This was an issue on a recent thread that has been closed (with good reason), but it was just one issue among many. We didn't have much discussion of it, and nothing close to a consensus.

I had assumed that the standard and expectation for recordings of our playing that are posted is that they are straight, unenhanced representations of our playing, unless otherwise stated. In the past, people sometimes have posted edited/spliced/whatever recordings, with explanations of that, which was never any issue.

Here's the thing: Some of us may simply not be interested to listen or comment on edited/enhanced/doctored recordings. That's certainly the case for me, and I suspect it's true for some others here, probably many. If so, I would suggest that it's only fair that people should say if a posted recording is something other than straight-up playing.

I would hope that we can have some understanding, one way or the other, or something close to an understanding. Sure, people might violate it, including because of maybe just not knowing what's the expectation or standard. But at least we'd know what's the usual thing, and that people would be expected to follow it.

I would add that if there isn't a standard like what I said, I for one will be less inclined to listen or comment on posted recordings, and when I do, if it's by someone not very familiar to us, I'll always ask first if it's a straight representation or not, and after a while, others might feel like knowing it also before they spend time on something.

I'm afraid that this may appear to be an attempt to re-open the closed thread. IT ISN'T. It's just an attempt to see if there can be some clarity on the general issue -- to know if my own expectation and assumption has been mistaken, and what others think about what is the standard or what it should be.

BTW I hope one or more of the mods or admins will weigh in -- including because if it's decided that there is such a standard, it might be considered a good idea to include it in the site's stated guidelines.

I'll throw in my two cents here.

When I put up a recording, I'll say exactly what it is. I'll usually say what kind of piano, and what equipment I used to record it. If I spliced anything or enhanced anything, I'll mention that.

As far as a standard that I think everyone should adhere to, I don't mind if someone splices and doesn't mention it. Professionals apparently do it all the time in studio recordings. Anything above that should be mentioned, and I would feel deceived if it was not and I then spent time listening. Obviously, MIDI is in a different league and should be posted as such.

I'd be interested to see what the "official" PW policy is (or will become after all of this).

I think that, as long as the poster mentions the way a recording was created, there's no reason why to exclude it.

If it's one take, then say so: One can judge with that in mind, knowing that any error (which may very well happen even to the best pianists) is there because it was an one take.

If it's multiple takes, then say so... Everyone will know that there's editing involved.

If it's midi say so...

If it's your own work say so... I mean why do we judge things so differently in the composers forum and not here?

...

I mean if I want to create a midi recording of a work, I should be allowed to mention it, say so and expect to be judged by the end result... if one feels that I cheated my way to the recording he may think again when clicking on a youtube link all together: The idea that a recording is there, in the first place IS cheating. A piano sonata was composed to be performed, not to be heard through speakers/headphones... Right?

Good point.

I did not realize this thread was simply a rehash of a closed one (should have read more carefully).

Comments redacted.

It's a good point, but anyone listening to a recording knows going into it that he's using headphones / speakers, so there is no deception possible there.

Anyone should be able to record and post whatever he wants. If someone wants to post a recording of himself banging on the keys (some kind of modern composition, maybe), that's fine. But don't claim that it's a Chopin Ballade. (extreme example obviously, but the point is the same).

To some people, MIDI sounds like poo. And those people should have the knowledge of what they are listening to (and the option not to listen) BEFORE they spend their time listening.

P.S.
I appreciated your work a lot Guy! I wish I could play all of that. Next time just be clearer about what it is, that's all

For many reasons, I think it's undesirable and impractical to police recordings for representation and quality control.

My only expectations are that things be on-topic and civil.

I have a tendency to use a "Talking Heads" test. When an argument starts to take on the flavor of one of those awful news talk shows on Fox/CNN/MSNBC where heads argue with each other over who's wrong and who's right, I lose patience real fast.

I guess I must be different from a lot of people on this issue, and hopefully we can talk more calmly here. When I hear music, I want to think the least possible. Do I enjoy this or not? No more. Anything else beyond that is secondary to me, whether it was played by elephants or UFOs. If I later find out it was enhanced, I will say: Ah, that's interesting... But I won't hold a grudge to the performer for the rest of my life for not telling me this before hand. But that's me and I guess we are all different.

My 1.5 cents is that anything at all whatsoever is OK as long as it's stated.

I also think if one has any affiliation with the company/product they are promoting that should also be stated.

I likewise.


Ditto.


Let me say also, I'm thrilled that this discussion is proceeding as it is -- i.e. as a new and separate thing -- and including that Guy is participating in this manner.

I hear what you are saying. I think some people were upset because they already KNOW they don't enjoy a performance of type XYZ (say MIDI for example). So they listened and felt something was missing, and then when they heard it was type XYZ they felt deceived, since they would not have listened if they had known that beforehand. Personally, I would listen either way, but I understand the perspective of those who only want to listen to something the same or similar to what they would hear at a recital, and it is only fair to let people know beforehand what they are listening to so they can choose whether to listen or not.

