Humans Vs. Machines

you would not have music without thought and emotion. Thought goes into making music as does it to interpret what is written along with emotion. I would'nt play a piece them same way as you because i would interpret it different. 1 million ppl, 1 million interpretation. 1 piece of music, 1 million computers- 1 interpretation. Why? because our emotions go into the playing of our music whether we think of it or not.

you would not have music without thought and emotion. Thought goes into making music as does it to interpret what is written along with emotion. I would'nt play a piece them same way as you because i would interpret it different. 1 million ppl, 1 million interpretation. 1 piece of music, 1 million computers- 1 interpretation. Why? because our emotions go into the playing of our music whether we think of it or not.

Aye, such is an underlying fundamental basis of music. But alas! Some people do not understand...

it actually boggles the mind. Then again, maybe we're the wrong ones, and computers just are better than us...

Alas indeed

Aye, such is an underlying fundamental basis of music. But alas! Some people do not understand...

Like 2+2=4. Who would have thought.lol..

Like 2+2=4. Who would have thought.lol..

I thought these musical concepts were taught in school these days? Guess I was wrong.

I remember some science fiction story, I forget its name, where these scientists invent a computer that composes the most perfect song, whatever that is, and everybody who listens to it loses their mind or is hypnotized

okay. the question here is: can a computer match up to the articulation's that of a human. we're not discussing the issue with uniqueness and how people play differently.

if you're saying different renditions of music played makes a difference. then can't i simply say that the computer plays a unique rendition itself, different than all the other real live players? and the way it is played is based on the emotion of the composer. because the composer may want a mellow horn sound when he's sad, or a bright trumpet blast when he feels accomplished.

I remember some science fiction story, I forget its name, where these scientists invent a computer that composes the most perfect song, whatever that is, and everybody who listens to it loses their mind or is hypnotized

that's messed up. thank god it's fiction. :laugh:

I thought these musical concepts were taught in school these days? Guess I was wrong.

yeah. that's why when those damn artsy teachers gesture so much telling us "how we should let go of our minds and just let our hands run the melody", i thought it was so much bullshit. if i free my mind and let go of my hands on the piano, it's just a bunch of unharmonized bang. and then my mom yells at me.

Holy frig - I started a post before even the first reply, went to buy a coffee table, come back to finish and now theres 4 pages?! Anyway...here's my thoughts on this, before I start sifting through everyone elses...

Are musicians obselete? With people using computers to make music as convincing as this, and this, it's seems the line is getting a bit blurrier every day.

I forsee a lot of studio work disappearing - namely film/tv/commercial work being delegated to a guy with a laptop and a synthesizer. And in a lot of pop music this has already happened - 'popstars' singing along with canned bands...it's actually quite depressing.

BUT, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. ...SO, where I live, it's musicians who rule and the live, spontaneous, and creative interaction between one human and another is and always will be the most important aspect to a lot of music. Sure, you can program computers and programs to 'interact' and 'react'...but in this case, it's still the human element behind the program that is the intended focus.

It's the eye contact, the action and reactions that are important.

There's a lot of non-musical things (clicking sax keys, subtle timbral nuances) and acoustic phenomena (inexplicable harmonics) that contribute as well. Extended techniques? Mute-work? Multiphonics? Good luck getting a convincing plunger mute, half-valve, or ponticello effect...let alone some interesting improvisation or sound-painting...

It's when the synthetic element is masquerading as 'real, live' performance that we start to lose the human and real aspects to our music. ...

well said, Robin. All those little things give the music a human quality that at least I prefer.

(oh and I was about to thank you for providing examples of synthetic performances that sound realistic and then clicked one to find that it was my own thread, LOL :laugh: ...and to think that mine are just amateur-produced...)

I've never heard a computer generated piece of music that really took my breath away, but I have heard many human performances that have. I don't think that emotion and music are at a disconnect at all, I don't understand that sentiment. I happen to think that there's something impossible to explain that happens on occasion, when a performer is able to communicate something he/she truly feels in a performance. It's like magic, and I don't think a computer could ever achieve that spontaneity. If it did appear to, then like someone noted earlier in the thread, it's the art of the person behind the computer and a person with skill in and of himself...in a way, he is playing the computer. I don't think just anyone could achieve that.

well said, Robin. All those little things give the music a human quality that at least I prefer.[/b]

I love hearing something extraneous that reminds me (proves) that there's a living, thinking person responsible:

wrong note...dropped mute....page turning....creaky bench...hitting a microphone...inhaling....exhaling....keith jarrett incoherent moaning...the guy off stage smacking a rolled-up newspaper...

