thoughts on electronic music\sound

In one sense yes. A sine wave is completely abstract and is how we define waves. Just like F# is abstract but it tells us about a very real sound.

I've had this page up on my computer for days, meaning to get through it and never having the time. Now that I've sifted through the metaphysical drivel and the mathematic hee-haw, I want to say that I think a very basic point when it comes to electronic music has been overlooked. Whether a sine wave will hit my ear in a certain way or not, the point originally made that "a sine wave is a sine wave is a sine wave, and every human violinist is individual" does make its point clearly, despite any dubious details.

The difference between an electronic sound and a live sound is enormous. I'm leaving recordings of live music out, because the only thing I see that really differs from a live performance is that the recording stays the same every time.

But with electronically generated music, you lose the nuance of a live performer, and of live performers interacting with each other, and working together toward the collective goal of the performance of the piece. We've become so advanced that we can almost perfectly simulate those nuances, and yet those are nuances that will never change, performance to performance, so they're not really nuances, are they? They are simulations of possible choices a musician could make. But in the end, it's a computer generated dynamic or tempo change that will be played exactly the same every time, despite what's going on around it.

I read a very interesting article--and was also waiting til I'd read the whole thing before posting here--on the use of digital orchestras in musical theatre. I, personally, find it abominable. I already don't like the fact that the conductor doesn't even have to be in the same BUILDING as the singer or the musicians, and that our live music can be piped in from across the street, but then getting rid of the live factor completely? I thought that was just for karaoke night! Here's the article for those who want to read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/technology/05pogue-email.html?8cir&emc=cira1

Still, I can see its advantages, and I already see its effect, despite my disappointment. And yet, I think to myself, in non-musical theatre, we're all about mixed media right now. How can we combine the live with the pre-recorded as with the Wooster Group's recent Hamlet, which was performed simultaneously with a video of Richard Burton playing Hamlet in 1964. Or combine live with live video feeds, as in Frost/Nixon which filmed close-ups of Frank Langella's face onstage and projected them on television sets, or the recent downtown Misanthrope, which had live video feed from cameras in the dressing room playing on a screen onstage. Even a musical like Sunday in the Park with George (which has an embarassingly synthesized orchestra pit) is using moving projections instead of painted backdrops or physical scenery.

So, maybe we can find a way to use electronically simulated music and combine it with live performances to create something exciting and new, which still relies on the performer and still gives us the thrill that can only come from a live performance.

Any thoughts?

I think live performances are a little overrated. It's fun, and working with people is cool sometimes. But I'm quite the control freak and I rather command a computer than a group of people. At least I know the computer isn't going to argue back.

Then there are cases where people make all the difference, then it's fine. But it depends on how much control I want to have over what I'm writing. Some things just can't be "performed" live at all, so well. Depends.

Number 2-Well, regardless of how the sound is calculated, the only difference between the two waves in this example seem to be the two amplifiers. And obviously, if you use two different amplifiers, the result will vary slightly. But as long as they are relatively good amplifiers, this should be neglectable. The algorithm of calculating the sound seems irrelevant for this, but maybe I'm missing something?

Number 3-No a sine wave is not a physical property, it describes physical property.

Point taken, but I think that's just splitting hairs in the end. My point is just that there are sound waves that have a sinusoidal distribution of air pressure over space, respectively sinusoidal oscillations of air pressure. But you keep saying that sound waves "behave" fundamentally different than that in principle, without naming how.

Look at the position function of a sine wave that describes a sound wave and then look at the actually position of the function.

A "position function of a sine wave"? You mean a function that describes the spread of a sine tone sound wave in space? That would just be a linear graph with a rise proportional to the speed of sound. Obviously that doesn't resemble a sine function. I'm talking both of a function that describes the distribution of air pressure relative to space at one moment and the change of air pressure at a given position over time. Or is that what you mean too? In that case I certainly have looked at such graphs and I have seen no notable differences to a sine function, sorry.

I use my oscill for Potential Difference, and as I recall, they generally automatically plot the pd as a function of time or voltage thus most to all oscill will do a FFT. If you use yours differently fine, but it isn't my concern.

