Humans Vs. Machines

And yet, even when it's done by professionals with the best software out there, I can instantly tell the difference - the computer-generated music always sounds a bit off.

Even recorded music doesn't sound the same as live music: for one, no speaker ever produced has been able to satisfactorily play back the sound of a violin. Audiophiles take pride in building speaker systems that able to come relatively close to a live performance, but even then, most of them can tell the difference pretty easily.

And yet, even when it's done by professionals with the best software out there, I can instantly tell the difference - the computer-generated music always sounds a bit off.

Even recorded music doesn't sound the same as live music: for one, no speaker ever produced has been able to satisfactorily play back the sound of a violin. Audiophiles take pride in building speaker systems that able to come relatively close to a live performance, but even then, most of them can tell the difference pretty easily.

I agree and have you noticed that there is a big difference in the sound of an old RPM than when you hear a CD now a days. Records almost sound live and the imperfections make it sound more live while CDs almost have a synthetic tone with the digitally remastered stuff l8ly.

And yet, even when it's done by professionals with the best software out there, I can instantly tell the difference - the computer-generated music always sounds a bit off.

Even recorded music doesn't sound the same as live music: for one, no speaker ever produced has been able to satisfactorily play back the sound of a violin. Audiophiles take pride in building speaker systems that able to come relatively close to a live performance, but even then, most of them can tell the difference pretty easily.

yeah. maybe you have the ears to be able to differentiate. i have some classical recordings that were done digitally, i never knew they were digital until i read the label, and (understood it, because it was in chinese). for some of us, like me. i can't tell that "bit of difference" and if i can produce something like that, then i'd say i'm pretty close to that 50%. but it makes a whole lot of difference when it's "a bit off" or a "whole lot off". when i say 10%, i mean a whole lot off.

OK ALREADY! So you can tell the difference between a recording and live. So can I. Is one any less valid as music than the other? Heck, Bach 'recorded' his music with pen and ink. Surely, you guys would agree that things have improved? Yeah, there's nothing like live music, but I can tell you right now that I've gone to a bunch of live concerts in my life that paled in comparision to what was on the CD, and the other way around. Both serve different functions. One is a more portable and presicely derived version of the other. In many cases, some recorded music can't even be performed live, what with overdubbing and/or proccessing.

In many cases, some recorded music can't even be performed live, what with overdubbing and/or proccessing.

That's where I draw the line - if it can't be performed LIVE. Is it a sort of musical fraud? maybe...

Sampling, overdubs, sequencing - all easily done in live performace - otherwise electronica wouldn't exist (Some of the stuff from groups like Spring Heel Jack and Matmos is fantastically creative). But when you lose the element of spontaneous creation of sound, it loses its artistic quality.

See, personally, I've never been too great with technology aside from the basics. I have no capabilities when it comes to the technical side of anything, aside from what the program I bought has. I lack the patience of fiddling around with electrical outlets and binary and what not.

However, my strengths lie in the humanities. I'm studying Comparative Literature next fall, and I've already immersed myself in the Norton Anthologies. Reading - for fun, I might add - Gilgamesh, Trimalcho, The Oddysey, Aenaid, Beowulf, the Song of Roland, assorted poetry from all over the world, modern works of literature, Moby Dick, ect. The humanities is what truly interests me, and that's probably why I personally am more of a fan of the human, poetic aspect of making music.

I got 38% in University Level Math in Grade 11, I hated physics. I never took a computer course in my life. I know how to type. I have a very good understanding of sibelius. However, when it comes to the nitty gritty techy stuff - which I personally, from my own jaded opinion, usually call "niitty gritty techy crap" - I hate that stuff.

Thank god I own a Mac :P

See, personally, I've never been too great with technology aside from the basics. I have no capabilities when it comes to the technical side of anything, aside from what the program I bought has. I lack the patience of fiddling around with electrical outlets and binary and what not.

However, my strengths lie in the humanities. I'm studying Comparative Literature next fall, and I've already immersed myself in the Norton Anthologies. Reading - for fun, I might add - Gilgamesh, Trimalcho, The Oddysey, Aenaid, Beowulf, the Song of Roland, assorted poetry from all over the world, modern works of literature, Moby Dick, ect. The humanities is what truly interests me, and that's probably why I personally am more of a fan of the human, poetic aspect of making music.

