Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Can Digital Music Replace Most Instrumental Musicians?
deviated_prevert writes "Most instrumental music used today in television commercials, background sounds and themes even on the majority of produced shows comes from completely digital composers who produce the product through digitized instrument samples. This has almost eliminated the need for real human instrumental musicians. For many listeners this makes no difference, as such music is essentially background in nature and does not need to have a true musical interaction with a listening audience at all. The same thing applies to the waves of digital music produced for things like raves. To quote one observer at the Globe and Mail 'So now we know why Deadmau5 and Daft Punk wear helmets when they perform. Everybody is digging the music, but no one is dancing. It is a sad development; the headgear of the maestros is there to mask their tears.' Will the live performance of instrumental musicians also become a thing of the past, or will there continue to be a real need for it? Purely instrumental groups like Booker T and the MGs, as well as solo performers like Herbie Hancock or John McLaughlin, seem not to take the spotlight as they once did. It is apparent that unless someone with a young fresh face is singing, today's producers will not attempt to seriously promote them. Regardless of how great today's instrumentalists are musically, there no longer seems to be a market for real musicianship. Even great performing classical musicians and ensembles are becoming scarcer due to faster and cheaper digital music production."
... would like to disagree.
Instrumental groups have a hard time up against bands with singers; they always have. As a species, we like singing. But there _are_ instrumental bands out there still.
For many purposes it makes no difference.
You aren't going to replace a jazz player with a sampler. Getting rid of concert performers for media production is just economics.
Music success is much more about creativity and the composition than the performance. The most difficult part is writing good songs which is why the best musicians often can't make a living off music. Now that computers can reproduce instruments at an above average level, people only need to learn piano and composition and show talent in creating new music to make a living.
"So now we know why Deadmau5 and Daft Punk wear helmets when they perform. Everybody is digging the music, but no one is dancing."
Have you seen those concerts? Maybe it ain't the Charleston, but those kids are certainly groovin to the beat.
"It is a sad development; the headgear of the maestros is there to mask their tears."
Somehow, I think they have no trouble sleeping on their large piles of money each night.
No.
Absolutely, no.
Journalistic principle.
I'm guessing he's never been to one of the aforementioned performer's party since he's talking out of his ass.
Comedy shows on TV have used canned laughter for decades, but nobody would say that it beats the experience of sitting in an auditorium live, with a great comedian on stage. The better TV shows will continue to have real music played by real musicians, and we'll all continue to get a better musical experience by going to the local concert hall, church, or bar.
This is really about Big Music losing its stranglehold on deciding who the big stars will be.
Music discussions should not happen on /.
That being said, digital music is simply another facet of the experience. There are plenty of acts out currently combining live instruments and digital equipment (big gigantic, griz).
Music fans will always prefer a live show, instrumentalists are not going anywhere.
I know the article is mainly about dance music, but I see this happening a bit in the world of orchestral soundtracks, which is a genre I tend to like quite a bit, where recordings of orchestras are being replaced by sample libraries. And it's really unfortunate... even without getting into any philosophical arguments, just from the listener's perspective. For instance, I really like a lot of the music from the Mass Effect series, but there are certain parts that just sound bad even though compositionally I much approve.
In my opinion, music that has no performance quality to it is like watching a cartoon. People hate things they can't immediately understand. I watch cartoons sometimes. I never watch cartoon porn.
Anyway, the real problem with music is everyone puts musicians, boring or not, on a pedestal. Music does the most good when you participate with others and love yourself.
Pop music is like the Jungle Boat Ride at Disney. The animals always show up, there's a nice little narrative, it's over in a few minutes. Most "serious" music is like observing animals in the wild. You have to really look and listen, sometimes the animals don't show up, it sucks being outside. Most people can enjoy both modes.
An article by a digital musician I read recently claimed that although digital synthesis can approach the quality of a real orchestra, it's extremely time-consuming to shape every note to fit the mood and context of that note.
If you factor in the time and effort to "carve" the note to sufficient quality, it's not economical compared to a smaller orchestra, because experienced musicians do the same in real time, with 1 practice and 2 takes on average. The performing group gets it done in about an hour, while diddling a synth rendering can take weeks. Even though it's one dude or so, it's a LOT of one dude.
Plus, you risk "ear burn-out" from so many replays such that you cannot recognize quality anymore. One has to switch between projects and styles to keep their ears fresh, delaying the finished product.
Maybe the editing software eventually will get better and the computer can assist with more natural "guesses" to get closer to expectations to reduce customization, but at this stage if you want quality performances, synthesis is not fully competitive.
Table-ized A.I.
Seriously, a good band playing out on thr edge of their comfort zone and creating something magical, or the power of a full orchestra with the complexity of the sound reverbarating around a concert hall.... is going to be replaced with some samples?
And art galleries have died because you can see digital photos on the net?
No doubt it has and will be tried again and again, but this is like saying you won't ever need to have sex again because off the pron on the internet.
