"perhaps the label of this notorious articulation is not too accurate"
Perhaps. This would probably be less controversial if vienna simply was more clear about it in their articulation list.
"Maybe it should be called "perf-port" or "perf-leg_gl", but who cares?"
Considering "legato" playing is used much more often than "portamento" playing, I assume there are a decent number of people who care. Not only is one of the most often used articulations missing, there's also a different articulation labled incorrectly in place of it.
"You listen to it, you don't like it, so don't use it. End of story!!!!"
Or if you need legato forte, you don't buy it.
"It's probably worth note, BTW, that the "correct" perf-leg you're looking for may have sounded totally ridiculous with that sonic artifact included. And the fact is, you weren't there, so you simply don't know"
I don't dispute that they had a problem they couldn't solve, I take issue with the idea that recording a soprano sax playing legato forte isn't possible and the only solution is to do without it.
"I'd imagine, on comparing the artifact-ed samples with the slightly scooped ones, you'd probably be happy with what you got."
Speculation on your part, although it's a moot point since I'd consider the scooped ones completely unacceptable in a situation in which you want legato.
"completly excrescent statement."
I went back and read the old thread, and it sounds (as best as I can understand the explanation) like it was a problem due to recording or editing instead of playing. I apologize if I offended the player if it turns out the recording engineers were to blame. Herb has admitted that they were unable to get a recording of the forte legato that they were happy with. I can only assume that could have been remedied by using either a different player, instrument or recording technique. You don't think it's possible to record a soprano sax playing legato without either scoops or some sort of "recording artifact"?
Perhaps. This would probably be less controversial if vienna simply was more clear about it in their articulation list.
"Maybe it should be called "perf-port" or "perf-leg_gl", but who cares?"
Considering "legato" playing is used much more often than "portamento" playing, I assume there are a decent number of people who care. Not only is one of the most often used articulations missing, there's also a different articulation labled incorrectly in place of it.
"You listen to it, you don't like it, so don't use it. End of story!!!!"
Or if you need legato forte, you don't buy it.
"It's probably worth note, BTW, that the "correct" perf-leg you're looking for may have sounded totally ridiculous with that sonic artifact included. And the fact is, you weren't there, so you simply don't know"
I don't dispute that they had a problem they couldn't solve, I take issue with the idea that recording a soprano sax playing legato forte isn't possible and the only solution is to do without it.
"I'd imagine, on comparing the artifact-ed samples with the slightly scooped ones, you'd probably be happy with what you got."
Speculation on your part, although it's a moot point since I'd consider the scooped ones completely unacceptable in a situation in which you want legato.
"completly excrescent statement."
I went back and read the old thread, and it sounds (as best as I can understand the explanation) like it was a problem due to recording or editing instead of playing. I apologize if I offended the player if it turns out the recording engineers were to blame. Herb has admitted that they were unable to get a recording of the forte legato that they were happy with. I can only assume that could have been remedied by using either a different player, instrument or recording technique. You don't think it's possible to record a soprano sax playing legato without either scoops or some sort of "recording artifact"?