I got 38% in University Level Math in Grade 11, I hated physics. I never took a computer course in my life. I know how to type. I have a very good understanding of sibelius. However, when it comes to the nitty gritty techy stuff - which I personally, from my own jaded opinion, usually call "niitty gritty techy crap" - I hate that stuff.

Thank god I own a Mac :P

i flipped open the Norton Anthologies book twice in my first year English course. once for the term paper, once for the final exam. sold my book in the end brand new. goes to show how much lit appealed to me.

Fair enough, Chris - we're all more than entitled to our opinions. Personally, I find it silly reduce music to it's lowest common denominator (i.e. vibrations in air), when, to so many people, it is so much more. To me, it's just an impersonal and needlessly scientific point of view.

But, whatever.

Sheesh, this discussion went wild since I last posted.

I don't know, we can all argue back and forth that one is better than the other, but at the end of the day one is just different from the other and everyone has their preferences.

I prefer real musicians, and live. I mean, music, to me, is more than just the music itself. It's about the person who wrote it, why they wrote it, how they got to the point that they wrote it. It's also about the performer - their history, their quirks (in playing), their nuances, their personal style. There are a lot of combinations of these factors that attribute to me liking one more than another. I mean, we can say music is just vibration, etc, but human beings are more than just flesh and bone, you know? Yes, at the end of the day that's all we ARRRE, but it extends beyond that, even if its just imagined. The mind is a powerful thing, even just to the individual.

I don't really have any passionate feelings about the matter (enough to argue about it much...) other than that I don't think that computers will ever REPLACE real musicians and I'm certain you all agree to some degree. I just wish that there was a more widespread appreciation for the work that goes into developing a personal performance style (I'm not saying that it isn't widespread HERE...I just mean in the world in general).

I do think that the stuff Robin mentioned is part of the music, btw...key clicks and stuff...it's like a mini percussion section in a way :D

I don't dislike it, I just don't think it applies to the topic so much. I mean we are all sitting here pressing buttons on a keyboard.

But we understand what each other are talking about. That's all in our minds though.

So what is the point?

that's what microphones are for

ok, oops, I just meant what is the point in relation to this thread's original question.

You think too much, Chris. :mellow:

the fact that music is sound waves is irrelevant. Any thing can be soundwaves.

That's like saying that when i talk, all I say i just soundwaves, and there is no meaning to what I say... which I hope there is

Yes, music is sound waves, but it is more to me and others. Why do people sing, when they can talk? What does song express more than mere words?

Music is an artform. And what is art other than the interpretation of how we percieve the world. Yes, the world is made up of atoms, but it is so much more. The world, emotion, life, love, passion, they are concepts. And a concept is not an atom. Atoms are the building blocks of the physical universe, but the human spirit is beyond mere science. The human spirit SEES the world no as it is in fact, but as he feels it seems to be. The human spirit in each one of us needs to be expressed one way or another, why, I do not know, it's just the way human beings are, damn it.

Why do we dream? People say it's for our mind to go to rest. Maybe that is so, or maybe that's what happens. But that doesn't necessarily explain WHY we dream. WHY do we live in the first place? WHAT is the point.

The point is, we must express ourselves, or we will go mad. We must share our feelings, our emotions, everything. Everything that humanity does is art. An engineer is an artist. A writer is an artist.

The thing that is so special about music, or at least unique, compared to so many artforms, is that we can't percieve it with our eyes. When I see a car, you will most likely see a car. If a tribesman were to see a car, he would see a car. He may not know what it is - his imagination might go wild - but in the end he sees a car. However, if I were to write a piece of music about this car, about how I percieve this car, it will sound completely different than if a tribesman were to compose something about the car. Why, because music, unlike the visual arts, does not describe so much what we see at the moment, but how we feel about what we see, at the moment.