2. No recording of an orchestra is going to sound like sitting in the same room with an orchestra playing. Period. End of discussion.
3. There are PLENTY of instrumental bands that are doing just fine. Examples:
Animals as Leaders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCsWlOo9qgw
Explosions in the Sky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mqBMmhgsjM
And boodles of electronic music bands that have no interest in whether or not you dance to them, for example:
Boards of Canada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8ZBT-VHrA&list=PLZqsyBiYZFQ1SDoE-ulm6Qlpt7jetkEMH
among many others.
Then this howler:
Purely instrumental groups like Booker T and the MGs, as well as solo performers like Herbie Hancock or John McLaughlin, seem not to take the spotlight as they once did.
WTF? Booker T's bass player died last year. HE WAS 70 YEARS OLD. How many pop bands of any stripe are in the spotlight at age 70? Herbie Hancock is 73. John McLaughlin is 71. They Are Old People. What do you expect from them? Then this bit of cluelessness:
It is apparent that unless someone with a young fresh face is singing, today's producers will not attempt to seriously promote them.
It's not their producer's job to promote them. It is their PROMOTER'S job to promote them. That's why they're called PROMOTERS. The producer helps direct and manage the PRODUCTION of the record. Believe me - I know these things.
This article is basically flamebait.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The world would be a poorer place if it didn't have Carlos Santana and his legacy in it.
The same thing applies to the waves of digital music produced for things like raves. To quote one observer at the Globe and Mail 'So now we know why Deadmau5 and Daft Punk wear helmets when they perform. Everybody is digging the music, but no one is dancing. It is a sad development; the headgear of the maestros is there to mask their tears.'
No, it doesn't apply to "the waves of digital music produced for raves". Firstly, the rave scene died in the 90's, but it appears that you're not actually referring to a rave, you're talking about a concert by a musician whose methods you don't understand. Go see any decent house, dubstep, or techno artist play, and suddenly it's apparent that the quote you referenced is completely wrong, at least in the context in which you're using it. You can get a crowd moving with a Macintosh, it's not that difficult.
Will the live performance of instrumental musicians also become a thing of the past?
No, it won't.. Look to the same examples to see evidence that musicians without vocalists are actually becoming far more popular. And if you're trying to insinuate that a DJ isn't an 'instrumental' artist, you're wrong. A pair of turntables is an instrument just as a guitar is, and a performance using one requires just as much 'musicianship' as with any other instrument.
You can either sit at a computer pasting together sound samples and massaging them into some semblance of emotion,
or you can hire a musician to play it for you and give you the sound you're looking for.
Some of the most famous musical acts in the USA recorded their albums using the studio's house band.
Which is why it's so funny that the submitter brings up Booker T. & the M.G.'s: they started out as a house band.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The cost savings realized by eliminating live musicians is generally due to using one recording of said live musicians and playing it back multiple times (for example in many stage plays). There's not much extra savings to be realized by using, say, MIDI controlled synths for the original recording.
Musicianship is more important now than ever.
Isn't there a rule with articles that have yes or no questions as their title?
see yoyo ma performance....
No digital performer will ever match his abilities. No one noticed important point. Once we loose classical music performers, we also loose composers. By the way...trend reznor Oscar for sound is complete bullshit.
Replace? Yes. Sound the same? Definitely not. Just consider the range of effects possible with an electric guitar. The only way to do that with a digital workstation is to use a guitar for input, then it isn't purely digital. Another example: synthesized piano is getting very good, but it still cannot be mistaken for the real thing.
Sound different but just as good? Maybe, sometimes. There is no question that digital has already invaded the territory of traditional instruments. In applications where top quality is not a requirement a digital clarinet or trumpet can work out just fine cost a lot less than the real thing, perhaps unfortunately.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Depends on the purpose. For just listening to background music, or the radio, probably. Session musicians? Maybe, but live is better. For events in which live musicians add to the prestige, no. And in between?
If I'm gong to pay money to see the The Typewriter, Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet, or Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, I want a real symphony orchestra (and preferably real canons for the 1812). No digital music will replace someone like Victor Borge (RIP).
Marching bands can't really be replaced with digital music. Certainly the British and Russians would never do it for their parades. (Are bagpipes even compatible with digital music? ;) . )
There is no replacing a cappella music, such as this, or a barbershop quartets. Many other forms of music would suffer, maybe even be pointless, if they were done without live performers. They are often much of the fun.
Digital is handy for composing though even if you will perform live later.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Ironic that Herbie Hancock was used as an example. It wasn't so long ago that Mr Hancock would have been the poster's point made with synths vs real piano players. Musicians make the music. The instruments are just tools. There has always been, and will always be crappy mass produced pablum. Likewise, there will always be musicians who rise above the rest. The tools they use influence the sound, but the artist creates the experience.
Now, get off my lawn!
As TFA an incredible amount of orchestral music in movies, TV shows, ads etc.
already is made from 100% samples, and nobody notices (or cares).