Huh? Yes, sure, a plot of pd over time. How does that require an FFT? A FFT transform translates a time domain function (i.e. a waveform) into its frequency domain representation (i.e. a spectrum), but we both seem to be talking of time domain functions.

In reply to DrPangloss: You are right that electronic music generally fails in trying to simulate human performers. But that's not the problem of electronic music, but the problem of trying to simulate something entirely different. A human performer would "fail" quite as much trying to simulate electronic sound. Most truly electronic music doesn't have it as a goal to sound like a real instrument, but seeks to create entirely different sounds. We're not talking about digital orchestras and the like, but sound that has nothing to do with real instruments. You might as well say that an organ is unsuitable as an instrument, because it can never imitate the fine intricacies of playing a violin with precice intonation, vibrato, different articulations, fine dynamic differences, etc. But the point is to write music that is idiomatic for an organ, not to try to imitate a violin on an organ (which of course actually was the point of organs for some time, trying to imitate other instruments. But it has grown over that stage a long time ago.)

I'd like to say at this point that I have no idea what the sine wave discussion really is about. Reply follows upon reply trying to correct factual errors in the previous, but you're not going anywhere. If you want to discuss how you use your oscilloscopes, make a new thread. If not, please just tell me once and for all what your point is (this is mainly for DOFTS, since it seems to be his supposedly existing point that is the heart of the discussion). I'm beginning to think there never was one...

You are right, we both got a bit carried away, sorry for that. I guess I will just shut up now. :P

The point was that when fourthage made his point that there is no difference between a pure sine wave recorded and live, he was being nonsensical. The mathematical representation and the sound we hear can and is often different. The claim that electronic sample can sound like a real live concert is a bit absurd.

A "position function of a sine wave"? You mean a function that describes the spread of a sine tone sound wave in space? That would just be a linear graph with a rise proportional to the speed of sound. Obviously that doesn't resemble a sine function. I'm talking both of a function that describes the distribution of air pressure relative to space at one moment and the change of air pressure at a given position over time. Or is that what you mean too? In that case I certainly have looked at such graphs and I have seen no notable differences to a sine function, sorry.

Actually, position functions of sine waves do require sine waves. When comparing that to the position of wave you'll notice one odd thing about particle on set point.

Point taken, but I think that's just splitting hairs in the end. My point is just that there are sound waves that have a sinusoidal distribution of air pressure over space, respectively sinusoidal oscillations of air pressure. But you keep saying that sound waves "behave" fundamentally different than that in principle, without naming how.

I already stated how, but you keep missing it. I'll say it again, sine waves are sometimes uniform in distribution and even in temperament. Sound waves are always uniform in distribution but rarely in even temperament.

Number 2-Well, regardless of how the sound is calculated, the only difference between the two waves in this example seem to be the two amplifiers. And obviously, if you use two different amplifiers, the result will vary slightly. But as long as they are relatively good amplifiers, this should be neglectable. The algorithm of calculating the sound seems irrelevant for this, but maybe I'm missing something?

I gave you the method so that we can be on the same page. The thing is that it isn't negligible. In fact, the same sound tend to sound different if you are tube, or solid state. The only time it is the same is if you run through the same type of and brand of amplifier. If you then choose to switch and rerecord the sound on a different amp, you'll record different sound. If you choose to do this while moving away from the object, you'll record difference sound. Tis why live can hardly equal recorded sound, despite having the same notes.

The point was that when fourthage made his point that there is no difference between a pure sine wave recorded and live, he was being nonsensical. The mathematical representation and the sound we hear can and is often different. The claim that electronic sample can sound like a real live recording is a bit absurd.

O... K.

Then what are all the other posts about?

Really, it's as unclear now as it was in the beginning. Sorry. I could reply to the additional comments that you're adding during the time I'm writing this, but I think we're not getting any further, so kthxbye.

How about we let this thread be about electronic music again.

The other post were in replies to what everyone else kept asking me. Notice, my first reply was just a one sentence phrase. You guys asked while, I kept going on. More questions came, I kept replying, so don't blame me for derailing the thread. I just went with the flow.

Since I promised to shut up I won't continue arguing, especially since I actually agree with most you wrote in your last post. Most of what you wrote there doesn't seem to contradict what I was trying to say, even though I may have articulated myself unclearly.