I much prefer 'live' recordings, and I promise not to get started on where artistry ends and studio technology takes over (is it SO different for a computer to play something perfectly, or for a performer to record 18 takes and splice together a 'perfect' performance?? ...anyway....that's not for here.)

...I was about to thank you for providing examples of synthetic performances that sound realistic and then clicked one to find that it was my own thread, LOL :ermm: ...and to think that mine are just amateur-produced...

This is the scariest part! Technology is to the point where a University student can put together a very convincing piece (Giselle's 'Making the Flight' fooled me...seriously)...imagine what a multi-million-dollar budget for a major motion picture with top technology and professional studio technicians could produce. Scary.

I've never heard a computer generated piece of music that really took my breath away, but I have heard many human performances that have. I don't think that emotion and music are at a disconnect at all, I don't understand that sentiment.

Totally true, and this is why I think art music (i.e. music to be performed for a listening audience) is relatively safe. It's the other stuff: TV, film and other 'background' music (Why hire a 6-piece band for your wedding, when one singer with a keyboard and a drum machine will do) are where we'll see a difference.

...it's the art of the person behind the computer and a person with skill in and of himself...in a way, he is playing the computer. I don't think just anyone could achieve that.

A laptop is quickly becoming a viable 'instrument' - Ikue Mori and many others use them for real-time synthesis and improvisation. Computers and programs like MAX/MSP are also often used by new-music composers, new/impossible sounds are possible - be it from altering a live clarinet sound, reacting to a live sound, or in addition to a live sound...or, completely independant. ...

Holy moly...this is getting long, and I just spilled my drink.

...enough for now. :laugh:

Just have a few moments before I get about the day....

Important (to me) in this discussion is the use to which one wishes to put music.

Don't forget that the subject broadens into machines playing music not just computers. Anyone who has heard a piano roll of 1st mvt Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata that was simply 'cut', and a performance by a real performer to determine the relevance of emotions.

Agreed, the "art" of piano roll cutting progressed to the point where the greats could record there performances well and reproduced on the right instrument, they don't sound too bad. But that's because it's a piano where the totality of expression resolves at the velocity of key-strokes, durations, pedal effects and that. Emotions affect those key-stroke velocities and durations. No one has succeeded in doing the same with the violin or cello.

But does anyone want the mechanical/electronic replication of acoustic music?

I'm happy with "computer music" as long as it presses forward. There's little sense in keep recording rochestral samples when electronic sounds could be just as varied and developed into a different but conventional pallette. It will just take a little work.

Just a shame the analogue synthesiser never had a chance - too difficult to control (in terms of replicating settings, so the thing never sounded exactly the same twice). That might have been aa way forward. Sure, Curtiss Electronusic started to turn out chips for computer control of settings, and Midi allowed control to be passed between instruments, but by then the japanses had spotted the market, managed expectations down and turned it all into the abysmally sterile world of digital tone generation. The equipment looked very flash so it sold. We even had "professional" keyboards by Casio with the letter names printed over the keys!

The music sounds sterile and any number of devices can't restore the human qualities of performance (and there are enough of them) for listeners who want that.

Even so, I can't see live music dying. There are still masses of musicians for whom the real-time act of hands on an instrument is where it's at. Anyone who argues that emotion at the playing end is barely important in the listening experience is a bit off. This is why performances and recordings by those Eastern youngsters - Midori, for instance, playing the Paganini Caprices at the age of ten do not convince the listening public. Their performances might be technically brilliant - they're the product of strict parents standing over forcing them to practice and practice - but they haven't the artistry, much of which is the facility to project emotion through the playing...almost a psychodrama, you'd think. The educated listener senses this.