An at the time seemingly crazy person over a decade ago started the
Vienna Symphonic Library, a project to sample all possible
sounds all instruments can make. A completely insane idea. Today, it's
the undisputed market leader everyone uses...
(make your own google analogy here)
Will high-culture live-performance symphonic orchestras be replaced by
sample computers any time soon? Most likely not. But that's a couple of
thousand musicians in the world. Most on-staff "working class" instrumentalists
are replaceable by a computer and a skilled person operating it today.
The situation seems to be a bit like the animation revolution, when Pixar's
Renderman (and others) turned hand-drawn animation into a bit of a niche thing.
The big difference: The demand for animators probably has even increased
over the last decade (admittedly, with in part a different skillset, but animators
are animators first and not defined by the tools they use to animate) - but there
were no "pencil operators" following an "animation conductor" in animation compared
to "instrument operators" and... well... conductors in a traditional symphonic orchestra.
Using the VSL samples, one person with a machine can indeed replace a whole
orchestra for all but the most high-profile uses. And it is already happening.
Also, the world will not end. "Nobody's dancing"? Have they seen the audience at a
Daft Punk performance?
Hi. Former guitar shredder here.
I have news for you. The idea that the instrumental performers with "the most talent" will no longer get paid big bucks in the future isn't something you have to wait for.
It has been going on for at least my entire life.
After I had been playing guitar for about 2 years in high school, I could play nearly any guitar part of any popular song (I came of age in the 90s, the grunge time frame. So, admittedly, a low bar.)
Most of it just wasn't very complicated. If what mattered was being able to play things note for note, capturing all of the "feeling" and what not, for most popular music that just isn't a tall order.
I'm not being a braggart; I was nothing special. My point is that youtube is filled with kids who are _astounding_ guitarists.. and who will never make any money off of their guitar work. Technical proficiency isn't what gets you paid.
I still love all of my Shrapnel Records artists that I dutifully bought albums from growing up. I am thrilled beyond belief that monumental talents like Tony MacAlpine are still able to record and perform after decades of being unknown outside of the guitar-nerd community. And I am escstatic that new younger talents are emerging and doing cool stuff (Seree Lee -- youtube him).
But Katy Pery or whoever the next anonymous pretty face is will make more money off of one single than someone like a Tony Mac or Vic Wooten or Seree Lee or (take your pick) will make in their multi-decade careers. And that's not new, and digital music isn't going to fundamentally change that.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
So many points are off base, here.
First of all, yes, many composers use sample libraries when necessary, but when given the chance, prefer to work with living, breathing musicians. Look at Bear McCreary's process (Battlestar Galactica, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) as example. Even composer Dave Porter (Breaking Bad), who specializes in audio sample manipulation, records unique tracks with live musicians, and then delves into his digital processing from there. Also, the term "completely digital composers" implies that the writers themselves are machine and not man - not the case.
"This has almost eliminated the need for real human instrumental musicians." - Wow. I assume that you are makng a point about recorded and not live music. Have you seen a concert lately? I won't even ask you to count the number of people on stage during an Arcade Fire performance, or playing behind any of the top pop acts, or heck, even the line-up at your local pub. Real human musicians are alive and playing! You can argue whether the singer is auto-tuned to death or not, but that's another discussion...
The kids are dancing to Deadmau5. It's true. Doesn't negate the rest, though.
Symphonies and instrumental ensembles are not suffering because of a lack of recorded gigs. They never made their money that way in the first place. They get money mainly through donors and live performances. Both took a terrible hit during the last recession. "Faster and cheaper digital music production" has nothing to do with it - apples and oranges.
I agree that there's a trend towards cheaper, faster production in the recording industry, but its not the sampler that's done us in. Its the audience putting up with the homogenous, uncreative work that the marketing machines push at us. If we take the time to stop listening to that crap, and make the effort to search out independent artists, then the real musicians will actually get to make a living. Even the sampler-based ones.
Everybody is digging the music, but no one is dancing.
That's usually a "DJ trying to be too cool" problem.
There are automated DJ programs, but so far, no one seems to have one that takes in video of the dance floor, tracks how many people are dancing, and adjusts the playlist accordingly. I thought of doing that 20 years ago, but now it would be both feasible and cost-effective. (Optional feature: also connects to the bar cash register system to optimize for revenue.)
Check these out: CBC Radio 3 ( http://music.cbc.ca/#/radio3 ). The Polaris Prize. The Peak Performance Project.
if you're trying to insinuate that a DJ isn't an 'instrumental' artist, you're wrong. A pair of turntables is an instrument just as a guitar is, and a performance using one requires just as much 'musicianship' as with any other instrument.
