From: jacob@max.cc.brandeis.edu ( )
Subject: electr. in class. music (was Re: Why no amplified solos?)
Organization: Brandeis University Math Department
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:20:15 GMT

incidentally i was wondering (in a related vein) if anyone
has heard of attempts to use electronics to do some of the following:

1. the evolution of the technique of singing since the 17th c.
   was largely driven by opera and the necessity for a soloist
   to have a large enough sound to be heard in a theater.
   even if styles other than operatic do not strictly
   speaking have such requirements, the technique in all areas
   of art song seems to me to have been influenced by operatic
   technique. isn't it possible that the requirement
   for volume makes it so that smaller voices but with very beautiful
   timbre never make it and we never get to hear them ?..

   (incidentally i've never heard of operas recorded by artists
   who were not in the same time live performing stars, while in principle
   there's no technical reason why this should always be the case --
   a singer might have a very beautiful voice, just not big enough to
   sing opera -- although i understand why this *is* the case -- but i don't
   think that in this age of the cd the concept of recording-only opera
   artists should be so preposterous, especially if they deliver really
   something special in terms of everything but volume)

   another advantage would be that this could permit the use of
   a techique that wouldn't make it sound as though purcell's "dido & aeneas"
   was sung in norwegian. in my experience art song diction is great
   for italian, german or russian, but is *never* *easily* understandable
   and sometimes verges on the ludicrous in english or french. i'm not
   suggesting *replacing* art song pronunciation but simply making more
   options available.

   in any case my point is that using (wireless) mikes this requirement
   for a large voice can be in some circumstances eliminated.
   i understand that it is not the same thing in a live peformance,
   where this is to be seen as a trade off basically, but i would say
   it is pretty much the same in all media that go thru recordings -- after
   all then all voices go thru mikes.

2. it is well known some of the earlier instruments (viols, clavichord,
   recorders, lutes) are at a disadvantage in terms of volume when playing
   with an orchestra. amplification can remove this handicap to a certain
   extent. (to what purpose? good question. i don't know. i can imagine
   someone wanting to perform a bach harpsichord concerto on the clavichord
   at carnegie hall. whatever. i'm asking a question & i'm sure that if
   anyone comes up with an answer, the answer will have the purpose built in)

3. i would imagine that it should be possible today to construct an organ
   with the same (pneumatic) action as a traditional organ but which would
   be, to use midi lingo, "touch sensitive", that is where you could play
   loud and soft separately on every key. i'm not extremely familiar with
   organ technology but i would guess that volume (which it is possible to
   increase but over the whole keyboard) is simply a function of the velocity
   with which the air goes into the pipe which should be itself a function
   of the pressure of the air in the whatever holds it before the player
   presses the key and releases it into the pipe. now with current technology
   (if all the above assumptions are true) i don't see why it wouldn't be
   possible to construct an organ where every pipe has a small pump and the
   key directly controlls the pressure at which the air is pumped into the
   pipe,... (not only that, but the "release velocity" can also control the
   reduction of the pressure!)

   wouldn't that produce an incredibly sensitive instrument?
   it would be interesting to hear old organ works on such an instrument.