And your damn right I might be sounding mystical. Or maybe loony. I don't give a scraggy. Human beings are loony creatures, with all our emotion. When we just see the world as sound waves, or atoms, or whatever, ONLY, then we lose something within ourselves. Do you really think that the Greeks KNEW FOR A FACT that the Gods really LIVED on Olympus? No, of course not. But that didn't matter. The CONCEPT, the IDEA of them living above Mankind on some MYTHICAL mountain called Olympus was enough.

When you hear a kettledrum, beaten by a determined drummer, doesn't your spirit lift?

When you hear the man in the subway playing his guitar, or violin, what do you feel? What does he feel?

Haven't you ever sat at a piano, chose a good piece of music, and just played your heart out?

Have you ever sung to a young child? Or have you been sung to?

Have you ever gone caroling? Gone to Mosque and sang? Synagogue?

Have you ever woken up to a beautiful morning, and sang in the shower?

Human beings are emotional creatures. We express our feelings through music for whatever reasons we have, and man has been singing songs for thousands of years, passing them on from fathers and sons, mothers to daughters. We have learned new techniques to "better" interpret our emotions through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre. Humanity is a species of song. It's what we are. Music is synonymous with the spirit of Mankind, that driving, introspective, extroverted spirit that is either jackhammering a sewer grate, going to war, blessing a newly married couple, going to school, work, play whatever. And only humans can truly express how humans feel. A machine can only go so far, but man can constantly strive to excel and express.

Just thought Id bring to the table this bit of information.

It is believed taht a truth and logic are easily agreeable, but an illogical truth is not agreeable with logic. So a machine built around the sole purpose of logic will only perform to the most logical sequence, and can only be outhought by a machine of similair logic. (I think that makes sense, at least not a ramble yet...) The other way to trick a computer, is to flood the logic mind of the machine with the same data repeatedly, causing a loop and possible crash.

Example: A robot designed to believe it loves ham sandwhiches can be built using a simple logic table. If the sandwhich is ham, I love it. If their is a sandwhich, look to see if it is ham. Collect what I love. (simplified cpu thought). Now lets say you give it a device to fufill its task, a scooper if you will; and when it scoops up the sandwhich we return it to a standing and upright position. The only trouble is that when this last task is performed, the scoop fails to work properly (possibly due to the proper codes to prevnt this, or other manual stuff) and the sandwhich ends back on the floor. Because it is now in a position without what it loves, it begins the search for a sandwhich (possibly just looking down for it) and decides it loves it again, and repeats the process. The emotion produced is boredom and satisfaction, (for the observers and the robot).

I believe this is one example of how a CPU can 'feel'. A simple 1 in place of a 0 can simulate a sensation that causes the mind to stop its previous function/objective/desire. It should be noted, these are similar words to Douglas Adams, but not quite.

Just thought Id bring to the table this bit of information.

It is believed taht a truth and logic are easily agreeable, but an illogical truth is not agreeable with logic. So a machine built around the sole purpose of logic will only perform to the most logical sequence, and can only be outhought by a machine of similair logic. (I think that makes sense, at least not a ramble yet...) The other way to trick a computer, is to flood the logic mind of the machine with the same data repeatedly, causing a loop and possible crash.

Example: A robot designed to believe it loves ham sandwhiches can be built using a simple logic table. If the sandwhich is ham, I love it. If their is a sandwhich, look to see if it is ham. Collect what I love. (simplified cpu thought). Now lets say you give it a device to fufill its task, a scooper if you will; and when it scoops up the sandwhich we return it to a standing and upright position. The only trouble is that when this last task is performed, the scoop fails to work properly (possibly due to the proper codes to prevnt this, or other manual stuff) and the sandwhich ends back on the floor. Because it is now in a position without what it loves, it begins the search for a sandwhich (possibly just looking down for it) and decides it loves it again, and repeats the process. The emotion produced is boredom and satisfaction, (for the observers and the robot).

I believe this is one example of how a CPU can 'feel'. A simple 1 in place of a 0 can simulate a sensation that causes the mind to stop its previous function/objective/desire. It should be noted, these are similar words to Douglas Adams, but not quite.

That's not feeling, that's not emotion. That's pure code, electric signals, and logical operators. To call it emotion is foolish. A computer cannot feel, it can only collect and relay data in the form of electrical currents. It cannot interpret these currents to mean anything other than what they're designed to mean.