when played by a group of amateur players (who do not play mistakes). I also listen to what Musescore makes of my arrangements. I may not be a very good accordion player, but my own recordings are way way way more enjoyable to listen to than anything Musescore playback can make of them.

 

[jozz]

I would be interested to hear more about about what you wish you could write down but can't.

syncopation for one

the "feel" of the music played together hugely depends on it
the exact moment the singer comes in
take Sinatra, everybody covers him mostly on the count, but he was rarely on the count. But these minute differences are almost impossible to put down on paper unless you go down to 1/64th notes or something

This is what gives character and identity to a performance.

In rehearsal you can get a handle on that, and you will stray away from the dots a lot of the time

 

[Siegmund]

I feel bad that this came up with you, Paul: I have a great deal of respect for your arrangements and your playing - you pay more attention to the composer's intentions than almost any other arranger.

I appreciate that both of you took a calmer and friendlier tone in your posts than I did in my last one. I apologize if I came across as rude. Excessive interpretation added to music is a real hot-button issue for me.

And for things you write down there is no standard interpretation either. Just as an example: There are terms like staccatissimo, staccato, half-staccato, leggiero, portato, legato, legatissimo... What do all these terms mean for the exact duration of a note

Part of the problem here is that for a given time period and a given instrument, there often is a standard interpretation -- but it's not the same for every instrument. The other part of the problem is that when we write for computers, we have to give instructions for things like "exact duration" while when we write for humans, we give instructions for physical actions.

If you want to give a string player exact instructions, you need to tell him whether he begins a note by striking the string, or with his bow already on the string; and whether he ends it by letting the bow bounce freely (if the string was struck), by lifting the bow, by stopping the bow while it's on the string, or by keeping the bow moving until the next note begins. The length of the note is a consequence of the physical action. Similarly if you want to give a woodwind player exact instructions, you tell him whether he tongues the beginning of each note (necessarily creating a space between notes) or blows continuously.
There are words to write in the parts for these things - but they are not used much because within a given genre the interpretation is very standardized.

A particular problem for computer playback is that to a string player, the tenuto mark usually means "stop the bow on the string, creating a tiny bit of space between this note and the next" -- that is, make the note distinctly shorter than a fully legato note, but not nearly as short as staccato -- while to a keyboardist it may mean to hold the note extra long. Same kind of story for staccato-under-a-slur: keyboard conventions are different (and non-keyboardists often won't know the keyboard conventions just as the keyboardists won't know string conventions.) Some computer software lets you specify how to translate articulation marks into note lengths -- but I don't know of any that lets you specify different rules for different instruments.

I have the feeling that accordion never quite got to the point of having its own set of widely agreed conventions, which is part of why it's hard to write precisely for accordionists.

If the staccato were half then a staccato quarter note would be the same as an eight note followed by an eight rest.

If the tempo is slow enough that one can hear the difference between a staccato (left to player's interpretation) quarter and an eighth, yes, one needs to choose which to write. (Incidentally, in a string part, we're likely to interpret a staccato quarter in slow tempo as lifting our bow and letting the note ring, vs. eighth - eighth rest as an instruction to stop our bow on the string and kill the sound.)

Frosini is particularly commendable in this regard. Even in a fast 6/8 he is careful to distinguish quarter-eighth from eighth - eighth rest - eighth. Not many people will take the trouble to write out 100 eighth rests.

Still, it is just enough to allow skilled musicians to play the notes and think for themselves how to play the notes so they become music.

I think where we differ is that you expect the musicians to take some considerable time thinking about these choices. As a composer, if I don't write in those details, it's because I think there is one obvious interpretation and I expect players to default to what I want without me telling them. If I put it in front of a player and they do something different than I expect, I am going to be revising the music to make my intentions clearer.

I must be very fortunate in knowing many amateurs who can do much better than a computer realization.

There are fewer ways to play an accordion badly than there are to play a violin or a horn badly. If you push the right button and move the bellows, something quite close to the intended sound comes out.

My computer is a much better violinist than I ever was, even after playing for 30 years. I test passages on my violin to see if bowings and fingerings work, but not to hear what they sound like, not unless I want to sink the whole afternoon into trying to get it to sound good enough I don't want to cover my own ears.

It has been an exciting new thing for me, that on accordion, I can actually pick up the instrument and try something out to see how it sounds.

take Sinatra, everybody covers him mostly on the count, but he was rarely on the count. But these minute differences are almost impossible to put down on paper unless you go down to 1/64th notes or something

This is what gives character and identity to a performance.

Here we are solidly in we'll-have-to-agree-to-disagree territory.

If your name isn't Frank Sinatra, not being on the count generally means you need to learn how to count better before you inflict yourself on the public. If your name isn't Bob Dylan, not being in tune generally means you need to learn how to sing in tune before you inflict yourself on the public.

When famous musicians get away with, and get rewarded for, doing stuff that any beginner would be scolded for doing, it takes away from my enjoyment of the music, doesn't add to it.

In rehearsal you can get a handle on that, and you will stray away from the dots a lot of the time

Here again our experiences are wildly at variance.
The vast majority of my private practice time, and my ensemble rehearsal time, is about getting closer to the dots, not farther from them.

Re specifically being on the beat - a particular difficulty of instruments like tubas and french horns is that they are a little bit slow to speak (as well as often being placed at the back of the stage, about 1/40th of a second farther from the audience than the violins) and quite often they need admonished to anticipate the beat a bit in their heads, so that their actual sound production coincides with the beat.
I was mercifully spared the need to do that, playing violin -- but I have come face to face with that problem with the bottom octave of my L reeds on my accordion: they are so slow to speak the button needs pressed something like a sixteenth note early if I want to hear the sound on time. It is really hard to get a legato sound in that register since it requires some overlapping of the time the keys are depressed, rather than just taking care not to release one key before depressing the next.

Ah, to have one of the better quality instruments that would alleviate at least some of that.

 

[Dingo40]

Phew!
Reminds me of a story told to us by our workplace manager many years ago.
He and his young family were on a touring holiday in their VW camper van when his six year old son asked a question he took to be about the birds and bees.
Nothing daunted, he launched into an explanation he thought would cover the needs of the moment .
There followed a moment of incredulous silence after which his son said,
"I don't think I'll ever be able to manage it, Daddy!"
The point being, we can always overthink something!