No, sorry, a pair of turntables is not an instrument like a guitar is, it is more an instrument like a mixing board is, and a DJ is more like a sound guy or a producer than a musician. Put it another way: some DJs may be performers but not all performers are musicians. Otherwise agreed with your post.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I can play a few instruments and make my own music, as well as having played in a few bands, but over the years I've learned to accept that computers can help me out a bunch. I used to try to play everything and record it too, which was a lot of work and it made things a bear to change. These days, I just try to focus in on a thing at a time, rather than be engineer, instrumentalist, songwriter, etc. I hardly have been playing instruments much on recordings because I don't have the time to do it all and come up with the sounds I like. I will enter my chord progressions into band in a box, and find a style that I kind of like. Then I'll tweek the instruments. It's just a million times easier. So I take sequencing shortcuts as well. But it's just a matter of ease, I mean if I could find a real steel drum player and could mike them up and it wouldn't take a few hours more than clicking a button, I'd do that, but only if I really had a vision or it was going out commercially and I could justify the cost.
A pair of turntables is an instrument just as a guitar is, and a performance using one requires just as much 'musicianship' as with any other instrument.
Hm... Tell that to Christopher Parkening, or Wilhelm Kempff, or... ... hell with it. No. Just... no. OMG no. Holy shit.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
There's this thing called "Algorithmic Music Composition" - they analyzed the composition of famous music composers such as Bach and copied the "style" and transfer the algorithm into computer and let it churn out music.
There's even a freeware that you can try on your own computer, more info @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FractMus_(software)
or @ http://www.gustavodiazjerez.com/?cat=14
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Your definition of "real musician" is fundamentally flawed. Similar to "A REAL WORKER" goes to the coal mine and doesn't work in an office on computers. Just stupid. You must be american.
Um, the whole point of Daft Punk's latest album was that it's basically 100% analogue, real performances and sessions (and faintly-ridiculous cost), as a sort of homage, to make the kind of record that they used to sample.
You're putting words in their mouths that they'd pretty vehemently disagree with.
As we move more and more to a greed and market driven life, this sort of thing will happen. Music is of massive benefit to us all, especially the learning of an instrument and playing it with/to others. Finding a way to make music pay is necessary, but as we have seen in many other markets, when the highest quality of carefully hand-produced things is not required, often there is a computer/technology based solution that, whilst poorer in quality, suffices for what's needed.
When composing for adverts, for example, sample libraries with phrases recorded by live players are useful. Actually making a sampler-orchestra sound like a real one, however, is rather difficult. You can mask the differences with non-orchestral sounds (which also leads the listeners ear to regard the whole thing as studio produced, so not to reject the sound as cheap and artificial).
But let us not forget that the value of music can't be measured in dollars or pounds.
John_Chalisque
You can get a crowd moving with a Macintosh
You can get a crowd moving with a SNES!
wait, so these guys aren't playing instruments?
manipulating objects that make sounds. hmmm. looks like it to me.
Digital music isn't going to be replacing instrumental artists any time soon, quite possibly it may never be even capable of doing so. Folks like Yo Yo Ma or the various orchestras are going to be able to make a living for a long time yet.
The problem is that digital music very much is replacing and will continue to replace commercial instrumental musicians, which are the vast majority of musicians actually able to earn a living from their craft. These folks are screwed. In the long term this may mean that there are far fewer instrumental artists simply because the chances of making a living from performance have become so small that no one bothers anymore.
Whining by buggy whip salesmen. That's all.
Liberty in your lifetime
Jeeeezus how many times have I heard this. Go and listen to a piano-violin duo playing Souvenir d'un Lieu Cher then come back and tell me someone with a pair of turntables messing around with SOMEONE ELSE'S MUSIC is a musician. I'm sure they'd like to think they are but until they pick up an instrument, electronic or otherwise, that is actually capable of creating notes they are not.
The stuff you are talking about is fine for people who don't really want musicianship. And good luck to them. Each to his own.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
OK I watched that. You'll have to help me out. At what point in the performance did they make music?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/5000.html
There are 5,000 midi files on the above site, all mimicking Bach.
Not all of them are masterpieces, of course, but still, it's a do-able thing.
Digitized versions of actors and actresses will be substituted for the real-life things. Humphrey Bogart and Lana Turner will make huge comebacks in virtual form. And without all that pesky union BS that goes along with card carrying members of SAG. Audiences won't be able to tell the difference between virtual clones and the real thing. Eventually the fake replacements will garner perpetual fan bases of their own. First they came for the real musicians...
You raised the question of whether these guys are musicians or not, not me. I said "a pair of turntables is not an instrument like a guitar is", which is patently obvious. A turntable is more an instrument like a kazoo is, and as an art form, has a future roughly as bright.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Yes, please do tell me about how Ligeti has no musicianship.
First, listen to this and then you can proceed to read this.
Particularly the part that says:
He has been described as "one of the most important and innovative composers of the second half of the 20th century".
Thank you for demonstrating you fail to comprehend the difference between "music" (i.e. any type of structured sound), which does not necessarily even have to be made with tonal instruments, and $whatever_music_you_happen_to_like.
Enjoy living inside your little bubble-world.
Carlos Santana.