I did not realize this thread was simply a rehash of a closed one (should have read more carefully).

Comments redacted.

Sam Rose,

You mean they got THIS upset for having spent a few min listening to this? This really looks out of proportion.

It's not just a few minutes.

In some instances, like on the closed thread, the music itself was much more -- but that's not even the main thing, which is that people might devote themselves to giving close thought and consideration about it, and taking time to post comments -- as I did. (It was close to an hour. Unless you've forgotten everything about the post, you know it took more than a few minutes.)
If one thinks it's only about a few minutes, I can see why they might feel it's no big deal -- although actually in my opinion even then it's still a big deal because we don't want to spend any of our minutes on a kind of thing that we're not interested in.

I think it also has to do with the fact you have a relationship with the company/product you are promoting.

You may be correct. But that's not the point. Some people get more upset than they should, and you can't control that. All you can control is what you say. When I make a mistake, I just say "whoops, sorry." Even those who got upset would have been satisfied if you just said "whoops, sorry, I didn't realize you would see it this way. I won't do it next time." But instead you came out swinging at them. Just learn from it and move on. You're obviously quite a talented guy, and I look forward to hearing what you do in the future (maybe do the Chopin Ballades! I'd listen!)

Mark, so all the people who are really enjoying this, and there are a LOT, what is it they enjoy? I hope you're not diminishing the good taste of these people. Could it be that they do hear the famous "X factor" but they hear so much more than that, in other words, they know something may be missing but that did not stop them from fully enjoying the Études and the fun things and expression etc that was there. In other words, I can tolerate what is not 100% natural while enjoying what's good about it, instead of blocking myself to enjoy it because it doesn't fit my criteria of what is valid or not. It's like people who hate pop music, they just decided at some point that this music is no good and only classical music is real music.

Exactly. In the previous thread you clearly explained your motivation for not revealing immediately that the performance was computer enhanced.

In the closed thread, opinion was around equally divided(probably more "no problem" than con actually) about whether there was any problem with your OP there. It is clearly not a black and white issue. The moderator has said there should be no rules about this. The issue was discussed to death in that thread, and there is really no reason for this thread IMO.

I don't know how someone who posts at a rate far greater than anyone at PW and endlessly hogs the conversation can complain about their time being wasted.

Are you saying, then, that there should be no recordings of works that were written to be performed - which means just about everything that was ever composed? Huh?!

+1

And there is another consideration too. Once you do mention that a piece was done with samples rather than an acoustic piano, for many, there is a "bias" and you will not know what they truly think. Instead, their immediate reaction is "ah phooey, samples stink", rather than letting their ears decide. Also there is a different between liking the sound of the piano or not and liking the performance or not.

You are all missing the point here. This Guy came here hoping we would all fall for his "trick" and say how awesome his "performance" was... then he would come out to say "SURPRISE.. it was all done with this awesome program I am promoting". Buy it and you can sound this good too!

That's very mean Billy. I will leave this thread right now. I was hoping for a more mature conversation.

Goodbye!

For the record (in case this thread degenerates too): Here was this thread's first personal negative swipe in what was otherwise a good discussion about a complicated issue. Bleck.

-J

This thread is moving (Again) too quickly...

Bruce, I trust you know that I have a few 'issues' with recordings...

What I meant was that if you're listening to a piano sonata (for example), you should be aware that initially it was composed to be performed, and thus as a recording it's already bypassing this idea and taking it a step further. As such one should not place such a strong mental point on how a recording was made...

Concert hall music (classical music) is supposed to be a social event... Not a event for a single guy in front of a computer monitor!

_______________

Now, this doesn't mean (to answer your post) that I dislike recordings... Recording a work is the only way to spread it (in these times)... And some things are worth spreading out... Of course if we were to enhance the recordings in a different way rather than trying to match a live performance then we would end up with some very interesting results... But alas it doesn't seem to be the case really...

The expectation of each member may differ from each other.
But,- I have posted this in the other thread as well - the Rules of Conduct for these forums are clear:

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate,......"

Also, there might be rules against promoting products through these forums. I am not sure of that though.

Therefore, first I would expect that the above prerequisites have been fulfilled.

Then, preferably I would like to know whether it was one take or not if it is a work that only consists of one part (e.g. such as an etude, where performing it at tempo would sometimes require stamina too)
For other works that have obvious separate parts I wouldn't mind that too much.

regards,

Not really. The first negative swipe was in the OP and other posts in this thread where Mark complained about the same issue that was discussed in the previous thread. In that thread he he complained about Guy Bacos' post. His OP was just a revival of the personal attack in that thread despite his claim that it wasn't.

Not trying to be mean, just getting to the truth here.

I notice you didn't day I was wrong.

This is where we disagree sharply. I thought Mark's OP was an articulate, civil attempt to have a real discussion about how we should label recordings here. I can't imagine most people would call the OP a "negative swipe".

I'm less concerned with who started it as I am how it proceeds.

As I said before: On-Topic + Civil = Open