Playing MIDIs with Win98's original SB16 OPL3 sound card

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
The usual example quoted is the triangle. I'd add the celeste/celesta
(sugarplum fairy instrument), and probably others similar; and getting
away from purely percussive instruments, maybe the saw, and I'm pretty
certain some of the higher registers of the organ (and other small pipes
- piccolino, ocarina maybe ...)

I'd have to look those instruments up, including the triangle, but are you
sure they don't have any frequency content below 8 kHz? (seems hard to
believe).

I don't know. The triangle (I just looked on Wiki, but that doesn't say)
is basically a bar, just bent into a triangle; it may have some content
at low frequencies (especially for the person holding the string), it
just _sounds_ high to me. Ditto the celeste, which I think is made of
glass. Which reminds me there's the "glass harmonica", a collection of
wineglasses (or ... - it's usually described as wineglasses) filled to
different amounts, and played by running a damp finger round the rim;
not sure if those have high fundamentals.

Wait, I just looked some of this up. A pipe organ can almost reach a 8 kHz
fundamental. Cymbals go from about 200 Hz to 16 kHz (upper harmonics).

I would never have thought of a cymbal as an only-high thing: more a
broad-spectrum noise.

I couldn't find anything on a triangle, but when I just heard a sample, I'm
pretty sure there is something there below 8 kHz!

Here is one link:
http://www.independentrecording.net/...in_display.htm


Interesting link: at first I thought it was static, didn't realise the
boxes change as you move the pointer about. It doesn't include triangle
though, or any of the higher tuned percussion.

I don't think the pipes on an organ with the higher fundamentals are
often played or written for on their own, more used in ranks/banks to
affect the timbre of lower registers. There probably are some pieces of
music, though, just to make a point.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
I've sort of forgotten what your point was. Was it, what constitutes a
real "instrument"?

What constitutes a "musical instrument", as I see it.
(and yes, I was kinda disallowing the artificial, synthetic (fake),
electronic instruments in there :-).

If so, I'd say it's an endless and eventually
pointless discussion - unless one _wants_ to arbitrarily draw some line
which excludes a lot of music from being "real".

I can, as far as "purity" is concerned. More below :-)

Well, I like to think that the better composers of the past, if alive
now, would embrace and be writing for some of the sounds now available.
I have a version - call it an interpretation - of Bach's Toccata (the
one that I think in full is "and Fugue in D minor", and starts with that
well-known triplet) by the 1970s (I think) British group Sky, which many
classical purists would shrink from in horror, but I like to think old
JS would approve of.

Especially as you've agreed you've enjoyed stuff from all three
categories.

Yes, but that doesn't make it so ("great" music, I mean).
Think of some popular pop singers. Can they truly sing well? Do they all
really have great voices? Did Bob Dylan, or Janis Joplin, have a great
voice? No, they didn't/don't. But I still like some of their music,
nonetheless. But neither one of them has a great or trained voice, nor
could they ever. So who does? Well, if you want to go back in time, Helen
Forrest does. :-)

Ah. Training, to my ears, can cause harm as well as good, where the
(female, at least) voice is concerned: it can do some good, but I
personally find the sound of the soprano voice rather unpleasant. Which
is a pity, as most of the great sopranos that I've actually seen
interviewed seem to be rather nice people. I have a CD of Kiri Te
Kanawa, for example, from when she was a nightclub singer around New
Zealand, before someone told her she could be a soprano - and I much
prefer it. (As for the most _beautiful_ voice, the one that just makes
me sit with a silly smile is Judith Durham. She probably _is_ trained,
but if so, it didn't spoil it.)
[]
Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it
often

Equally, being old doesn't either (-:.

But the premise for the new is it's always supposed to better. You know,
"new and improved" - blah blah blah. (I could also give you some
examples in software, but you and I both already know about that. :-)

"New and improved" is of course a contradiction (-:.
[]

But a LOT of the current age set doesn't think or know that.

Ah, well, if you want to get into the (in the end futile, but that
doesn't stop us) area of language abuse, I'm with you ...

Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always
[]
THAT part is true. And also the layouts of the rooms are typically
better
(more functional, more sensible). But that's about it. But insulation
is
only a small part of "construction".
[]
Designing down to a budget has always been around: colliery rows date
from well before the 1950s! (Of course, a UK viewpoint on this may well
differ from a US one, simply because we have more "old" building stock,
both good and bad.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left."
[Cambridge University Math Dept.]


I see you're posting with OE; I _think_ one of the things that
OE-Quotefix sorts out is stopping it reposting the signature separator
and what follows it, but I can't remember for sure.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
The usual example quoted is the triangle. I'd add the celeste/celesta
(sugarplum fairy instrument), and probably others similar; and getting
away from purely percussive instruments, maybe the saw, and I'm pretty
certain some of the higher registers of the organ (and other small pipes
- piccolino, ocarina maybe ...)

I'd have to look those instruments up, including the triangle, but are
you
sure they don't have any frequency content below 8 kHz? (seems hard to
believe).

I don't know. The triangle (I just looked on Wiki, but that doesn't say)
is basically a bar, just bent into a triangle; it may have some content
at low frequencies (especially for the person holding the string), it
just _sounds_ high to me. Ditto the celeste, which I think is made of
glass. Which reminds me there's the "glass harmonica", a collection of
wineglasses (or ... - it's usually described as wineglasses) filled to
different amounts, and played by running a damp finger round the rim;
not sure if those have high fundamentals.

Sounds "high" to me too, but that doesn't preclude stuff below 8 kHz,
necessarily.

