PROGRAMMING / SEQUENCING - are thet really music making? (techno, electronic) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Artists Corner > Talk Instruments
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-17-2008, 02:00 PM   #1 (permalink)
D-D-D-D-D-DROP THE BASS!
 
GuitarBizarre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spook View Post
Yeah, but at least they played their instruments, and spurred on literally millons of others to do the same.

While I agree the computer can be an amazing tool, it's still soulless, emotionless and bland when used as an "Instrument", and probably always will be.

Ask any aspiring musician who their influences are, and I'll guarantee 98 - 99 % of them will be REAL musicians,who play REAL instruments, not "programmers" or "assemblers" .
And what about music composed without the aid of any instrument at all OR a computer? Joe Satriani did that with midnight and had to learn to adapt to a completely new style of playing in order to record it.

Or music composed for instruments other than the composers? Yoko Kanno for example composes piece for everything from synths to orchestras, yet she plays the piano.

I'm not saying that playing an instrument isn't a worthwhile pursuit or skill, I'm saying that you are COMPLETELY missing the point of computer synthesis. The aim is NOT to reproduce sounds exactly, the aim is to make any sound possible given due care and attention. Although it can certainly be harnessed for such purpose, and programs such as Symphonic orchestra gold are, in listening tests, almost indistinguishable from the actual thing, a great advantage for those of us who want to add an extra facet to a song without having to hire a concert hall, mics, mixers, players, and then write the music on top of all that!

You treat sequenced music as if it all sounds like midi beeps and nes chips. It seems to me that rather than giving it a chance, you've let a presupposition completely dictate your attitude to something. Or, worse, you've let your original opinion on sequenced or synthesized sounds remain constant while the world has moved on and improved those technologies and invested more time and effort into them for any number of purposes.

In short, I think you're just being foolish and trying to treat music as if it should bend to your whims. Music has always evolved through technology, be it the movement from harpsichord to piano, nylon strings to steel, etc. None of that makes what came before any less valid but to dismiss a technology completely that is, with due time and effort, capable of reproducing ANY SOUND AUDIBLE TO THE HUMAN EAR, is lunacy in my opinion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
As for me, my inbox is as of yet testicle-free, and hopefully remains that way. Don't the rest of you get any ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
I'll have you know, my ancestors were Kings of Wicklow! We're as Irish as losing a three-nil lead in a must-win fixture!
GuitarBizarre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 07:38 AM   #2 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
spook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre View Post
And what about music composed without the aid of any instrument at all OR a computer? Joe Satriani did that with midnight and had to learn to adapt to a completely new style of playing in order to record it.

Or music composed for instruments other than the composers? Yoko Kanno for example composes piece for everything from synths to orchestras, yet she plays the piano...That's just showing off! Both of them are supremely talented musicians, both technically, (on their instruments), and in composing, NO ONE could deny that.

I'm not saying that playing an instrument isn't a worthwhile pursuit or skill, I'm saying that you are COMPLETELY missing the point of computer synthesis. The aim is NOT to reproduce sounds exactly, the aim is to make any sound possible given due care and attention. Although it can certainly be harnessed for such purpose, and programs such as Symphonic orchestra gold are, in listening tests, almost indistinguishable from the actual thing, a great advantage for those of us who want to add an extra facet to a song without having to hire a concert hall, mics, mixers, players, and then write the music on top of all that!
Having heard that programme in a studio, I think the word "Almost" is the one to consider, though I thoroughly agree your second point.

You treat sequenced music as if it all sounds like midi beeps and nes chips. It seems to me that rather than giving it a chance, you've let a presupposition completely dictate your attitude to something. Or, worse, you've let your original opinion on sequenced or synthesized sounds remain constant while the world has moved on and improved those technologies and invested more time and effort into them for any number of purposes.
I've played a number of sessions with the most up-to-date synths and sequencing, and still remain unconvinced.
As a classically- trained violinist and keyboard player, and a bass player and guitarist by preference, playing many different styles and genres of music, I'd hardly call myself blinkered to any kind of music - sure, like everyone, I have my likes and dislikes, but I think I can appreciate anything for what it is.


In short, I think you're just being foolish and trying to treat music as if it should bend to your whims.
Surely that's what every musician and composer does
Music has always evolved through technology, be it the movement from harpsichord to piano, nylon strings to steel, etc. None of that makes what came before any less valid but to dismiss a technology completely that is, with due time and effort, capable of reproducing ANY SOUND AUDIBLE TO THE HUMAN EAR,....(.."trying to treat music as if it should bend to your whims" ????)... is lunacy in my opinion.
Yes, it can produce any sound, as you say, but where's the feel and the emotion - that's the whole point.

.....
__________________
It seems that lately, everybody's crying in their beer - I know that only the good die young - That's why I'm still here!