Oh and yes, I had ignored aspects such as the listener moving in relation to the sound source. Point taken there.

Despite the talking in circles (some of which was, I admit, quite interesting and informative) I'm glad we've come to the collective decision that it was getting nowhere.

I'm interested to hear what people think about the possible pros and cons of electronically generated music. Also, the idea of using mixed media in music performances the way it's become so prolific in theatrical performances.

And SSC, it's true that computers don't argue back, but sometimes those arguements can lead to new and fun ideas about the performance of the piece that we, the composers, never thought of. That's what collaboration is all about.

Wasn't it Meyerhold who decided that actors were getting in the way of HIS theatre pieces, and started using life-sized puppets instead?

In reply to DrPangloss: You are right that electronic music generally fails in trying to simulate human performers. But that's not the problem of electronic music, but the problem of trying to simulate something entirely different. A human performer would "fail" quite as much trying to simulate electronic sound. Most truly electronic music doesn't have it as a goal to sound like a real instrument, but seeks to create entirely different sounds. We're not talking about digital orchestras and the like, but sound that has nothing to do with real instruments. You might as well say that an organ is unsuitable as an instrument, because it can never imitate the fine intricacies of playing a violin with precice intonation, vibrato, different articulations, fine dynamic differences, etc. But the point is to write music that is idiomatic for an organ, not to try to imitate a violin on an organ (which of course actually was the point of organs for some time, trying to imitate other instruments. But it has grown over that stage a long time ago.)

scraggy, gardener, you stole my post. i came after the devastading day of work with an idea to reply to dr., and bang, here you are stating what has been tried (to have been stated) all the way up to here (though you did it in a more civilized manner than i thought of coming with :)) - it is different music with different procedures.

it strange how some people get the negative out of the difference - if it is different (has not got some properties\has got some other properties), then it is bad. but, hey, difference is not about negative. it is the first cock of a positive. (and still - there plenty of ways to have real time change in electronic sound as it is performed)

and - how come electronic music is not live? last time i checked, there were plethora of live electronic artists. hell, we even got our lithuanian laptop quartet, performing works of stockhausen and etc.

p.s. heres the link if anyone is interested: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=265487506

I understand this, which is why I pose the question of the possibility to mix media together. Concerto for Violin and Computer or something like that. What do we think we might be able to do combining live musicians (piano, violin, trumpet, whatever) with electronically generated music.

I understand this, which is why I pose the question of the possibility to mix media together. Concerto for Violin and Computer or something like that. What do we think we might be able to do combining live musicians (piano, violin, trumpet, whatever) with electronically generated music.

well, the potency of this virus is quite uncountable. even lithuanian composers write music for orchestra with electronics (computer). antanas jasenka has done some music for this combination while sitting at performance among performers and knob-tweaking laptop.

i think, as i stated in earlier posts, that this sort of electroacoustic combining can be very successfull.

there's nothing more interesting when two (at least) different things meet. analogie: the love thing.

though i do not think it necessary to impose their differences on one another. there could be sort of diagonal evolving.

aleatoric rationalism :)

Yes, I agree entirely on that. Combining mechanical (i.e. classical instruments) and electroacoustic sound sources, specifically live electronics can create amazing results, just because of the differences between the two. It is however also one of the hardest kinds of music to write, in my opinion, as it requires both a good knowledge of the mechanical instruments and the electronics and an idea of combining them that is thought through very well. Otherwise the electronics can easily sound like "just some sound effects on top of the instrumental sound", or in the other direction "an electronic piece where a live instrumentalist provides some samples for the electronican to play with". These things happen easily if you don't think about what relationship the electronics and the life instruments should have to each other, how to give them their own, independant, idiomatic roles and how to let them interact and come together as a group.

But if the composer approaches this combination thoughtfully, the results can be truly amazing.