As praying replace the medical treatment!
Can dead singers replace live singers?
Many of the songs I hear at this time of year are sung by singers who are now dead.
Bing Crosby, Nat King Cole, Elvis, Burl Ives, Karen Carpenter
According to Mr. Godwin O'Hitler here, a drummer or an orchestra's percussionist are not only not musicians, but don't even want to be musicians, since they choose to play atonal musical instruments (which, according to this fine sir, aren't even musical instruments).
Apparently, drummers don't play notes, they just randomly bash on atonal instruments. It's strange, though, that one of the (if not THE) most quoted/sampled piece of recorded music in modern and contemporary music happens to be a drum solo, not a tonal melodic line.
captcha: tedious (just like your comment)
Cartoons are fun, and CGI even better, but to really connect you want a human (ok, a mammal - for you kitten fans).
Same with seriously good music. Synth and all is entertaining, but if you want to experience tears of joy, a talented singer backed up by real musicians is the way to go. Go experience a Jackie Evancho concert and see what I mean!
The biggest source of income for any working musician is still live shows. Be they small 100 crowd venues or large 50,000 crowd venues. There is something special about watching a group of musicians perform together in a live show. Something that can't be replicated by a guy pressing a button (to play pre-recorded tracks). Live DJ shows often involve lots of pyrotechnics and other visual devices in order to engage the crowd. However, any live band, be they rock, hiphop, classical, baroque, deviant, or otherwise, has an instantaneous advantage of an unending "fascination" effect from people who can't play instruments themselves.
In a sense, you're right. Songs probably don't even try to compete with more articulate music. I think they're fine in their simplicity. What's sad is that the vast majority don't even know what a more refined music is and why they should listen to it.
Check out my cross-platform apps
You're right that background, utilitarian music is easily replaced by programmed, synthesized music. TV soundtracks, electronica, backing of pop singers... it's already taken over for the most part.
But there are huge swaths of music, from folk to jazz to rock that will show how irrelevant that is.
And in the world of classical music, Spira Mirabilis and the Takacs Quartet think you're missing the point. Besides, I'd rather watch Midori or the Berlin Philharmonic than watch a synthesizer.
Any musician can sound good on record given enough time to tweak and tune their work.
But the true beauty of music - in my opinion - comes from the quality of an life performance.
How often do you see an DJ that really gets the crowd going? It happens but it's pretty rare.
Now compare that to a life performance with real instruments. It has soul, the music drips with the sweat and effort of the musicians.
At times the quality of the music almost becomes less important than the performance or at least it can compensate to an degree.
Go visit an competent rock or metal band each and everyone will have an significant crowd going wild and dancing. Often these bands can get and keep an entire crowd of thousands of people to enjoy the experience.
So can digital music replace even most instrumental musicians, absolutely not. Not by a long shot.
I simply think that the current platforms such as soundcloud in combination of high quality digital production software affordable for average people is responsible the increase of digital music over the years.
"Ask Slashdot: Can mass production replace most atisanal handicrafters?"
So say we all
Is a car ever going to replace a running athlete?
There. That's how silly this question really is.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I'll let the reader Google machine Frank Zappa and Synclavier, for starters. Frank had a lot of interesting thoughts on this subject.
Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
Digital recreation of percussive instruments, or even classical instruments en masse is pretty convincing these days, but you still can't get a convincing syntesized guitar solo, or a convincing synthesized solo violin, or any stringed instrument, or synthetized woodwind, brass, etc.. There are two sides to this: the complexity of the tone to be synthesized (or modelled) and its capabilities for modulating tone, pitch, timbre, etc., on the one hand, and the complexity of what can be injected into those capabilities to utilize them in creative combinations, by humans, as against AIs at the current state of development. The sound side is pretty close, actually, in many ways. Percussion (drums, including rock drums, dance beats, etc.) is a done deal. But of course that's because percussion is the easy case, because it's a one hit deal, it doesn't have to be continuously controlled and modulated like a violin. I fancy with the developments like being able to separate sounds out of a mix, this will eventually improve, and synthesized sounds, be capable of being continuously controlled and modulated. But the AI is the big one. I think basically because what's being expressed in music does actually happen to be something that's tied intimately to our biology (incredibly fine and refined expressions of emotional nuance), and the AI would have to model that too - i.e., AI that's capable of making music will have to wait until AI that's capable of emotion generally, comes online. Needs AI with juices (something to model the hormonal bath and how it affects the total state of the organism qua signaller-of-internal-states).
And by that I mean analog synthesizers and filters. Nothing beats the sound of those things, especially the modular ones. For instance, I've yet to see a remotely decent implementation of the Wasp lowpass filter in digital. That's an awesome filter that still hasn't found a match in the digital domain.
Depends. Martyn Bennet didn't play or sing a single note that went into GRIT, yet the entire record is him. And he had the musical skills to do so if he chose.
[FUCK BETA]
You think a fucking automaton is going to do something like this?
