Realization by Guy Bacos of  Chopin 24 Études

These Études have been enhanced artistically, through digital process, to bring out more features. Various kinds of manipulations have been done, such as tweaking dynamics, speed, accents, notes etc.

Op. 10 No. 1 (Waterfall)
Op. 10 No. 2 (Chromatic)
Op. 10 No. 3 (Tristesse)
Op. 10 No. 4 (Torrent)
Op. 10 No. 5 (Black Key)
Op. 10 No. 6
Op. 10 No. 7 (Toccata)
Op. 10 No. 8 (Sunshine)
Op. 10 No. 9
Op. 10 No. 10
Op. 10 No. 11 (Arpeggio)
Op. 10 No. 12 (Revolutionary)

Op 25 No. 1 (Aeolian Harp)
Op 25 No. 2 (The Bees)
Op 25 No. 3 (The Horseman)
Op 25 No 4 (Paganini)
Op 25 No. 5 (Wrong Note)
Op 25 No. 6 (Double Third)
Op 25 No. 7 (Cello)
Op 25 No. 8 (Sixths)
Op 25 No. 9 (Butterfly)
Op 25 No. 10 (Octave)
Op 25 No. 11 (Winter Wind)
Op 25 No. 12 (Ocean)

I hope you enjoy listening and I look forward to your comments.

Guy Bacos
http://www.guybacos.com/

This got beat to death over on the Pianist forum, and the last thread you participated on here with us DP users spiralled out of control.

OK it might be more relevant here if you're trying to promote the unnamned VST? But that seems like forum spam-vertising or trolling to me.

My answer: they sound great to me, adult beginner with a DP, perhaps slightly sterile compared to my own playing full of emotional rubato and alarming dynamics.

How were they produced?

Guy I am going to listen through each of these in the next few days. I'm not familiar with the pieces at all as I am a relative beginner to piano and a total newbie to the classical music genre. However, I am always on the lookout for new beautiful music to listen to and to possibly put on to my ever growing to do before I dye list! LOL.

I just got my dp and someday may venture into the software piano world so I am interested in how these sound and the possibilities with various software. So I am interested in hearing about your setup, process, and any tips and tricks you want to share! I remember I tried "programming my M1 20 years ago and yes it was difficult and tedious to achieve good results (well in my case in was almost impossible but that is a different story)

I'd seen the earlier thread and was so amazed at the overwhelming reactions you got. I just wanted to say I think you are amazing to have put up with all that and be willing to post here again!

I'll try to post comments on these after I listen through a few. I'll have to get my hands on the music just for interest sake and to better be able to follow along.

Congratulation on the great idea and hard work you've done.

I've listened to op.10 no.6 which I am familiar with and what I don't like in your interpretation is mostly the constant change in tempo which is almost on a random basis and way too varied. Yes, indeed the etude must be played with a great expression but I am not sure such variable change in tempo is working. Furthermore, it is personal preference for Chopin interpretation, but to me it sounds like you've entered each note in an editor and not played it really because each note in the melody matches the exact timing of accompanying notes and I think the melody should sometimes be intentionally shifted backwards or forwards to create tension, anticipation, emotion, etc. Of course, that's my personal opinion and it's based on only one of the etudes. I haven't listened to the others.

Seems to me that solo classical piano pieces usually have a bit more reverb than this.

When I play I turn reverb down or off, but if I were going to play something and stick it on youtube, I'd put it in a big room.

Personal preference, but it also seems to be common practice in recordings.

There was something about that dreadful thread that made me think Guy was not necessarily an innocent victim and if this new thread is an attempt to manipulate opinion in favour of something he is selling I would take a dim view of it. If I've got the wrong end of the stick I apologise.

EssBrace,

Please contact the moderator, ask him to delete this thread because of the reasons you suspect, tell him I approve or to contact me. I am so sick if these dogs barking no matter what I do! I'm only doing this thread for the people interested like ZoeCalgary, but the same people are ruining it once again. Bravo! So I'm sorry for the ones interested, and I'm sure they will be more, but I hope you understand there is so much I can take of these trashy posts.

I am not sure of the purpose of the thread. Is it to showcase playing talent, a particular brand of virtual piano or expertise in midi manipulation? I think it would help if there was some insight given.

The music sounds very nice, but with a slightly robotic feel, but what exactly am I supposed to be listening out for?

Possibly a combination of all three?

Guy is undoubtedly an excellent pianist, however from a technical perspective, I would be interested to learn what kind of enhancements/adjustments were made to these records.

It would also be great if Guy could provide the MIDI files played back in VSL, allowing others to 'render' their own realisations using Ivory, Galaxy, etc.

Cheers,
James
x

@Guy,

I am just as curious as everyone else as to how you went about making these recordings in more detail, as I do know that the Chopin Etudes require extraordinary technique to master, and, you play them very well!

