Main Forums >> Recording Techniques
        Print Thread

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)
EnlightenedHand



Joined: 18/01/08
Posts: 648
Loc: United States
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807105 - 26/01/10 08:23 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing that machines are musicians. I happen to agree with you in thinking that they aren't. But it's the compositional aspect of electronically performed music that makes it a valid expression of the composers humanity, thus qualifying it as "music" in my opinion at least.

I think what seems to be getting confused here is the issue of a performance artist and a composer. One doesn't have to be both to be a musician or for their work to be considered music. They are two separate aspects of expression within the musical art form.

Can a machine be a performance artist? I think not because I define a performance artist as someone who expresses their heart and humanity through performance. Machines don't have hearts in the metaphysical sense (that we're aware of at least). They are also not human and thus possess no humanity. So they cannot be performance artists. But they can be "performers" in that they can actively display work for an audience to experience. But in the argument as to whether or not electronically created and performed works are indeed music the issue of the performer is neither here nor there. The composer is what matters in determining that conclusion. Since so far the composers of electronic works have been humans, I think that qualifies their compositions as "music".

--------------------
MIRRORMIX STUDIO
blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
The Korff
Loose Cannon (Reviews Editor)


Joined: 20/10/06
Posts: 2352
Loc: The Wrong Precinct
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807106 - 26/01/10 08:23 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

No, an instrument becomes a machine when it makes it's own time and plays itself to it's own clock.




A bit like, say, a tape machine...

Quote The Southern Baptist:

That's a mechanical performance.




Like, say, musique concrete, or Radiophonic Workshop stuff.

Quote The Southern Baptist:

And i'm not arguing about it, i'm just saying that it's not a human performance, so it's not real music.




See my comment about the Beatles. This is quoted from an earlier post in this thread:

Quote The Southern Baptist:

So to me in the first example a person sitting in his room would hear his performance whether it was recorded or not, because he's pleaying the synth. In the second example the finished performance can only be heard once the machine plays it back.




So no edits allowed, then. No drop-ins, no gates, no EQs, no compressors, no fader rides and (if you take that argument to its logical conclusion) no multitrack recording, because the recording that is created deviates from what the performer hears in his room.

Quote The Southern Baptist:

The myth is that a machine can be a musician, it can;t, to be a musician you have to be a person.




Of course! I don't think anyone except that nutter who programmed a music-by-numbers computer (Ellie?) would argue with that!

But your insistence that music that requires 'machines' to exist isn't really music is, IMHO, very narrow-minded.

Cheers!

Chris


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807107 - 26/01/10 08:33 PM
Not for machines to exist, no. Machines are great tools for music composition and creation. But the idea that one can stand back while a machine plays a composition is laughable to me.

A tape machine if sifferent, it replays something that it's previously 'heard' and the same thing that would have been heard by anyone listening when the performance happened.

I'm struggling to see why it's so hard to see (and moreover hear and appreciate the subtleties of) the difference.

Music is to me anyway, an art form which is about people making music on instruments. When dod we get to letting machines pay the music for us?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hugol



Joined: 28/03/06
Posts: 844
Loc: London, UK
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807108 - 26/01/10 08:34 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

I think you have yes, but tbh i'm a bit fed up now and wish i didn't get involved in the first place. I'm old, i'm tired, my arthritis is playing me up and i've just made a nice cup of cocoa and filled a hot water bottle. I just don't have the energy for this board anymore.




Don't be like that. Some of your posts made me laugh and they generated a lot of responses which is a good thing. Better than a sleeping audience let's face it.

Quote The Southern Baptist:


I think this: Music is something played by humans on instruments or parts of their body in real time. It's not something plyed by machines... That's all really.




You see I completely disagree with this. Music for me is something that invokes an emotional response - hopefully pleasure or even sadness.

I couldn't care less how it was made, that's just snobbish - and hey what do I know as I'm into all that bleepy machine assisted noise! Yes there is a lot of rubbish out there, but a good tune is timeless and really captures me and hopefully takes me on a journey whatever instruments were used.

