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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
You're underestimating a synthesizer. Take a look at a Moog sometime. There's a lot of knobs and dials, and they all do something (and most of them do something that was nearly impossible with any other instrument invented). A saxophone can't gradually alter its entire timber mid-phrase, the closest wind instruments have are the various kinds of mute, each limited in its ability in a way a synthesizer isn't. The electric guitar is the closest, because using different digital and analog pedals one can achieve a massive range of effects, in much the same way a synthesizer does. And, may I ask you to remember what the common reaction was to the invention of the electric guitar? Much the same as the modern reaction of so-called 'purists' to the popularization of sampling, synthesizing, and digital production via software. The fact of the matter is, they are no longer able to be looked at as more or less than each other. They are simply different ways of making art, and each is capable of truly amazing things.
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.
I think you people are talking two different things.
From the summary:
Most instrumental music used today in television commercials, background sounds and themes [...]. 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
Can Digital Music Replace Most Instrumental Musicians?
Betteridge's law of headlines says: NO.
You are both right and wrong. Current synthesizer technology is incredibly advanced and can produce a large number of music. Especially music that used in contexts that few people care. The dulcet [sweet and soothing (often used ironically).] noises of you grand piano will be lost in the recording for a Mc Donald's commercial. Will someone put a synthesizer in his living room to show how sophisticated he is? (Somebody probably will.) There is a reason why live classical performances exists and it will remain. Even with perfect reproduction people will want to see live performance, singing the queen of night is an achievement, hitting the play button is not.
i have yet to meet a piano that can sound like a violin.
yet, it's still a musical instrument.
just because one machine can't make the same sound as another machine, doesn't mean that it's not an instrument.
no, you're a luddite snob.
that is all.
I have yet to meet the synthesizer that can even remotely duplicate the dulcet noises of the old-fashioned dead trees and metal strings of my grand piano. Or the delightfully analog feel. Or dynamic range. Or imposing presence in the living room. As well the synthesizer completely fails at those little weird harmonics only found in acoustic pianos but which add rich character to the sound.
Just because you are ignorant, doesn't mean it's not doable (it might just not be easy to do it real-time with current processing abilities). Waveguide synthesis can replicate all of that, and in a way that's perfectly undistinguishable by a human (with its limited frequency range) from the real thing, given appropriate sampling rates... it's just not very computationally cheap.
Besides, if what you want is "the delightfully analog feel" (whatever you mean by that), there are analog synths out there, you know (e.g. a theremin)?
Nay, sir, the music comes from the soul, through the fingers, and sings or roars out from the harmonious combination of iron, steel, copper, and spruce.
So, whatever comes out of an electric guitar cannot be classified as music, right?
Protip: "music" is just structured sound, which can be obtained from a wide range of means; redefining "music" to mean "sounds that come out of $choose_arbitrary_instrument" is not insightful.
The pure pitch and harmonic perfection of your electronically generated waveforms only takes away from the music; it adds nothing.
Yes, because it's impossible to add noise or otherwise detune oscillators. Also, try to figure out how "pure" the pitch of the common analog synth is (protip: not very pure).
Computerized precision has no soul, sir.
The difference between a computer and a piano is that, with a computer, you can choose to be as precise or imprecise as you want; with a piano, you have no choice.
The funniest thing is that, for sure, you have already heard renditions of piano that you thought were "real" (i.e. were recorded from a physical piano), but actually weren't (i.e. were recorded from a waveguide model of a piano).
A computer might not have a soul, but if you can't distinguish between the sound that a soulful piano makes vs. the sound a soulless computer makes, maybe that distinction is purely arbitrary autism?
TL;DR: You need to polish your "no true scotsman" fallacy, brah.
My friend made a video about a track she was recording. It was the same song, but the difference was one had all the drums PERFECT. The other had the drums just the slightest amount off, to emulate someone playing life.
It was weird. Just that little bit of imperfection made the song sound quite a bit warmer. Her youtube account has since been deleted. Its rather sad, she had tons of good stuff on there.
"Ask Slashdot: Can mass production replace most atisanal handicrafters?"
So say we all
And you won't replace the spontaneity or timing insight of a drummer either. Most of what I've heard in computer generated drum rhythms and fills seems to have been produced by non-drummers. It's usually mundane because most people, including other musicians (especially other musicians) have no idea what makes a rhythm or fill interesting. They just want something back there so they can concentrate on their instrument. As a consequence, and as a drummer, I find their music usually mundane and uninteresting.
Look at a YouTube video, say, Buddy Rich Amazing Drum Solo. No one yet has been able to reproduce electronically what he was capable of. Most drummers can't come close either.
Also, you wont' drive a band like Deep Purple without an Ian Paice or Iron Maiden without a Nicko McBrain. Both bands are still touring to large audiences. And why would you go to see a bunch of electronics generate music at you. Part of the allure of a live performance is, uh the live performance. If all you wanted was to jump around with a bunch of friends to loud music, throw a party.
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.
Music is a language - among other things. Music can be an expression of otherwise inchoate feelings and non-verbal awareness or sensations.
Not having REAL music - which means the playing, presence of human expression - is a loss of part of the spectrum of being human. Machines can mimic timing, tone and timbre - but machines cannot groove. They cannot translate yearning or joy into trembling fingertips... into welling breath.
Music can be as simple as banging your hand on a log... But everybody can make music. Everybody SHOULD make music. Teach music, learn music, love music.
Now, where IS my Earth Wind and Fire track?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."