If one is interested in great combinations of mechanical instruments and electroacoustic sounds, I recommend Mario Davidovsky's "Synchronisms", specifically Synchronisms No. 9 for violin and tape. Awesome! Oh, and here I actually found a recording on youtube: YouTube - Lynn Kuo, violin: Davidovsky Synchronisms No. 9, 1of 2

(Oh, and I just recently analysed the first well-known composition that combined electronic sound with life instruments: Edgard Var

Yes I agree with SSC , computers don't answer back. And as Milton Babbitt observed sometime back in the 1950's, what most people listen to is electronic music - recordings, radio broadcasts, and now podcasts , downloads etc. Combining electronics with live performance is not new. The problem is that it is pretty boring to sit and watch someone playing a laptop. Live performance is really not about music it is about performance/theatre. Which is why rock musicians jump around the stage and do silly things. The reality is that performance is becoming redundant.

Is listening to a CD and listening to musicians play live is exactly the same to you?

And well, depending on the instrument, there's really not much more to see about traditional musicians than when looking at a person making music on a laptop. You'll see a physical action that you can relate to the creation of the sound when you're watching a violinist maybe, or a timpanist, and to some degree a trombonist or pianist, but you will see almost nothing of the sound creation when an oboist, trumpetist or flutist plays. But alone the awareness that the sound is being created live and is momentary and unique makes a huge difference for me when it comes to listening experience. Never knowing whether the next moment will be the most beautiful music you've ever heard, or whether the performer will accidentally drop her or his instrument. :P

Of course, listening to a CD is not the same as listening live, but that is still a recording of a human performance. That's why I've been trying to use the phrase "electronically generated" music, music that is purely electronic from its inception.

And I did a bit of research. It was not Meyerhold who replaced his actors with life-sized puppets. I haven't been able to find which director did that. I'm pretty certain it was one of them Russians.

i have to say that it is not of an important difference, if you see or not who is playing and so on. when i used to go to concerts i would close my eyes and just dive into sound-world. performers more than often make it look like it's a matter of life.

and i do not see such a major difference between recorded music and performed live in your presence. it's not neccessarily that one negates the other. good recorded performance might be much better than a bad live act. after all, it's a musical thought we search and get blown off in a sound.

Hm. On crucial point of error is that, well, alot of these arguments ignore that people who play instruments and do live concerts aren't just some arbitrary bunch of dudes with nothing better to do. It's people who study, practice, and dedicate themselves of it, or at least even people who are actually doing stuff.

I'm all for going to a concert which is just a bunch of speakers and fancy lighting. No problem. But I also enjoy seeing people play their instruments and do stuff like that. I think it's fun, I personally do it also (play instruments) and I certainly think that it'll never be "out of fashion" since a LOT of people play instruments.

I try not to have any bias, precisely because like I said before, it really depends on what I want. If I write something purely electronic, then no performers are needed. But I can write for performers too, and I can also write for different levels of involvement of the performers. Naturally, I can write electro acoustic stuff too. Why not?

Performers are important because people playing instruments are a good thing. I like it when people play instruments, I think it's a good thing. I like to hear the result of all the training and, well, whatever. It should go without saying that people are important.

As for my argument that computers don't fight back, well, I don't "discuss" my compositions with performers who play my piece. I can explain or we can talk about interpretation, which is all fine and part of their job. But nobody but me writes my music. Unless there's a very explicit agreement to collaboration, I'm pretty stubborn.

So, maybe it was misinterpreted. But everyone has their own way of working with rehearsals/musicians. I'm very very very stubborn, I've almost had stuff pulled from concert because I had to have scraggy my way (in this particular example it was just some stupid taste thing, too! I don't argue when there is a technical problem, or whatever like that.)

And yet at the same time, I love chance music, and improv characteristics. But in those cases, I fully accept the outcome and don't imagine scraggy when what can happen on stage is totally different (specially with chance elements, improv, etc etc. Anything about asking other people to contribute.)

I think electronic music gives you total control if you need it, which is why I love it. But people give you a lot of things total control don't, which is the whole improv/chance/and simply the human character to a piece (which isn't yours). You sometimes don't want to "write" that, which is one of the reasons for having someone play it.

Just to be clear, I think you can "write" all the stuff I mentioned above in a piece (electronic,) but you're closing the doors to different interpretations and etc. I like to give people stuff they can work with too, see if others can play something different. Etc. That's real fun to me.

So, in conclusion, write all sorts of music with all sorts of things, period.