Mike Raiford wrote:

> Fun thing to try at home:
> 
> Use headphones, set up a fractional second delay, if your soundcard has 
> a DSP that can do things like this and try to speak.. Try different 
> delays. A delay that's in the "sweet spot" will give you all sorts of 
> fits when speaking.

Already tried that. Add lots of echo for extra laughs...

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:20:12 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Surely no human
> being can actually *read* that fast

Why?  I played violin for years, and I was able to keep up.  It takes 
practice is all...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:20:12 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> Surely no human
>> being can actually *read* that fast
> 
> Why?  I played violin for years, and I was able to keep up.  It takes 
> practice is all...

And exactly how many violin pieces have 32 notes per bar, and 6-note 
chords spread over 3 staffs?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:42:58 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:20:12 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 
>>> Surely no human
>>> being can actually *read* that fast
>> 
>> Why?  I played violin for years, and I was able to keep up.  It takes
>> practice is all...
> 
> And exactly how many violin pieces have 32 notes per bar, and 6-note
> chords spread over 3 staffs?

32 notes per bar is not uncommon.  Triple-stops are about the extent, but 
if you look at any of the Bach Partidas & Sonatas, you'll see some pretty 
nasty stuff that's hard to keep up with.

Like I said, it just takes practice.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 nous illumina en ce 2008-09-21 15:20 -->
> Tim Attwood wrote:
>> That sounds good!
> 
> Yay! Recognition! :-D
> 
>> It's noticeable that you are reading though,
>> especially the pauses.
> 
> Um... no. Didn't even have the sheet music out while I was playing. I 
> can't read anywhere near that fast. It takes me a minute or two to 
> decode each note by counting up or down from the A-line.
> 
> As an aside, the top line alone has 32 notes per bar. Surely no human 
> being can actually *read* that fast. Indeed, just glancing at your 
Actualy, many can and do. With time, practice and dedication, even you can 
acheive that.
> fingers to check they're in the right place would take several notes' 
And you won't even need to check where your fingers are...
> duration. So I'm not sure how it's physically possible to read this 
> music at the same time as playing it.
Think about touch typists, they never look at the keyboard. Think about when you 
read some text.
> 
> In fact, I'd go as far as to say that this piece of music is only 
> playable at all because it's quite repetative and structured...
> 
>> It probably would
>> sound better to keep the rhythm going even
>> if you hit the wrong chords. 
> 
> You're probably right about that.
> 
> There are some amazing key changes in the latter parts of the tune; I 
> just wish I hadn't got such big pauses in there. (It's HARD though!) On 
> some of the takes, those pauses are almost non-existent (but I stuffed 
> up somewhere else instead). Ho hum!
> 
You only need parctice. When reading a partition as you play it, you need to 
read about 1 bar ahead of time.
With time, you'll be able to know what a given note is without "climbing" up/down.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind.
Thomas Jefferson

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> m_a_r_c wrote:
>> Next stage the 16th notes arpeggio? >:-)
> 
> Hey, I can do that too... just... not at the same time! :-}
> 
> The music you heard is already using both of my hands! (Remember, I 
> don't have a set of pedals to use.) I could try using my computer to 
> composite the parts together, but I rather suspect I'm going to run out 
> of octaves.
> 
> (Regardless of how many octaves my keyboard has, the computer only has 
> samples for 5 octaves. It seems silly to speak of "only" 5 octaves, but 
> this *is* organ music...)
> 
> Anybody have any bright ideas about how I get my hands on a real pipe 
> organ to try this stuff out?

I have seen a piano reduction of this score that had the left hand doing 
both the pedal and left hand parts from the organ score, and it didn't 
look like it was too much more difficult than the left hand would be 
from the pure organ score.  With a bit of work you should probably be 
able to figure out how to achieve a similar effect.

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:

> Think about touch typists, they never look at the keyboard. Think about 
> when you read some text.

Yeah, but a QWERTY keyboard has roughly 100 keys right next to each 
other. A piano keyboard as about 100 keys, some several feet away from 
others! ;-)

> You only need parctice. When reading a partition as you play it, you 
> need to read about 1 bar ahead of time.
> With time, you'll be able to know what a given note is without 
> "climbing" up/down.

Yeah, I really can't read music very well any more. I used to, but not 
now. I'm far too slow at it to even think about reading music in 
near-realtime. :-(

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Tonight, I sat down and played that *other* great Toccata. Namely, 
Bach's Toccata & Fugue in D minor.

I can't believe how well I'm playing this puppy. Damn, I am on *fire* 
tonight!! :-D :-D

And as for Widor, I've suddenly started hitting those big magor 12th 
chords with multiple sharps like they were *nothing*! I mean, I'm 
playing it like it's a walk in the park. I have no friggin' idea how 
that's physically possible, but it sounds great...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message