Fuck no, son.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines, sucker. Proven yet again.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Plato pointed out that music and gymnastics are the foundation of education because they prepare the mind for grasping other subjects. One can see a place for digital composition in education, but using a traditional instrument in performance probably is more effective in what Plato meant to achieve.
IMHO, good music died a long time ago. Scratch that. I have to lower the bar. Listenable music died a long time ago. 15 years ago, I would buy some 40-50 albums ( whatever media ) a year and another ten of old stuff. Then it become individual songs. I don't think I bought anything this year. I can't even stand what they've done with the re-mastered greats.
Sucky music, sucks, regardless if it is created by a musician or a digital hack.
As advanced and modular papolar DAW have become nothing will replace a live performance. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about recorded sounds that are assembled to create a score. It's still valid and the composer still put hard work into composing arranging this piece of music.
I hate vocals in music. That's why I stick to classical and electronic genres.
I don't exactly hate vocals (I was raised as a classical violinist, but my musical appetite now weighs a little more heavily in favour of jazz), but I find lyrics just get in the way when the music should be able to speak for itself. Thus, (from TFS)
Purely instrumental groups like Booker T and the MGs, as well as solo performers like Herbie Hancock or John McLaughlin, seem not to take the spotlight as they once did.
just doesn't apply for me. Though of course I have to accept that other people's priorities differ, and I'm fine with that.
What I cannot abide, however, is the current tendency to play unnecessary incidental "music" over spoken dialogue in TV shows. While I accept that my ears are not what they once were (I am well over 50 years old, and if there's one thing I would change if I had to live my life again, it would involve earplugs), I do not accept that these noises contribute anything useful, and frequently make dialogue difficult to hear.
Background music, perhaps, although my notion of background music is along the lines of chamber music. Foreground music, not any time soon.
The last concert I went to was Haydn's Creation played by a good symphony orchestra and sung by a good choir (with exceptional soloists). Before that it was Mahler's 6th (Tragic) played by an outstanding symphony orchestra. I suspect that I'll be long dead and buried (burnt or composted) before anything like those sounds can be produced electronically, or even reproduced electronically (recordings are still pale reflections). Given that, I don't see any reason why it won't eventually happen.
Best wishes,
Bob
Musicians play because they enjoy it, and enjoy being creative. Art for the sake of an audience is not art. It's the difference between a fine sculpture and a plastic vase you buy at walmart. Are vases still made by hand despite the ease at which they can be extruded from an injection molding machine? Of course.
Because you can't dance to electric music?
No one dances at raves? To EBM? In clubs?
Everyone is dancing in front of their TVs when some classical music is sounding?
100 years after the development of microelectronics, virtually all creative human endeavors had been replaced with software output. Music, television shows, movies, screenplays, painting, architecture, sculpture, and even books were almost exclusively produced by algorithms. Patent applications were written by programs. Scientific publications began to carry more and more primary research work ground out by highly trained application-specific AIs. People were generally satisfied with everything that their minds were exposed to, and so they failed to notice the subtle changes in human intelligence. 500 years later, humans were no longer able to read or write. The great inertia of technology, resources, and population allowed the human race to exist in what people generally believed was a civilized form for another 100 years or so after that, but eventually the last power plant failed and the last of the humans returned to the caves from whence they had come.
Instead of "Can digital music replace most instrumental musicians?", the more appropriate question is "Should digital music Replace most instrumental musicians?"
this is classic disruptive technology stuff, people...us "old-timers" debate the nonsense while a whole generation of kids are sitting alone in their bedrooms creating awesome music and art with these tools.
ANYTHING THAT MAKES SOUND HAS THE ABILITY TO BE A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT. its beyond asinine to debate this.
what the OP is *really* talking about are the sequencers like Ableton or ProTools. the ability to drag n drop notes and samples in a timeline is where the real supposed-threat is at. that's what allowing new-gen musicians to roll-their-own studios and sounds. personally, i think its awesome and liberating.
the markets will decide what people want to spend their hard-earned money on.
i mean, transpose this discussion back 40 years ago with a bunch a mainframe and mini nerds arguing about how these "toy" personal computers would never be able to do this or that nerdy thing...meanwhile I as a 13-year old kid was riding my bike to the Radio Shack and sitting in the window display to program on the Trash-80.
and look at us now.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
I can install cabinets and shelves made by IKEA and it will be functional, but it won't be the same quality as a custom work created by a craftsman. Likewise for digital sampling versus real musicians. IKEA is made for the mass market. It's quick and cheap. Likewise for digital sampling. Then again, for both, you get what you pay for.
Only if you regard music in general as an emotionless functional product.
The human factor in many kinds of music is too important to discard or even diminish.
In this regard it's like replacing traditional cooked food with "soylent".
It'll do the job, but will it make you just as happy as biting down on a big juicy steak?
