Larry Kellogg wrote:

> George, I downloaded the file and tried it.  The pedaling information
> you have included in the file caused some problems. ... So there were
> half-pedal messages in the Midi file? If so, then maybe they weren't
> on the right channel.

The file was composed directly in Cakewalk's "Piano Roll" view -- not
hand played on anything.   The purpose was to create a master MIDI file
that Bill Jelen could then transfer into an 88-note Piano roll.  His
program (and QRS's also) translate the continuous controller pedal on/off
messages into the sustain pedal hole on the paper roll.  So the purpose
of the CC message was indeed simply to turn the pedal on and off -- there
was no attempt to do any 'half pedaling' at all.   So I'm curious just
what *did* happen that has caused confusion.

Also, the short notes (the "pahs" in "um-pah") are 40 ticks at 240 to the
quarter, which is supposed to match the size of 'pahs' on original rolls
-- a newer technique that seems to work well on the QRS numbers, and
worked well on the BAM-BAM version as well.  Do these play nice and
crisp, or are they too short and jerky, or do they get dropped completely?
In addition, is there enough space between repeated notes for the hammer
to reset sufficiently to get the second strike or are they being blurred?

There is a lot of note-bleeding on sustained chords, both to add some
depth for those players with broken sustain pedals, and also to take
advantage of the increased control over the sonority that this technique
offers.  Does the Disklavier falter here or is it able to keep up?

I could, of course, go out and just buy a Disklavier, but at $30,000 a
pop for a grand, that's more than I can afford, and I'd be killed if I
tried to squeeze an upright in the house.   So, I'm left with whatever a
synthesizer will produce.   A good Roland SSC has excellent piano sounds,
but there's nothing like fooling with the real thing, hence the original
request.

Thanks for the feedback folks!

George Bogatko