Wait, I just looked some of this up. A pipe organ can almost reach a 8
kHz
fundamental. Cymbals go from about 200 Hz to 16 kHz (upper harmonics).

I would never have thought of a cymbal as an only-high thing: more a
broad-spectrum noise.

I was quite surprised to see it go down to 200 Hz, however. Now that really
surprised me.

I couldn't find anything on a triangle, but when I just heard a sample,
I'm
pretty sure there is something there below 8 kHz!

Here is one link:
http://www.independentrecording.net/...in_display.htm


Interesting link: at first I thought it was static, didn't realise the
boxes change as you move the pointer about. It doesn't include triangle
though, or any of the higher tuned percussion.

Well, if one of us were willing, we could probably find some recording with
a triangle played in it and isolate that one segment, and check out its
spectrum. My guess is it, too, is fairly wide in its spectrum content.

I don't think the pipes on an organ with the higher fundamentals are
often played or written for on their own, more used in ranks/banks to
affect the timbre of lower registers.

Most likely.

There probably are some pieces of music, though, just to make a point.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
I've sort of forgotten what your point was. Was it, what constitutes a
real "instrument"?

What constitutes a "musical instrument", as I see it.
(and yes, I was kinda disallowing the artificial, synthetic (fake),
electronic instruments in there :-).

If so, I'd say it's an endless and eventually
pointless discussion - unless one _wants_ to arbitrarily draw some line
which excludes a lot of music from being "real".

I can, as far as "purity" is concerned. More below :-)

Well, I like to think that the better composers of the past, if alive
now, would embrace and be writing for some of the sounds now available.

I'd bet only a select few. :-)

I have a version - call it an interpretation - of Bach's Toccata (the
one that I think in full is "and Fugue in D minor", and starts with that
well-known triplet) by the 1970s (I think) British group Sky, which many
classical purists would shrink from in horror, but I like to think old
JS would approve of.

Especially as you've agreed you've enjoyed stuff from all three
categories.

Yes, but that doesn't make it so ("great" music, I mean).
Think of some popular pop singers. Can they truly sing well? Do they
all
really have great voices? Did Bob Dylan, or Janis Joplin, have a great
voice? No, they didn't/don't. But I still like some of their music,
nonetheless. But neither one of them has a great or trained voice, nor
could they ever. So who does? Well, if you want to go back in time,
Helen
Forrest does. :-)

Ah. Training, to my ears, can cause harm as well as good, where the
(female, at least) voice is concerned: it can do some good, but I
personally find the sound of the soprano voice rather unpleasant. Which
is a pity, as most of the great sopranos that I've actually seen
interviewed seem to be rather nice people. I have a CD of Kiri Te
Kanawa, for example, from when she was a nightclub singer around New
Zealand, before someone told her she could be a soprano - and I much
prefer it. (As for the most _beautiful_ voice, the one that just makes
me sit with a silly smile is Judith Durham. She probably _is_ trained,
but if so, it didn't spoil it.)
[]
Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it
often

Equally, being old doesn't either (-:.

But the premise for the new is it's always supposed to better. You
know,
"new and improved" - blah blah blah. (I could also give you some
examples in software, but you and I both already know about that. :-)

"New and improved" is of course a contradiction (-:.
[]

But a LOT of the current age set doesn't think or know that.

Ah, well, if you want to get into the (in the end futile, but that
doesn't stop us) area of language abuse, I'm with you ...

Not only abuse of language. :-) More like a generally increasingly more
irresponsible society, and one also lacking in taste and manners, and often,
character.

Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always
[]
THAT part is true. And also the layouts of the rooms are typically
better
(more functional, more sensible). But that's about it. But
insulation
is only a small part of "construction".
[]
Designing down to a budget has always been around: colliery rows date
from well before the 1950s! (Of course, a UK viewpoint on this may well
differ from a US one, simply because we have more "old" building stock,
both good and bad.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left."
[Cambridge University Math Dept.]


I see you're posting with OE; I _think_ one of the things that
OE-Quotefix sorts out is stopping it reposting the signature separator
and what follows it, but I can't remember for sure.

I'm using OE-QuoteFix, but often just cut off the remainer of the post, like
all the signature stuff. I've usually cut it off at my last line of reply,
but not always.
Here, I've left some in for you: :-)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
Well, I like to think that the better composers of the past, if alive
now, would embrace and be writing for some of the sounds now available.

I'd bet only a select few. :-)

I don't know: the new-fangled pianoforte was eventually accepted by most
of them. OK, it took a few years, possibly centuries for some
instruments, but a great composer will use everything available, and
each sound to take advantage of its particular characteristics. Equally,
there have always been some who eschew certain sounds. And finally, some
of the best melodies survive the most horrendous things being done to
them by rearrangers (and more drastic), and still sound pleasing.
[]
Ah, well, if you want to get into the (in the end futile, but that
doesn't stop us) area of language abuse, I'm with you ...

Not only abuse of language. :-) More like a generally increasingly more
irresponsible society, and one also lacking in taste and manners, and often,
character.

Ah, you (and me both) are getting old - that's been the cry for
millenia; there's a similar statement to yours above that I see
occasionally, attributed to one of the ancient Greeks. (I nearly typed
that as Geeks!)
[]
I'm using OE-QuoteFix, but often just cut off the remainer of the post, like
all the signature stuff. I've usually cut it off at my last line of reply,
but not always.
Here, I've left some in for you: :-)
[]
Please do cut off my .sig when quoting me - that's why I have the
separator line (-:!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual
rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand, quoted by Deb
Shinder 2012-3-30