I have read the posts with interest.
It is obvious that many statements are being made about Sinfonia out of a lack of understanding about the system, the realities of professional musical production. I would like to help clarify these points.
First, my background (briefly!). I hold three degrees in music (composition and electronic music), was a symphonic violinist for twenty years, am active in composition for both electronic and traditional ensembles, and have spent the last fifteen years researching orchestral simulation in live environments. I feel qualified to speak about the aesthetics and philosophy of musical production with anyone.
Second, modern professional musicals have been using pit enhancement technologies for decades. Whether it consists of synthesizer keyboards, tape playback, or reduced orchestrations, one finds that it is impossible to in most cases to provide the original orchestration the composer intended. The question then becomes: what type of technology will provide the most realistic and musically compelling solution?
Third, Sinfonia is constantly referred to as a "device" or "machine". People compain that the computer can not replace the performer. This analogy does not hold. In reality, Sinfonia is a musical instrument: it is performed by a skilled musician that must follow the score and practice their part. The hallmark of Sinfonia is its complete tempo flexibility: the instrument responds to detailed temporal nuance only because of how the sinfonist performs it each night. Thus, the better analogy is to the violin, not the violinist.
Fourth, Sinfonia is an ensemble instrument: it sounds best in conjunction with other musicians. It would be unfair to require ANY one instrument to be judged on its ability to provide a full blown orchestral experience: surely this should not be the criterion of newer musical instruments as well.
Finally, the philosophical approach to Sinfonia R&D. It is the intention to analyze musical output of live performance, and remove from the performer's consideration all aspects that are fixed, and allow realtime control of those aspects that should be malleable in performance. Thus, the actual pitches, rhythms and orchestrations of a piece, which will not change, can be taken over by aspects of the instrument/instrumentalist symbiosis most appropriate to deterministic processes. The nuance and interpretation that change from performance to performance, such as tempo, blend, and level, can be played by the human component.
I hope these points help dispell some of the misinterpretations that have emerged on this thread
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Sinfonia sits on a Linux platform (Slackware 7, kernel 2.2.13).
I have read the posts with interest. It is obvious that many statements are being made about Sinfonia out of a lack of understanding about the system, the realities of professional musical production. I would like to help clarify these points. First, my background (briefly!). I hold three degrees in music (composition and electronic music), was a symphonic violinist for twenty years, am active in composition for both electronic and traditional ensembles, and have spent the last fifteen years researching orchestral simulation in live environments. I feel qualified to speak about the aesthetics and philosophy of musical production with anyone. Second, modern professional musicals have been using pit enhancement technologies for decades. Whether it consists of synthesizer keyboards, tape playback, or reduced orchestrations, one finds that it is impossible to in most cases to provide the original orchestration the composer intended. The question then becomes: what type of technology will provide the most realistic and musically compelling solution? Third, Sinfonia is constantly referred to as a "device" or "machine". People compain that the computer can not replace the performer. This analogy does not hold. In reality, Sinfonia is a musical instrument: it is performed by a skilled musician that must follow the score and practice their part. The hallmark of Sinfonia is its complete tempo flexibility: the instrument responds to detailed temporal nuance only because of how the sinfonist performs it each night. Thus, the better analogy is to the violin, not the violinist. Fourth, Sinfonia is an ensemble instrument: it sounds best in conjunction with other musicians. It would be unfair to require ANY one instrument to be judged on its ability to provide a full blown orchestral experience: surely this should not be the criterion of newer musical instruments as well. Finally, the philosophical approach to Sinfonia R&D. It is the intention to analyze musical output of live performance, and remove from the performer's consideration all aspects that are fixed, and allow realtime control of those aspects that should be malleable in performance. Thus, the actual pitches, rhythms and orchestrations of a piece, which will not change, can be taken over by aspects of the instrument/instrumentalist symbiosis most appropriate to deterministic processes. The nuance and interpretation that change from performance to performance, such as tempo, blend, and level, can be played by the human component. I hope these points help dispell some of the misinterpretations that have emerged on this thread