There are many sides to this debate though - like most listeners these days listen to classics composed for a totally acoustic domain through loudspeakers. So we've partly adapted to removing the music making from intended listening conditions and concert going.

M

Are musicians obselete? With people using computers to make music as convincing as this, and this, it's seems the line is getting a bit blurrier every day.

I forsee a lot of studio work disappearing - namely film/tv/commercial work being delegated to a guy with a laptop and a synthesizer. And in a lot of pop music this has already happened - 'popstars' singing along with canned bands...it's actually quite depressing.

BUT, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. ...SO, where I live, it's musicians who rule and the live, spontaneous, and creative interaction between one human and another is and always will be the most important aspect to a lot of music. Sure, you can program computers and programs to 'interact' and 'react'...but in this case, it's still the human element behind the program that is the intended focus.

It's the eye contact, the action and reactions that are important.

There's a lot of non-musical things (clicking sax keys, subtle timbral nuances) and acoustic phenomena (inexplicable harmonics) that contribute as well. Extended techniques? Mute-work? Multiphonics? Good luck getting a convincing plunger mute, half-valve, or ponticello effect...let alone some interesting improvisation or sound-painting...

It's when the synthetic element is masquerading as 'real, live' performance that we start to lose the human and real aspects to our music. ... [/b]

I find it somewhat humorous that you young folks are having this debate. I have news for you all - well, except for some of you more.. uh, seasoned types. This is nothing new. Electronic music started to "steal" work from musicians over thirty years ago. The first "pop" musicians to use Mellotrons and Synthesizers (as cheesy as some of those sounds might have been) in their music would probably have employed a string section otherwise. Disco kicked musicians by the thousands out of the clubs. Then came drum machines; the TR-707 alone was probably responsible for half of the drummer unemployment rate in the 80's. By the early 90's , more than half of all "sweetening" was accomplished from a floppy-disc. No doubt, tens of thousands of musicians have lost their jobs to this technology.

By the turn of the millennium, sampling at the professional level, has been able to re-create all but the entirely realistic representations of most any instrument. I have a beautiful very nice sounding baby-grand piano - but guess what? It's not in my studio. It takes me half the day to set up the mics and get the sound half as well as I can by just turning on my computer and using a Steinway, sampled with mics and mic-preamps that I could otherwise never afford. - On my real piano, if I come back to finish the session the next day, the humidity has changed the sound and everything's out of whack.

It's just not worth the effort. With the sampled piano in the sequencer - I can go back and edit my hacked job so well that it'll sound like I hired a REAL pianist. - Listen to my Jazz Study that I recently posted. - I recorded it on my real piano. If you listen real carefully, you can't hear the piano edit about half way through on the piano track, but you CAN tell that the piano sounds different all of a sudden - I needed to use two takes, hack that I am, and on the second take, I must have moved one of the mics because the piano is out of phase. By the time I took it down to my studio to mix it, I had torn down my rig upstairs and it was too late. - Chalk another one up for technology.

The way I'm describing it - you'd think technology is going to make musicians obsolete. You know what I think? Those musicians whose jobs have been "stolen" were of dubious value in the first place.

After all, what is the human brain? A biological computer, right? Ahhh, BUT.. a computer "flawed" by emotion, ego, subjectivity and any other number of variables unattainable by technology.

What is music? How did it evolve? What was/is it's function? Music is BORN of emotion. Why do film-scorers use drum beats and horns during battle scenes? Because historically drums and horns have been used to motivate warriors. Why do you listen to certain types of music at certain times? Emotion is anything but the flaw of music - it IS the reason that music exists, otherwise, we'd all be sitting here posting math equations. Nuts and bolts computers can beat the crap out of our brains when it comes to the objective, computational part of music. So we take advantage of it. For those musicians who choose to attain perfection; even perfection in certain aspects of performance, or perfection in certain aspects of compositional symmetry, etc. anything that is objectively definable, BEWARE. Computers will and SHOULD 'steal' your job, maybe not in the concert halls, but certainly in the recording studios.