As for myself, being only an advanced amateur pianist (but not a professional as you may be) it is my belief that a truly honest musician should be able to render their performances/recordings without any additional manipulation of them. That is, to learn and play a piece as best as one can, and, then record the effort in an unedited way, simply to give a true and clear impression of one's ability. Doing anything other than that is tampering with the original playing.

Valentina Lisitsa (for example) is one pianist I truly admire as her recordings of the complete Chopin Etudes were done in essentially one take, without editing her performances in any manner. You can watch all of these on YouTube, if you like. Anyone pianist that is brave enough to do this is to be applauded, however, Valentina is an exceptionally gifted player to begin with and she is able perform the most difficult repertoire almost flawlessly. There are not very many pianists out there willing to take this gamble, in my opinion!

As for my own abilities, I cover nothing up in my playing and when I make a recording it is going to stand on its own without having to edit it, aside from doing another complete retake of the piece had there been too many mistakes in it. I have posted quite a few recordings myself in this forum, and, they stand as they are as unedited performances straight from the heart, more or less the first time around.

If you are more interested in just manipulating the speed of playing, quality of the recording and sound, and, all of these other details, then it can actually detract from your original performance since you have altered it.

I am not a fan of this kind of editing.*

pv88

*Extra note:

I specifically do not care much for altering things such as the speed of the recording (unless it was not in proper pitch), and, to edit in or out various notes or passages from the original performance, etc. Even Horowitz was known to make a mistake or two, and, that makes his playing realistic and down to earth, as he is only human and not a god! If you take what is already good playing (with a minor muff or two in it) and edit out the wrong notes and make it faster, then you are changing the original performance which alters everything.

It is what you record at the piano that counts, and, not what you do to it, afterwards.

Bravo, pv.

i would argue that there is no foul here. Guy is letting you hear his music for free. He's not conning you out of money. He uses technology to enhance his art. so be it. you either like it or you don't. Don't make it into a religious experience.

EDIT: i know what you are going to say- its not HIS music, its Chopin's. i guess i can't argue with that. but he is up front about "enhancing" the performance. its just an interpretation...

I've never seen any reason to criticize Guy in any of these thread unless it be musical critique about his interpretation. He seems up front about his reasons, his playing is good, and I would probably tweak my MIDI if I had those skills and was going to post it to YouTube as well. Like bfb I see no foul anywhere on his part.

Maybe a bit overdefensive in the previous thread and touchy in this one, but who isn't when a bunch of people jump on you on the internet?

Seeing Guy's angry last reply on the latest Pianist Corner thread, I figured there must have been some nasty stuff going on here at him. But I gotta say, it looks pretty darn good to me. Sure, there are some posts that challenge him a bit, but nothing bad -- and mostly a lot of good support and interest.

Guy, I don't really care either about your motive for posting or your musical product. (Personally, I've got a really old DP - but at least it's MIDI capable - and I don't even know what a 'software piano' is!) The other threads were interesting to me only as a slugfest from what I gather is a usual cast of characters here.

As a self-confessed Chopin freak, though, I am only disappointed that you chose to repeat the stupid nicknames for these pieces here yet again. I wonder why you didn't just invent titles for the three unnamed ones, as they are all made up anyway. Chopin never put suggestive titles on his music, and by all accounts he'd probably have been repelled by them. They detract from the seriousness of your endeavor - although like some others, I am not sure exactly what your endeavor is.

This forum is pretty much the right place for these. I don't care about the naming, either. I care about the Sound or REalism of the sample. 700 dollars for one piano sample: that's the most expensive sample on the market!!!

Is it worth the money? Well, there's always 2 ways to look at any piano sample: PLAYER standpoint and LISTENER standpoint. Yah, these are 2 totally different perspectives. And you have GOT to make the distinction, or you can get burned forking out cash for these things.

I'll only say what I think from the listener's perspective....ie as a sample to use in making a "recorded" "solo classical piano CD sound", that would sound "just like a live recorded classical solo piano CD" That's my bag. Sorry, it's ALL I'm personally looking for in a sample. Other folks have other things in mind, like the piano in a mix, or new age music, or jazz, or as a sample for live music, etc, etc. Those are great perspectives too, but they're not what I personally would use the sample for.

So, from strictly the "listener's perspective" as defined above, NO this sample definitely is not realistic enough. There's just no way the sample, based on these demos, sounds anything like a classical music piano CD. Not sure what's lacking. One person I spoke to thought it might need more verb. My thinking is that the verb is part of the problem. It might also be the original recording perspective, mic placement inotherwords. Maybe there's a "room" setting, or "hall" settting, that would make this a plausible, even convincing, recorded sound. But as it is, the sample sounds nasal and flat. (Seems to be a common problem with recording the BOS)

I personally want to hear what this baby can do in a hall or room mic setting, with a clearly defined low end, and without the nasal quality. There may be a way to make that kind of sound with this sample. SO I'm not prepared to give up on it yet. I do hear lots of clarity here. More demos may be required, perhaps with a room or hall setting, and much more attention to the bass.... way to rumbly and indistinct or just plain unreal sounding (again, strictly from the standpoint of what a classical piano recording should sound like).

