The Ghost in the Machine

[fred]

This follows on from the making music on a PC thread, some things I've been thinking about as I experimented with various software.

The computer is a tool, like any other, man has been using tools to make music since he first hit a hollow rock with a stick or blew into a sea shell but at what point does it stop being the tool and become the musician? At what point does music become a science not an art? At what stage are you just painting by numbers?

Seems to me with the software available I could just take a musical score and type it into the computer, tell it what instruments to use, press enter, sit back and listen but is that music? Can sounds with no soul be called music? Distilled water is tasteless, it's the imperfections in music which give it the flavour but imperfections can be programmed in. You can program a computer with the rules of harmony and random selection and it will compose music but can music created by a machine ever be described as beautiful?

[Torvaig]

Fred, like painting by numbers as opposed to original drawings/paintings, which do you like to look at most? I think I can guess the answer.....

It's the same with music.

I can listen to the best of recorded quality music at any time but we still go to "see" live music as there is nothing like being a part of it, be it listening, watching the players as they create the sounds or even lightheartedly dancing and singing along!

Music created by computer has to be programmed so the user still has the satisfaction of being responsible for that music.

Me, I'm still waiting for the computer that will put my shopping away even though it has been ordered electronically and delivered to my door!

[fred]

Fred, like painting by numbers as opposed to original drawings/paintings, which do you like to look at most? I think I can guess the answer.....

Yes but the question is at what point does it become painting by numbers? There is science in every work of art, every artist uses tricks even if it's just holding his thumb up to judge proportions.

A good instrument could always make a good musician sound better but they could never make a bad musician sound good before. At what point are we just working the pedals on a pianola?

[Torvaig]

I know what you mean Fred, but like a lot of things in life I don't think the answer is at all simple. The difference between hearing a good voice sing even with just a simple accompaniment and hearing a dodgy singer with either good musicians or machines that we can tweak is in the ear of the listener.

For example, I have listened to some of the X-factor on't telly and even just last week when they were nearing the final process there was a female who sang (don't know who, I was in the next room) and I was constantly flinching at the flatness of some of her notes but she was carried along with the excellent music and the buoyancy of the crowd cheering and maybe is still in the running, I don't know. My point is how could the others not hear what I was hearing. I don't have a particularly exact ear but it had me cringing.

Maybe it is the same with manufactured music; it is in the ear of the listener and unless you have a very keen ear I doubt if someone could tell the difference and I'm quite sure many people would prefer the machine music.

There are many things in life that are changing due to more knowledge, new technology; even our very language is changing. Some things we cannot stop but we still have a choice.

"A good instrument could always make a good musician sound better but they could never make a bad musician sound good before. At what point are we just working the pedals on a pianola?"

Maybe we should appreciate the fact that nowadays the production of music is changing and part of the art is in knowing how to programme or tweak the machines? To my mind, as in art, one can complement the other with some followers of good music staying faithfull to raw instrument playing and the more adventurous adapting to modern ways and producing new, exciting sounds. (I have to admit to using a capo as it is much easier than learning all the chords I may need but then I am lazy!)

I have no doubt that making music is now easier for those who maybe wouldn't have been able to master ordinary instruments but who can work machinery and lo and behold, they can produce a good commercial sound.

I would like to think there is room for it all even though, for some of us diehards, never the twain shall meet!

[Torvaig]

P.S.

"At what point are we just working the pedals on a pianola?"

I simply don't know......

[davem]

Pushing the pedals - when we can't be bothered to be musicians any more.

[Torvaig]

"If you ever hear someone play the right notes at the right time without involvement or enthusiasm, it is the most dismal way to waste your time."

So true Davem; emotions and feelings make the music. This is why I like folk music; the technicality can be dubious but if it comes from the heart.....

[davem]

I still make music the old fashioned and best way. However to use a machine to produce as opposed to reproduce music is about musicality invention and musicianship.
You only need to hear stuff Isaac has recorded to hear a live feel when he and John have played everything, not at the same time. They have the technology to do everything to make music perfect but can do it without losing the enthusiasm, spontaneity and excitement that others can often only do live. That isn't exactly whats asked but its about using technology to do more than you can do in real time.
So can you programme music, no - you can programme a tune, some feeling and emotion is what makes it music. I do enjoy a lot of stuff that is remixed, Norman Cook sticks ecletic bits of stuff together to make songs that are at least the sum of some really good parts, I still feel its his musicianship that makes him master of the technology rather than the other way about.

If you ever hear someone play the right notes at the right time without involvement or enthusiasm, it is the most dismal way to waste your time.

[rob murray]

I still make music the old fashioned and best way. However to use a machine to produce as opposed to reproduce music is about musicality invention and musicianship.
You only need to hear stuff Isaac has recorded to hear a live feel when he and John have played everything, not at the same time. They have the technology to do everything to make music perfect but can do it without losing the enthusiasm, spontaneity and excitement that others can often only do live. That isn't exactly whats asked but its about using technology to do more than you can do in real time.
So can you programme music, no - you can programme a tune, some feeling and emotion is what makes it music. I do enjoy a lot of stuff that is remixed, Norman Cook sticks ecletic bits of stuff together to make songs that are at least the sum of some really good parts, I still feel its his musicianship that makes him master of the technology rather than the other way about.

If you ever hear someone play the right notes at the right time without involvement or enthusiasm, it is the most dismal way to waste your time.

I think you possibly missed out the key ingrediant here..creative imagination, all the techy toys in the world amount to nothing unless the user is creative, thats the essence of it. ( this has been edited )

[davem]

Hi Rob that was the invention bit
D