I have hundreds of gigs of orchestral samples, some of the best quality libraries made. Can they be used to make beautiful music? Absolutely. But there is nothing I write that I wouldn't rather record with a live orchestra. While it is true that most commercials and a lot of television is using sample based music due to timing and budgetary constraints, most movies use samples for the mock ups before recording actual orchestras. There is a difference, and there always will be.
and themes even on the majority of produced shows comes from completely digital composers who produce the product through digitized instrument samples
OTOH, I suspect it is now much more common for a TV show to have a full original score for each episode, rather than a library of recyclable cues - and the highest production value shows will hire real orchestras for the bragging rights (and the spin-off concerts - heck, that's one show that could do with going back to cheaply-produced electronic music).
Then there are all the amateur soloists who can practice, perform or even write their own concertos without having to hire an orchestra.
In other news, the invention of Cinema 100-ish years ago was the end of the line for stage actors. Now they're turning movies into stage shows...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
like T. Booker's green onions ?
Is a digital sampler not an instrument? No? Your probably the same type of person who complained when people started playing music on synth keyboards. Music adapts to tech but you are probably only going to like what you liked when you were in your adolescents. Sorry. Also go downtown sometime. There are plenty of bands doing live music with like, you know, guitars and stuff.
.... that's only because the quality of music today has been diminished to where most pop music is nothing more than lyrics to a beat with som,e background filler sounds.
Music is what happens when creative people make sounds. There doesn't have to be only one monolithic "music market". Just because TV is using "digital musicians" has nothing to do with the four guys who play improvised music every Monday at Jerry's on Division Street, or the dubstep cats working their butts off to create prodigious amounts of recorded, disposable music or the guy who plays contrabass for the North Shore Symphony Orchestra.
So fucking what if the music on television is done using samples? And what the hell is "television" anyway? Isn't that what they used to call that big screen in the living room that I use to watch Netflix and streamed torrents?
Let's not panic. I've made a portion of my living with music since about 1980. Technology has changed since then. People still make music. In fact, I bet more people make music now than back then because the technology has democratized the production of music and made it easier to learn to play than ever.
If you're still looking to start a band and sign a deal with a major record label and..profit!, then you really need to do everyone a favor and sell your instruments and use the money to buy lottery tickets. If you're looking to have a career as a musician and pay the bills then the best approach is the same as it ever was...practice. There's nothing to indicate it's any harder today than it was when record labels and musicians' unions were king. That doesn't mean there's no need for record labels and musicians' unions, but if you don't panic and adapt everyone will be OK and there will still be music in the air and lots of lovin' everywhere so give me the night. Ooh oooh.
You are welcome on my lawn.
today's producers will not attempt to seriously promote them
They are still reeling from the whole Kenny G fiasco.
Baby, check it out, I've got something to say
Man it's so loud in here
When they stop the drum machine and I can think again, I'll remember what it was.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The answer is yes and no.
What is considered a musical instrument? That's the real question.
As someone who has always had interest in music, but no formal training though interest test show my interest are strongly inline with musicians as well as having physical dexterity good enough http://abstractionphysics.blogspot.com/2010/03/old-test-scores.html ......there remains the fact that available time (working outside of music) does not allow me to train and maintain my brain/hand coordination with musical instruments more than I have. Owning two Violins (one I made, electric), two acoustic guitars (1 being a 12 string), three electronic midi able keyboards (and an upright piano), where would I even find time for all the other instruments?
There is what I hear in my mind and it is through midi instruments and software that make it possible for me to create far beyond my limited mind/body coordination ability not to forget the cost of all the instruments that I'd physically need to do it all manually.
So what is a musical instrument, when the goal is to create music?
What would had the great classical composers accomplished had they the tools of music production today?
Performance.... that's different, but even the there you have such electronic equipment that often extends the performing musicians production/performance. i.e. minimoog synthesizer, marshal amps, etc..
And to make things easier, there is now even cord progressions libraries. i.e. http://www.prosonic-studios.com/Midi-Progressions-Details.aspx?lngCollectionID=76
So there is a divide, a difference between the instruments of music production, creation and live performance. For there is no strictly digital music that creates the stage set, special effects, costumes, etc... that are also an extension of performance entertainment.
You gonna replace an entire stage of musicians with a keyboard & samplers controlled by a sequencer ? Not at any show I'm going to. Not even on an album I would buy. Example # 1, great band from the Portland, OR area I videoed earlier this year. Plays mainly Jamaican inspired instrumental tunes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4VdqsE1iE4 .
The biggest source of income for any working musician is still live shows. However, any live band, be they rock, hiphop, classical, baroque, deviant, or otherwise, has an instantaneous advantage of an unending "fascination" effect from people who can't play instruments themselves.
True. If you listen to a talented classical guitar player performing live the combination of the sound and their style of play adds a lot to the experience for an audience. As I have been learning the classical guitar and violin one thing I have noticed is achieving competence is quite different from the performer's ability to interpret and make the piece come alive beyond simply playing sequences of musical notes.