As matters stand, you can get a LESS dynamic, but in the end MORE REALISTIC "recorded classical piano sound" out of the old WET setting on the PMI BOS. Only three layers, with a rolled off bass and less immediacy than what I'm listening to here, but tonally---which is the killer test---far, far more realistic as a RECORDED sound.

Can't say from a player's perspective what this sample would be like. You need to be sitting at the keyboard to do that. Something tells me it would probably be incredibly good because of the huge number of layers.

JG

Actually, it's more than one sample. But I would agree that for 700 dollars it could be a little better. Having said that, I don't think these etudes display the best abilities of the sample set. The editing makes them less realistic. A better test (of the samples) would have been to make a realistic sequence, maybe even play the sequence through a P.A. into an actual room and record that to get a real room ambiance.

Take op 10 no 10, for example: what happening here!!!????

Everything starts out great, totally convincing; and then 25 seconds in we get these bizarre, truncated midi notes, which I assume are an attempt at staccato. Like what's going on here? I can only hope that it's a sequencing error, and not something inherent in the sample!!

JG

I gotta disagree.
BTW that's not one of the etudes that I listened to from the posting on Pianist Corner. I only now took a listen after seeing what you said, and IMO this is one of the better-rendered etudes, musically speaking. All I can say is, it works for me quite well, including that thing you mentioned. Although.....upon my initial skimming through these "performances," I didn't suspect that this wasn't on a "regular" piano, but this passage would have immediately enabled even an ignoramus like me to know something different was going on.

I don't know what happened here, to be honest. Most samples will handle staccato playing, no problem. The first 25 seconds are very piano-like. It would be hard to tell from the "real thing."

JG

Hat's off to you and I don't care if you sat there and step sequenced it note by note .... anyone who is prepared to put in the time to learn that stuff has my kudos ! I would die of sheer boredom before lunch ....

The Vienna Imperial (was it that?) ...well lets just say its not even close to a good VST piano.

That pretty much renders every track I've ever been involved with recording as dishonest ... LOL !!!!
The reality of music production is that nothing is ever live and dry ...not even a "live" album.

Chopin, of all great composers, was somewhat of a conjurer in sound, or musical texture. The piano was the most sophisticated sound creation system available - apart, I suppose from the organ, but that is not a nimble and subtle instrument.

He used the available technology. And while I agree that 25 seconds into opus 10 number 10 in Guy Bacos's beautiful recording, the dry, staccato type effect sounds too plickety-plonck, I really don't see why we shouldn't use all the tricks of the trade available to achieve a certain sound - so long as it works. Why wouldn't we?

It depends ...
Do you want to evaluate the talent of the performer?
... or ...
Do you want to evaluate the talent of the audio technician?

Well yes - if the former, obviously we want a 'pure performance' - as near to a live performance as possible. However, I don't primarily want to evaluate the messenger at all - neither the player, nor the technician. What matters more is what the music says.

.....or to put it more bluntly: If we are in the sports arena then, yes, it matters that the recording be a pure representation of the pianist's performance. But in the area or aesthetics - or art - it matters not one jot.

Regarding 'so long as it works': I wonder what 'works' means in this context (that is, works to produce *what*?). I still don't understand the purpose of an artificially idealized rendering of a piece of music (nor, really, of sharing it).

I do consider music making both an art and a craft, but mastering technical challenges to produce music at the piano is the craftsmanship that serves my expression of my art. Mastering the manipulation and enhancing of digitized music - though it is admittedly craftsmanship of a different kind! - would not fulfill or satisfy any artistic purpose for me.

Pianomie, I can completely understand what you say. Otherwise, what would be the point of years of practice and of passing on the skills of playing an instrument?

But the romantic composers, and those who followed were, in a sense, the makers of sonic illusions. The ideal was marvellous effect. In that sense, the method of achievement is irrelevant.

Toddy's hit the nail on the head.

Consider too that Beauty is a matter of personal taste. Each to his (or her) own.

If a listener gets turned off knowing that the product is totally engineered and it's no longer beautiful for him: so be it.

JG

There're two different schools of thought. If you've been brought up playing classical music of the great masters, you play live in front of audiences (and examiners); you don't play them an edited product on CD or show them a manipulated video with soundtrack. Pop music on the other hand is totally different. Tracks are recorded separately then mixed together; things are added and subtracted. Even in live performances, things aren't as they seem. Miming to a prerecorded soundtrack is commonplace, electronic trickery (including pitch correction for singers who can't sing in tune) is taken for granted - something that cannot happen in opera houses or concert halls because instrumental soloists, singers, pianists and orchestras aren't miked or amplified except in unusual venues.

Simply put, classical enthusiasts expect to hear the real deal in classical music, not an enhanced, manipulated, idealistic performance, even on a recording; and with edits only for the odd wrong note, extraneous noises etc - not bar-by-bar, note-by-note computer manipulation.

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