I don't see a real basis for attributing 'sonic illusions' and conjuring in sound to Romantics and those who followed them. Consider, too - as regards Chopin - that he did not identify with the Romantic movement. His musicianship - however revolutionary, ingenious and unique - was grounded in Bach and evolved from Mozart and Hummel.

To speak of the importance of conjuring textures and of effect as an ideal doesn't ring true to me - except as a way of elevating the product over the process for the interpreter and, supposedly, the creator. I don't buy that, but - as was said (and as is obvious!) - to each his or her own.

True - the two sides of the argument were brought together when CBS put out Miles Davis album 'In a Silent Way' in 1969. Jazz is also a performance based art - more so than classical, really, as a lot of the creative work happens spontaneously as the band plays.

But that record was heavily edited, dubbed and technically manipulated in other ways - standard post production work since those days. And the jazz purists hated it and slated Miles Davis and his producer Teo Macero (who did the splicing with his engineer). The fact is that the music never happened as it does on the disk, and neither could it have done. Same with his next album, Bitches Brew (also 1969).

But they are two of the best records ever made of any sort, as far as I'm concerned.

There's much food for thought here - and it's going to take a while

Which returns us to the issue at hand.... there's a convenient, self-serving tendency in the midi sect to define "beauty," "art," "pleasing to the ears," or whatever as something made "in the mind and there only."

They may not say it outright, but it's strongly implied by their language and by the way they talk about the the process of making, or interpreting music.

But "in the mind, and there only" it ain't. Chopin an obvious example, where the musical thinking is under the fingers, so to speak. Opposite end of the spectrum, I'd argue, is Bach: the thinking is, or appears to be, very "in the mind." So it is "in the mind" that his music survives, more or less in one piece, all kinds of external representation (Wendy Carlos to alternative instrumentation.)

But to understand Bach, I think, one still needs an understanding or feel for external expresson (at the keyboard, for example). That is where midi hits a big fat wall. As cerebral as the 48 p&f are--"made in the mind, and there only", I still think we have to append the proviso... but MADE in the mind: ie always with a view to, or feeling for the possibilies (or limitations) of expression at the keyboard, using one's two hands, with 5 fingers on each, in most cases.

Now Guy has said that he's more than familiar with the keyboard and, in particular, with the piano keyboard. But even in Bach's keyboard works, I'm not convinced by a long shot that a midi-editor can talk usefully to a performer (which means most of the folks coming to this site) about performance issues. That's the rub. That's the complaint: sure, you may be a great pianist, and a clever sound engineer to boot, but the two things are separate, different. Guy, at times, seems to be conflating them.

JG