When I placed a rit. on my Finale score and the program actually performed a controlled rit., I got all goose-bumpily. Whenever technology lets ME do the playing, especially on an instrument that I can't play, My job becomes more about being what a composer's SHOULD be - that of Sound Designer - Letting my human emotions and other "flaws" float to the top, and being able to render whatever I hear with less and less energy devoted to the mundane, computational, technical aspects of music. Put another way; I can concentrate more on the art, and less on the craft.

proves my point doesn't it? if you the musical emotion is dictated by the music, then it's not the player that changes the music. it's the composers who decides to write that music.

I believe it was Van Cliburn who said "When a composer is writing a piece, he has the perfect piece in his mind. And when that composer dies, we are left with his best effort to put his idea on paper. And all we can do is Interpret what the composer left us to the best of out ability"

And beef, what on earth is your problem? A computer has no emotion, and music is emtion, Mozart said it best

"Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius."

unless you have a secret love affair with your MIDI player, I suggest you compare Vldamir Horrowitz's Performance of Rachmaninov's 3rd Piano Concerto, to that of a MIDI player's version of it.

And you call yourselves musicians? Music is an art form that you and only you can play. Like I said a computer has one rendition of music and that is it. Computers don't know how to do anything they do what they are told. But, a computer could never communicate a piece with the quality of a human. Computers have a very flat and almost undesireable sound. They can not communicate the resinence(i know wrong spelling) of what a person can do, come on use your brain. A computer is far from a valuable tool for musicians, if you write something on it, it is basically just an outline, like any other score. Though, if you take to listening to your computer for dynamics and mechanics and such, you are wrong because no computer can ever interpret music like a group of professional musicians or for any matter anybody!!!

I know, that's why I hate MIDI's, they are hideous perversions of the timbre's of different instruments

Define the world noise, then define the word tone, than tamber and i'll get back to you. Noise is no more than racket or something that is agitating. (of course some music is noise like rap and hard rock) But define the word tone and tamber and i'll get back to you. And ou call yourself a musician? :laugh:

Hmm, you're an idiot.

Music is vibrating air, perceived by the air in such a way for the human mind to perceive it as something more than it really is.

Really, it's just vibrations. Nothing special, really.

I am not an idiot. Did you think i didnt know music was vibrations. You are the idiot Define tone, noise!, tamber. They are completly different and i bet alla computer produces is noise. :laugh:

I am not an idiot. Did you think i didnt know music was vibrations. You are the idiot Define tone, noise!, tamber. They are completly different and i bet alla computer produces is noise. :angry:

Timbre! TIMBRE TIMBRE TIMBRE! Clear?

"You are the idiot Define tone, noise!, tamber." Wow, I don't even know where to begin on that.

(To everyone:)The ear may not be able to distinguish the human voice, but the brain can. The human voice is a unique combination of frequencies that is very difficult to correctly replicate. I don't know about you, but I can pick out the difference between a recording of a human's voice, and the real thing. This is one reason why live performances sound better than recordings.

You cannot say "All music is is noise." You can say "Music is made of noise." To say that music is only noise is severly understating what music is. Music is much more than just fequencies, it has an entire psychological gamut. Music is made of noise, but music is not, in its entirety, noise.

PS: TIMBRE!

Damnit I know i am a bad speller! I dont have an effing dictionary handy. And its tamber.

Damnit I know i am a bad speller! I dont have an effing dictionary handy. And its tamber.

"In music, timbre, also timber (from Fr. timbre), (IPA /'t

Define the world noise, then define the word tone, than tamber and i'll get back to you. Noise is no more than racket or something that is agitating. (of course some music is noise like rap and hard rock) But define the word tone and tamber and i'll get back to you. And ou call yourself a musician? :angry:

Tones are nothing more than the pitch played by an instrument. However, and somewhat mistakenly, when we are talking about someone's tone, we are actually talking about tone color, or timbre. When you listen to a clarinet and a flute play the same note, why is it you can tell that one is a flute and the other, a clarinet? The answer is that though each produce the same fundamental pitch, the present overtone series for that note is skewed or altered differently for each instrument; some tones sound softer, and some louder. For each instrument, the sum of the fundamental and all of the overtones results in a given timbre.

