Thank you a lot for appreciating Rostosky's hard work for such a mere insignificant work of mine. Surely he had gone through a lot more hardships for making this video than me. I don't know how to meet my debt to him. He deserves lot more appreciations than me.

I tend to agree.

On a larger scale, members of our species believe the most incredible things ... and without proof.

If this is 'real', let's see a video with greater resolution.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Recorded at "Area 51"

Did you see Rostosky's video? The velocity of the midi was not altered, meaning the subtle rhythm shifts (which he would of had to learn to mime exceptionally well, if he was faking the whole thing) would of had to have been altered on a note by note basis, thus making this one of the most elaborate and pointless internet hoaxes ever produced.

We can go back and forth, but it would save a lot of f****** time if there were a video of reasonably high resolution.

I personally know people who believe that there is life after death without any proof. I personally know people who believe that virgins can give birth. These are intelligent people who believe incredible things without proof. Why should the bar be set so low for musicians?

Asking for a higher quality video is not asking too much.

Anyone remember the Joyce Hatto recordings?

We already knew you were attacking religion with your first post. Everybody gets it. You're an atheist. Why not put it in your tagline so you don't have to make a point of bringing it up all the time?

I was attacking those with silly superstitious beliefs but mainly those without critical thinking faculties. Should I also include those who worship flags as well?

Why not put it in your tagline so you don't have to make a point of bringing it up all the time?

All the time? Really? Amazing! Could you provide a link?

Obviously you shouldn't be attacking at all, unprovoked as it is, and why you would add yourself to the list is beyond me.

If the video is genuine, let's see a slightly higher resolution video.

This isn't a matter of faith, Damon, proof in the form of 21st century technology isn't asking too much.

I almost laughed out loud when I first saw the video, thought Faaaake... then I found this musical computer keyboard clip on youtube. This guy is explaining the program he developed, and showing how the keyboard works, how to change keys, etc. It's from 2007 and there are better sounding samples by now, I'm sure. But the way his hands move on the keyboard, and the slight delay between pressing the key and the sound, seem very similar to what Rupak posted.

Profanity warning-- to skip the general idiocy and bad language, go straight to 1:10 in the clip, where he starts explaining seriously. Like some forum members here he manages to work the f-word incongruously into the conversation, but uses the ph-word later-- Phrygian! It actually seems simpler to use than a piano-keyboard, and although I was persuaded it was real, at the same time was less impressed by the "virtuosity" required to use it. (I still think Rupak has a great sense of music, though)

Unless your a kid who who is being asked to fork out extra cash to purchase a high definition webcam just to satisfy some harcore skeptics on an internet forum.

I've seen the light. Glory Halleluiah!

Why don't you look at the video provided? I'm able to discern a few notes already and could probably provide the key-map myself with just this video. You act like this is a monumental achievement, like the birth of a god or something.

What's the difference between a skeptic and a hard core skeptic?

Is no one familiar with the Joyce Hatto story? A lot of people were fooled.

I'm just reserving judgment until I see more proof. The bar of proof is set so low that anyone who questions anything is labeled hardcore these days.

The difference is that a plain skeptic understands that they don't need to push a trivial issue to its metaphysical limits.

Metaphysical ... funny!

Pretty sure the Hatto matter has been hashed, rehashed, and hashed again. Try the search function.



I do wonder about what incredible things Mr. Horne believes without 'proof'. Everyone has a certain amount of faith, be it God, money, women, weed, etc.

Faith, by definition, is the belief in something for which there is no proof.

Was it W.C. Fields who said, Everyone have to believe in something, I believe I'll have another beer.

Is it too much to ask to see a higher resolution video?
Yes Mr. Horn, in this case it is, firstly Rupak is a struggling Physics Phd student in Bangladesh India.

He doesnt even have a "real" midi keyboard.

Secondly, he didnt think he would have to scientifically "prove" what he has played to anyone.

And why should he? Members post themselves playing here, sometimes on $10,000+ steinways, using a number of mics, and then post an MP3 or wav of that in the "ether"

Who says " we want to see you playing to believe its you?"

We take it on trust its not their friend or uncle albert or whatever.

But , I made a video reviewing the evidence, if you dont understand it just say so...
I will post it again in case you wish to argue any of the points raised in the evidence.

However, the latest development in this case is as follows:


David campos, grew up in his fathers recording studio, as a child he was allways at the feet of sound engineers and music producers.

As he grew up he built a few recording studios himself, what he doesnt know about the production of music could be written on a postage stamp.

He has produced music for films, adverts and bands.

I sent him the link to Rupaks mendelssohn on computer keyboard.

He has no doubts whatsoever..and regards it as totally genuine.

And is more than prepared to put his money where his mouth is on this.....

He offered to provide Rupak with a Midi keyboard.

Kudos David Campos.

However, Rupak declined the Gift, citing that he was worried that he may not be able to put enough time into learning to play just at the moment as his Phd is all consuming timewise.

I think Rupak felt that he would feel personal pressure to learn to play, almost like he would be so endebted to David, he would feel obliged..

I tried to explain that a gift is a gift, and that it would not be a conditional gift, or come with strings attached.(no pun)

Rupak also said that he was busy saving up for a keyboard and hopes to aquire one in the near future for himself.

Kudos, Rupak, not many folk in this world decline something for nothing, and I find this admirable.

In my personal opinion, Rupak found a way to say "hey guys, I know this wont sound like perfectly played mendelssohn, but I really love this piece of music, and found a way to play it as best I could on what I could"

And was put on trial for it...

Again, I say : Shame on you.

FWIW, I have no trouble believing the video. People arguing pedal and velocity just aren't listening closely enough. My first take on the video was confirmed by Rupak's explanation of how the system works.

The only thing about this thread I don't understand is why people get so bent out of shape about this kind of thing.

On the PC Member Recordings thread, I didn't have any trouble believing it, mainly because I saw who were some of the people who had replied and weren't doubting it; otherwise I probably would have regarded it as impossible. Maybe that wasn't a great reason to accept it, but I thought it was, and looks like that was right.

We can be both too accepting and too skeptical of stuff on the internet, and sometimes we can't be sure which is which. What's the right amount? We'll never know.

Assuming that Rupak's Mendelssohn was for real, I'm sorry to see that he was subjected to some of what was said on here. But it happens. And anyway the skepticism was part of what led to our finding out more about how it was done.

Anyway, Rupak - you should regard it as a compliment that some people doubted the authenticity of your recording. It means it is something pretty unusual.

I first played "piano" using some software like this; it may have been the exact same software, but I make no promises on that.

The general idea behind the software that I had was that the numbers (sortof intermitently) are black keys, then the row [TAB]QWERTYUIO... are white keys, then the row ASDFG... are black keys, and ZXCVB... are white keys. Not each letter/number corresponds to a key; some of them are unresponsive and represent the blank spaces on the piano where there are not black keys (if the piano keys were a perfect white/black/white/black... repetition, then each key on the computer keyboard could link to a piano key easily).

The first chord I taught myself was CBM, if I remember correctly.


A full range of about three octaves can be achieved using this. The function keys (above the numbers) can add another octave and a half, but only of either white or black keys. This setup is a bit disorientating at first, but you can get used to it. The fingering of each hand can be almost identical, if you start in the correct place and have the right song. It only gets tricky when an octave extends from one set of keyboard rows and down onto the next set, such as a chord of P]Z

What proof do you have that WC Fields ever said such a thing?

I sense buns.