John Froome wrote: The interesting point (for me) is that Bartok really was, along with Ravel, one of the top virtuosos of all times in the writing thing, which means that you "just" (it's the most difficult part actually) need to play it as it's written, with no rendition added ; that's precisely the type of tasks at which computers are out of match.
I completely disagree.
A piece of music, even by the great masters, will sound like cacophonic crap if not played musically.
You can easily test this yourself. Sequence (or download a MIDI sequence of) your favourite orchestral piece, and let it play just like that, a "perfect" computer written rendition, with no expression, no dynamics, no emotion, etc...
How do you like the results?
In lieu of real musicians, we studio composers MUST inject all that humanity artificially in the form of, first of all, nice, credible performances. Also in the form of dynamics, phrasing, accents, articulations, emotional shapes, etc. And we have the tools to (re)create all that artificially, thanks to technology> We do all this music editing all the time!
Music without those properties is not music; it's just a bunch of sounds!
So it is your job, as a composer, to inject that dosis of "illusion of reality" into your productions if you want your music to transmit anything musical and meaningful, let alone credible...
What do you mean? You obviously will use it from beginning to end. You will marry this instrument for the duration of this project, obviously.John Froome wrote: Still, I don't really get where in the process you describe is the Ivory part taking place..?
If it's a solo piano piece, you will deal with your instrument of choice all the time.
