Heavenly / Hellish Hautbois!
I present, without comment, a simple little phrase played 1st by the oboe from the old MuseScore Soundfonts Library, and 2nd by the Muse Sounds - Muse Woodwinds oboe.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Raphael's Oboe.mscz | 18.88 KB |
| Beelzebub's Oboe.mscz | 18.91 KB |
Comments
I don't hear anything in Raphael. What does this prove?
No comment, eh.
There is no solid definition of the tenuto/staccato marking. Only that the notes should be separated. The Muse oboe does separate the notes. Just not as much as you might like. Did you try it without the markings?
Personally, I find the Muse oboe to be more musical. Perfect? Not at all. There are certainly problems with Muse Sounds. But at least they are not dull and boring.
In reply to No comment, eh. There is no… by bobjp
What do you mean "Did I try it without the markings?" The whole point of presenting these examples is to compare how the two audio systems deal with markings!
Of course there's no "solid definition" of any musical marking. In real (i.e., human) music-making, even the most common and basic markings/instructions have a huge range of valid interpretations. One "forte" can be considerably louder (or softer) (or more varied) than another "forte" -- even within a single performance of a single piece by a single player! SImilarly, the tenuto/staccato marking can never be assigned a value that will equally well apply to all instances of its use by all musicians at all times. I take that as a given. I also have no expectation of "perfection"! (Trust me!) But I do have expectations, and that is the point.
What I am saying, and trying to demonstrate with my little oboe examples, is that the programmer or designer who assigned the values for the old oboe Soundfont made objectively better choices than the designer of the new MuseSound oboe. I can say that because the goal in assigning these values is not to achieve some vague quality you call "musicality" (whatever that may be!) or to make the lives of MuseScore users less "dull and boring"! The goal in assigning durations to articulation markings and volume levels to dynamic markings -- and the reason why these and thousands of other unquantifiable things must be quantified, in a computer program that is supposed to be able to interpret and "perform" music notation -- is to create predictable outcomes that correspond to the most widespread, generally-held expectations of the greatest possible number of musicians who will use the software!
The problem with the Muse oboe is that its interpretation of standard musical markings is unexpected, unpredictable, and inconsistent. As you yourself say, the one thing about "tenuto/staccato" that everybody can agree on is that the notes so marked must be separated from the notes that follow them -- not separated as much as staccato notes would be, but separated. Well, Beelzebub doesn't separate the F from the D: it "tongues" the D really hard (as it did the downward skip of E to C in the previous bar -- I daresay that is a mannerism that is built into this font), but it doesn't put any actual silence between the notes. Then it slurs the D to the C -- so no separation at all -- while adding an inexplicable dynamic accent to the D! And as for the opening note of the example: if a staccato dot turns a quarter-note into a 16th, there can be no possible use for a staccatissimo wedge.
In terms of articulation, dynamic levels and use of vibrato, the old soundfont is what one expects, and therefore it is better.
In reply to What do you mean "Did I try… by doc867qu
I still don't hear anything in Raphael so am missing the point of your argument.
In reply to What do you mean "Did I try… by doc867qu
So no, You didn't try it without your markings. You set up a scenario that you knew Muse sounds would fail. good job. I am sorry you value precision over Musicality. I forgot. You don't know what that means. Notation software is not intended to interpret and perform music notation. It is intended to produce notation.
I don't think it is the font that interprets the notation. It is how the software works with the font. Yes, Muse sounds need work. They are much better than when MU4 first came out.
I agree that the basic font interprets your example differently than Muse sounds. It's hard for me to judge which is better (musical) (oops sorry ). Because I would never write anything like that.
I don't care how accurately a font reads notation. Basic sounds are dull and flat and uninspiring. I worked on may things in MU3. Every single one of them sounds better in MU4 with Muse sounds. Every one.
In reply to What do you mean "Did I try… by doc867qu
I tried out your examples and I completely agree. It sounded exactly as you describe (not good). I agree with you, I'm pretty frustrated musesounds. It's always excuse after excuse, but at the end of the day it doesn't render simple passages accurately, let alone musically. And it isn't predictable. It's a real problem but people don't want to hear it because of ego and because you can write a lush orchestral score that favors MuseSounds and hides mistakes. You can make it sound good, but the simple errors in it need to be addressed.
In reply to What do you mean "Did I try… by doc867qu
You wrote:
"...the programmer or designer who assigned the values for the old oboe Soundfont made objectively better choices than the designer of the new MuseSound oboe." [emphasis from original]
There is nothing that is "objective" in music (or any other art form). Everything is subjective!
In reply to You wrote: "...the… by TheHutch
You are confusing human music-making (an art which is indeed full of subjectivity) with the physical, acoustical elements of music -- the frequencies, durations, loudness, attack, decay, reverberation, and all the other properties of musical sounds -- which can be measured and discussed in strictly empirical and objective terms. This forum is not about human music-making, but the computer-generated artificial playback of a written score. My assessment of the two oboe sounds was not based on any subjective opinion about which one "sounds nicer" which is more "musical", "expressive", or "subtle." I simply compared the two in terms of their ability to execute certain instructions that a MuseScore user might give them (in the form of articulation markings, dynamics, etc.). The old soundfont interpreted the instructions given to it more accurately, more consistently, and more predictably than the new MuseSounds oboe. The MuseSounds oboe actually ignored some of the instructions given to it, overriding them with behaviours built in to the patch by the programmers. (Violins and other patches do the same.) Therefore, in terms of its function within this software, the old one was better. Objectively.
In reply to You are confusing human… by doc867qu
I submit that "computer-generated artificial playback" is also an art form. Just with different tools. To make good playback with any software is an art form. The decisions you make about how to get good playback are not the same ones I would make. Is that not Subjective? I have already agreed that Basic sounds executed your articulations much more accurately than Muse sounds. But there is more to making music than articulations. Even on a computer. If the accurate, though lifeless interpretation of the Basic oboe fits what you like, that's fine.
Of course there needs to be further work done. At the risk of sounding like a dreaded apologist, you should have heard the original sounds. They have come a long way.