Hi Fatis, Finally, it seems to me as if you describe besically nearly the same reasonable attitude as I do:
- Legato as far the impression of the "run" is what is aimed to achiev,
- The more the each single note of a melodic line becomes important the more you like me would emphazise it with an Accent.
- No one demands to ignore the notation of the score from the start, we all consent that one should start (!) with considering what a score originally asks for as playing technic.
The in my eyes slightly different opinions occur only at those details:
- I do not see that problem with X-Fade when it comes to ensemble patches since their possible Phaseshiftingeffects are quite natural and characteristic for an ensemblesound. But that is obviously a matter of taste for which aspect you do spend the greatest sensibility.
- As far as I could test it now there is absolutly no problem to du runs with the Synchron-Strings fast legato as it was before with Dimension strings to do it with the performance-trill-patch which was basically kind of a fast legato.
- I fear it could be a bit misleading to think, what a score calls staccato, is "always" excatly the same what the Tone-Engineers who produced a sample-library call a Staccato-patch. - No, of course it is not, in my humble opinion each articulation hint of any score is always related to the musical context in which it occurs. No one would stricly stop in an adagio at each ending slur the melodic continuity, since the phrasing which is indicated here demands a completly different dynamic and agogical realisation as it would be in a faster more dancing tempo. Just consider some staccati in slow movements, if you realy would use a staccato patch for that and not at least a detache or even a dynamic swell on one note you will end up often enough with completly musical nonsens. Thats why I just remind, to consider the musical context. Using short patches in a fast melody does not necessarily mean that you realy achieve always a "crisp" seperated sequence of single notes, but often enough the higher the tempo is and depenmdent to what kind of short-patch you use something, what might be in respect of the clearness of each single tone more appropriate to what you are looking for when realising the score in its own musical reasonable context.
To automatically associate the patch, which is called identically with how the notation sign is called a composer use is what the playback-automatism of notationsoftware do. If this would not "automatically" be in danger to sound "synthy"but really lead always to the one and only most convincing musical realisation, things would be much simpler: Than Hurray, lets automate music!. But I fear in real music things are not that simple but as individual as dependent from each single musical context. No composer in historty ever composed for the "patches" we now use, but more or less "indicated" with the help of the notation signs just what their musical Idea was about. The inflexible association one playingtechnic to one patch does already ignores the always large possible variety how different playing terchnics could be executed. In so far there is no other way than trying to understand the music first before chosing which patch would be the most convenient for a certain passage.