The draw of live music comes from the interplay of talented musicians. One guy - no matter how talented or well equipped - is not going to produce the same kind of energy and attraction.
Ok then. What defines a music instrument. Is a wooden block a musical instrument? How about a snare drum?
"This has almost eliminated the need for real human instrumental musicians"
Most of them are still pounding piano keyboard to trigger the samples or using something like Maschine, which I absolutely love.
But maybe Rush said it the best:
"All this machinery making modern music
Can still be open-hearted.
Not so coldly charted, it's really just a question
Of your honesty, yeah, your honesty. "
As with most creative things, it is really just a question of your honesty.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"For many listeners this makes no difference, as such music is essentially background in nature and does not need to have a true musical interaction with a listening audience at all."
F##k that sentiment. Music plays an incredibly important role in movies, video games, and other media. Movie scores are not just background in nature - they affect our impression of the scene at the subconscious level. Synthed instruments are nice, but they do not come anywhere near the character and emotional communication of a group of world class artists. I've heard movie suites on their respective shows vs a live performance many times, and there is simply no comparison.
Reading comprehension issues. "Not an instrument like a guitar is". Or similarly, an instrument like a rock is. You can get music from a rock if you are determined enough. And I can communicate with you if I am determined enough, though actually this is getting boring. I suggest you go away and listen to an entire album of solo scratching. Please don't tell me whether or not you liked it.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I'm beating a dead horse here, but here goes nothin'. I play in a band (trumpet player, but I play many instruments) that plays funk/afrobeat. We play shows pretty frequently (3-6 times a month), and we generally make money. If you're good, people pay for it. I am located in the northeast in the US, where there is an incredibly vibrant music scene. Any local musician I know would find this article silly, as most of slashdot readers have also.
When there is a question like this in a headline, it's just looking for clicks.
Just answer "No."
End of discussion, right? Right? :P
-
I was a pro musician (studio and live performer) for many years. At the end of the day, an instrument is just a TOOL used by a person to make (hopefully) music. And just like any other craft or art, it is the artist, not the the tool, that matters. Doesn't matter if it is digital or analog/acoustic. What does matter is the performer using the equipment. They either use it well and create something people want to hear, or they don't.
I will say that I am happier behind my acoustic drum set than my digital set, but I have been playing 50+ years, so I guess I would be considered old fashioned.
I don't consider people who use samplers to reproduce MUSICIAN's efforts ( like a lot of rappers) to be musicians themselves. This is one of the reasons I don't listen to many of the more popular forms of "music" coming out today.
I would rather see musician's performing (actually playing instruments) than samplers and lip syncers. I definitely won't go see pre-fabricated pop stars
coming out of the "hit making" factories, like all of the allleged stars from Disney, Nickelodeon,etc.
I prefer instrumental music to that involving singers, but that is primarily due to the fact that in a lot of bands, the singer is (usually) the most egotistical, self-centered member in the group since they tend to become of the focal point of the band. Several groups started out as a group and found themselves eventually becoming (replaceable) backup musicians. It is interesting (although sad) to watch it happen. I used to like a group (from the 70's) named Stories. I knew the band was doomed when the official name became Ian Lloyd and Stories. they broke up within one album of the name change, if I remember right.
I don't think digital will ever completely replace analog/acoustic equipment. There is a "feel" that no digital instrument has ever successfully replicated, and I don't think they ever will. Of course, to the average listener, who cares? In certain music genres, digital has completely supplanted real instruments, and the audiences of those genre probably don't know, and certainly don't care, the source of the sounds that have them twitching about in their night's entertainment.
I'm looking to see where I said drums can't be used to create notes but I think you are going to have to help me.
Maybe you are assuming I'm dyslexic and wrote notes instead of tones?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
The author clearly hasn't heard of 2 many DJs and Soulwax. I've had the pleasure of seeing the brothers perform as both in the same night and my god are they good. They can spin with the best of them as 2 many DJs and then turn around and pick up instruments and just fucking kill it as a live band. Great musicians will shine regardless of the medium they are using.
Speaking as an unemployed instrumental musician, I'd have to say.. er.. hell yes.. Instrumental music nowadays is all solely patched together loops, and prearranged samples, and more of the same.
Certainly, machines make some of music heard today, but musicians are driven to perform, and they thrive in front of an audience. As long as there are people to listen, musicians will be available for performance.
ip, therefore im. -- sorry Rene, with love, IP. P.S. Love that thing with all the coordinates.
It's like saying that RT devices would replace most sporters.
Netzt question, please
-- 29A the number of the Beast
This guy is apparently not into turntablism, for which I pity him.
By mixing, tweaking, sampling, and matching pieces of music together, a skilled artist can make something that equals more than the sum of its parts. If you're looking for examples, take DJ Shadow, El-P, or RJD2. Listening to an album by either artist, it's not even necessarily apparent that you're listening to song 1+song 2, it's music in its own right. I don't know how they do it, but it's definitely not to be underestimated.