Last edited by spook; 07-18-2008 at 07:47 AM.
spook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 09:24 AM   #3 (permalink)
Reformed Jackass
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,964
Default

How can you measure 'feel' or emotion? Music is what conveys emotions, not the instruments used to make it.
ProggyMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 01:13 PM   #4 (permalink)
D-D-D-D-D-DROP THE BASS!
 
GuitarBizarre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spook View Post
.....
I will say I think you've missed the point I was trying to put across, and also, in my opinion composers make music for the purpose of either their own or their audiences pleasure. To try and tell other works what to be and apply that opinion to the world at large, rather than your own enjoyment of said works, in my opinion is far beyond the remit of 'composer' or 'music lover' and more into the merit-netherworld of the 'critic'.


And also, I believe your first reply illustrates the validity of synths and sequencing far better than you intended. Yoko Kanno cannot play any traditional orchestral instrument, nor a saxophone, nor double bass nor guitar nor many other instruments.

Yet despite that she has used the resources available to produce a sound she and more importantly a wide and varied audience finds pleasing, emotive, and satisfying. Whether she wrote for a live orchestra, a la the Escaflowne soundtrack, an acoustic guitar and vocals, a la tracks like Fado or Kingfisher Girl, or whether she sequenced and synth'd, a la GitS, has no bearing on her worth as a composer and never will! The talent and creative vision to sit down and write that music is what we as music lovers admire and the means of producing that sound should never encroach upon our enjoyment of it. (Barring of course mass human sacrifice or other such atrocity, obviously.)

To expand upon that point somewhat, think of this: A physical instrument has limitations and nuances all its own. Progress is always made, like the discovery of artifical harmonics with distortion, or two handed tapping by EVH. The problem with applying this train of thought to a synthesizer is that its not 'there' in front of you. Its incredibly difficult to apply the progressive thought patterns that produced those innovations, to something you can only interact with through controls or codes. But the fact is that same scope of development is there to be utilized as a creative force by anyone with the patience or plain ingenuity to apply a new model of thought to it.

An example that comes to mind of a creative form, is one of a certain OCRemix track I forget the name of. The track in question is fully synth'd, but with a creative approach in much the same vein as the 'unconventional approaches' that brought us feedback from hendrix and clapton, or flange from EVH. The remixer had a synth program that allowed importing of any file as a synth sound simply by renaming the file extension. After hours of trying various files the remixer discovered that a majority of the time the output was useless noise, but that with particular files you could obtain a usable pitch. He then took an established piece of music, rearranged it, and spent a not inconsiderable amount of time choosing which 'synths' should take which parts in the music and tweaking them extensively to obtain the resulting track, a somewhat chaotic maelstrom of distrotion and whirling sounds that obtains a musical effect IMPOSSIBLE to obtain without the harnessing of that technology.

While I am first to admit that without due care, understanding and attention, a digital facsimile of any instrument, real or fake; will sound terrible, the fact remains that it is well within the realms of possibility for digital technology to render any sound or combination of sounds possible. Indeed, for the vast majority of purposes, it is or can already be done well enough that a listener in a casual context will not know the difference unless it is demonstrated.

Of course, technology marches on and the lust for perfection continues, so, given the skyrocketing advance of the technology since the samplers of the 80s, or computer generated beeps of the manchester baby in the 60's, its logical to say that we may never attain true perfection, but we'll certainly get close enough to it that only those with the most golden of ears (Or a projecting aural ailment similar in nature to munchausens syndrome) will be able to claim they can tell the difference.

You can always claim that the ideas of 'doing anything' are far too free and airy to be applied in any form of musical context, even if it IS possible (It is, technically)but then again, without things like serialism the world would have never embraced chromaticism, so the unpleasant beginnings can ALWAYS and normally DO lead to fantastic things and increase the variance in music, rather than leaving us stranded in some nostalgic netherworld of ridiculous preconceptions and fear of change.




I'll end this now, as, to quote Captain Jean Luc Picard: This is becoming a speech.


Edit: Actually, one last thing:

You said: Yes, it can produce any sound, as you say, but where's the feel and the emotion - that's the whole point.

The feel and emotion can always be put in place with due effort, technology, or just plain time. the human element of music is irreplaceable but NOT inimitable. However the human feeling is in reality just a different way of saying 'minor imperfections'. Things like accidental dynamics or playing ahead of the beat to set a certain groove. These aren't things laid down in the music score itself, but things introduced by the player themselves to give what is at least intended to be positive effect. However consider the nightmare recording session, where your technically fantastic full of human feeling drummer thinks the piece should have more viv and flair at a certain sections, whereas your fantastic human feeling flute player thinks it needs more tact and finesse.

Those are at odds with each other. Its detrimental, what if the piece was composed to be a dreary yet driving slog through misery? Then the players are BOTH giving a wrong input. With synth technology and a good enough understanding of how all hat works, you can take that possibility out of the equation. You can suddenly program a drummer and a flute player who are far more in sync with the actual intentions of the composer than any real musician could EVER be. We're a long way off from something that complex at the moment (unless someone wants to spend about a year solid tweaking midi parameters and foregoing all sunlight) but it is possible, and things like that are just an extension of current possibilities in the more sane realms of simple timbre and other suchlike.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
As for me, my inbox is as of yet testicle-free, and hopefully remains that way. Don't the rest of you get any ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
I'll have you know, my ancestors were Kings of Wicklow! We're as Irish as losing a three-nil lead in a must-win fixture!