Just for the record with respect to this dialog, these fundamental aspects of how instruments produce sound are very easily reproduced by technology, and using various techniques in addition to just sampling, even more sophisticated perfomance perameters can be emulated. For example, sequenced Low Frequency Oscilators ganged to various pitch and amplitude characteristics can emulate vibrato and tremelo, and other sorts of effects. Even more complicated algorithms that address the workings of the overtone series can be used to create different performance subtleties with respect to each note.

Someone defined music as noise earlier. Even at it's most fundamental and broadest definition, this does not pass muster. You guys have a lot of ground to cover in this discussion.

I find it somewhat humorous that you young folks are having this debate....This is nothing new. Electronic music started to "steal" work from musicians over thirty years ago.

...No doubt, tens of thousands of musicians have lost their jobs to this technology.

...The way I'm describing it - you'd think technology is going to make musicians obsolete. You know what I think? Those musicians whose jobs have been "stolen" were of dubious value in the first place.

...Emotion is anything but the flaw of music - it IS the reason that music exists, otherwise, we'd all be sitting here posting math equations. ...BEWARE. Computers will and SHOULD 'steal' your job, maybe not in the concert halls, but certainly in the recording studios.

...Whenever technology lets ME do the playing, especially on an instrument that I can't play, My job becomes more about being what a composer's SHOULD be...I can concentrate more on the art, and less on the craft.

You made a lot of good points, this has been an ongoing shift for a long time now. And many musicians embraced the technology in art music, using the drum-machine and synthesizer to augment the music...they're just new instruments, new sounds. And your point about computers stealing studio jobs is exactly what I think will happen...

I don't know if I agree with you about the technology letting you concentrate more on art rather than craft. My technology lets me do the playing on instruments I don't play - it's just a pencil, but in the end, I get the exact same result. The performance, to me, is the art - a performance by living people (whether they're playing a piano, a piccolo, or a Roland-808) is the end goal of my music. It's the emotion/expression/interaction/human qualities in the music I love/want/need. As I understand you, the art is the music performed, and the craft is the music on paper. .... *thinks a bit*

I may have just seen what you're on about - and I do see your point. In your case, you yourself rendered the complete piece - which is in itself a performance, by a human controlling a computer, a human interpreting the music. That's fine - I can definately appreciate the art there. It's when the written music is simply input into a program, and the computer spits out the computer's interpretation that I start to have trouble. ...

...music is noise. It's not like some magical wavelength that carries someone's inner emotions into the listener, magically transforming their inner soles.

...Really, it's just vibrations. Nothing special, really.

...Don't be an idiot, and don't attribute some mystical bullshit to an artform that is nothing more than manipulating soundwaves.[/b]

HAHAHAHAHA

If you would like to show me, in some shape or form, how a human can convey something other than vibrations in music, I'd love to know how though.[/b]

HAHAHAHAHA

Because last I checked, if something other than an audible vibration is conveyed, it's not part of the music.[/b]

HAHAHAHAHA

Okay, I really hope you don't try and come up with a rebuttal to all this - you're ridiculous and you frighten me.

Really...do you honestly believe that there's no underlying emotion or intent behind a performance?

HAHAHAHAHA....seriously, listen to Billie Holiday sing a ballad, or John Coltrane play the blues, or....holy crap I can't go on!

...

i know computers aren't up to par as humans. but at least i believe it can. my music isn't exceptionally well, but i'm still improving. believing it can allows me to at least achieve and improve the production quality to as close as humanly as possible. i'm not going to believe that the computer can't achieve what the human does. even if i know not believing it makes me wrong. believing that the computers can't do all that lets me down and how i write the music. so far that's what i've seen in a lot of users on this forum. they slop their music around like some sort of picasso art and then they blame the quality on the computer. they believe the computer can't do what the human does so they give up. but they give up too early and put all the blame on technology. they don't realize technology can do even more than just a midi with GPO run through it. maybe it won't have emotions. but emotions isn't 100% of the music, it's only 50% of it. i'm only believing that it can to complete that other 50% where the technology can fulfill. it beats having 10% done and saying the computer's at fault.

if we don't believe, things will never be done the best can be. i'm an engineering student. i don't ever give up and put blame on anything. that's the way i see the technology and hence taking the other side than the most of you. go ahead and believe what you want. it's not in me or anyone to decide whether you're right or wrong.