Last edited by GuitarBizarre; 07-18-2008 at 01:29 PM.
GuitarBizarre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2008, 12:14 AM   #5 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13
Default

How is music made on a computer not real music? ._.

I personally don't have enough money for a drum set or a saxophone or the plethora of instruments I'm able to use while creating music on a computer. ._.

I only have an electric guitar and a keyboard for real.

I can use every instrument on computers, and it sounds real sop what's the problem?

It's perfectly playable with real instruments anyway.
Shannon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 11:00 AM   #6 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
spook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon View Post
How is music made on a computer not real music? ._.... Cos it's "Made" and not "PLAYED" - If I have to explain, you'll never understand

I personally don't have enough money for a drum set or a saxophone or the plethora of instruments I'm able to use while creating music on a computer. ._....Nor do most of us

I only have an electric guitar and a keyboard for real...So learn to play them well, or is that too much like hard work?


I can use every instrument on computers, and it sounds real sop what's the problem?...Unless you can play every instrument you "use", you have no real concept how they should "feel"

It's perfectly playable with real instruments anyway. ...I've NEVER heard a guitar "Played" on computer that sounds even vaguely convincing - that goes for most string instuments played with a pick, they just sound WRONG, even sampled and sequenced "real" instruments fail in this department.
........

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre View Post
Bands like Led Zeppelin ARE still around. They're just filled with idiots or wrinkly old men who have nothing to add to the musical world whatsoever except old rehashes of things.
Yeah, but at least they played their instruments, and spurred on literally millons of others to do the same.

While I agree the computer can be an amazing tool, it's still soulless, emotionless and bland when used as an "Instrument", and probably always will be.

Ask any aspiring musician who their influences are, and I'll guarantee 98 - 99 % of them will be REAL musicians,who play REAL instruments, not "programmers" or "assemblers" .

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre View Post
I hardly think my musical taste screams sheep or emporers new clothes. Besides that, I have an A level in music degee and will be working towards a degree in music and popular musics come september, along with my near decade of guitar playing...I have an honours degree in music, taught music in schools, and have been a professional musician probably longer than you've been alive, playing and recording everything from classical to death metal, on guitar, bass, keyboard and violin so don't try to impress me with qualifications. It don't work!

So basically what I'm trying to say is: You fail at life ....When you have as many friends, a great family, a brilliant and financially stable lifestyle and a few quid in the bank, i.e your life is better than mine, then you'll be entitled to call me a failure - BUT NOT UNTIL THEN! now please let go of your idiotic misconceptions ..only in your mind and appreciate the sounds made rather than the method of making them.....Strikes me you're very blinkered,
I started this thread, being very tongue in cheek, to get some opinions and lively debate, but it seems you're not capable of making a case without resorting to personal insult of everything and everyone you don't agree with.
GROW UP!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seltzer View Post
Or maybe they're just fans who like the music?

Each to their own

I think you'll be hard pressed to claim that King Crimson is emotionless...Great band! - ELP and Hawkwind also... But that's the typical attack on prog... if a few musicians are a wee bit more experimental and perhaps less restrained with their chops than your typical classic rock musicians,...Nothing wrong with restraint - less is more!..... let's assume they're pretentious and dub them as emotionless sterile old men....
.....
__________________
It seems that lately, everybody's crying in their beer - I know that only the good die young - That's why I'm still here!
spook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 09:36 PM   #7 (permalink)
Music Rapist
 
TheCaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere in the U.S
Posts: 400
Default

the second you can add the emotion jimmy page can put into his guitar into a programming riff then its music... considering thats impossible... pushing buttons isnt makign music
__________________
A soul in tension thats learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Cant keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit
TheCaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 09:44 PM   #8 (permalink)
;)
 
cardboard adolescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,511
Default

i guess you should tell that to all great pianists... moron
cardboard adolescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 07:58 PM   #9 (permalink)
;)
 
cardboard adolescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaster View Post
eh hehe....

pianists can add emotion to thier music..
and yet... all they do is press buttons! they use these buttons to affect the volume, attack, decay, and pitch of the sound being generated... which makes the piano just another machine no different from a computer. similarly, on the computer, people change a sounds' properties and juxtapose it with other sounds to evoke emotion. and all without having to pretend yo momma just died
cardboard adolescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 08:00 PM   #10 (permalink)
Reformed Jackass
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,964
Default

And anyhow, while I won't get into a debate over this, 'emotion' can be anything. Take Dream Theater. Most of you say their music is lifeless and alientating. To some people that represents an emotional state.
ProggyMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.