Back on topic quality is certainly paramount in the end product though whatever the music. I don't think anyone is going to argue otherwise.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807109 - 26/01/10 08:35 PM
As far as edits and drop-ins go, well once again the music is played by a person, there is a performance. Edits, sure, why not?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hugol



Joined: 28/03/06
Posts: 844
Loc: London, UK
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807110 - 26/01/10 08:36 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

Not for machines to exist, no. Machines are great tools for music composition and creation. But the idea that one can stand back while a machine plays a composition is laughable to me.





Well nuances are important I agree, but you can record or program these into the machine..... The machine isn't making the music, it's a tool enabling people to express themselves.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807113 - 26/01/10 08:39 PM
It's not snobbery btw, i'm not snobbish about music. I just believe that the performing of music is a human activity and it would be a great loss if the musical fraternity handed that to machines. As so many other activities have handed to machines to the detriment and ultimately the loss to human culture.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807114 - 26/01/10 08:43 PM
Quote HugoL:

Quote The Southern Baptist:

Not for machines to exist, no. Machines are great tools for music composition and creation. But the idea that one can stand back while a machine plays a composition is laughable to me.





Well nuances are important I agree, but you can record or program these into the machine..... The machine isn't making the music, it's a tool enabling people to express themselves.




No it's not making or composing the music (well not yet generally) but it is performing it.

Say you have a piece to play, you've learned it and you know it well and you record it. Lets just say that as you record it you see your wife or girlfriend or child or mother through the glass and you feel some special emotion that takes you and effects your performance. That human condition/experience will come through, that's 'art'.

A machine will never have these feelings, they will never come through. Sure you can program things into the sequencer, but it will never 'perform' in a human way, it can't, it's a machine.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hugol



Joined: 28/03/06
Posts: 844
Loc: London, UK
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807115 - 26/01/10 08:44 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

It's not snobbery btw, i'm not snobbish about music. I just believe that the performing of music is a human activity and it would be a great loss if the musical fraternity handed that to machines. As so many other activities have handed to machines to the detriment and ultimately the loss to human culture.




Well ok, but machines just enable us to create that performance as we go, rather than "live". Not such a bad thing.

When people are uninventive and don't add the nuances and performance detail things sound sterile and lifeless definitely.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
The Korff
Loose Cannon (Reviews Editor)


Joined: 20/10/06
Posts: 2352
Loc: The Wrong Precinct
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807118 - 26/01/10 09:07 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

As far as edits and drop-ins go, well once again the music is played by a person, there is a performance. Edits, sure, why not?




Pardon?

Quote The Southern Baptist:

What he [Peter Kaine] said was this.

So if I program a lead sound on my Jp8080 and play the main rift off it and record it to disk in protools then it's a performance using a proper instrument.

But if I build the same patch in superwave and then play it in cubase using a midi controller and record and edit it's no longer music performed using a proper instrument? [end Peter's quote]

Now what i take that to mean is that in the first instance he takes his synth, programmes a patch and plays in into his recorder.

But in the second example he goes to the machine, programmes a patch, uses the midi facilities to capture some on/off messages and as he states 'edits' it.

So to me in the first example a person sitting in his room would hear his performance whether it was recorded or not, because he's pleaying the synth. In the second example the finished performance can only be heard once the machine plays it back.




A bit like capturing a recording on a tape machine, and editing the tape machine then, yes? Because it "can only be heard once the machine plays it back."

Nothing personal, by the way! This is all in the name of healthy debate, as far as I'm concerned, but can you not see that you've contradicted yourself there?

Cheers!

Chris


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
ken long



Joined: 21/01/08
Posts: 4527
Loc: The Orient, East London
Re: Audio myths new [Re: EnlightenedHand]
      #807124 - 26/01/10 09:35 PM
Quote EnlightenedHand:

Quote ken long:

Quote EnlightenedHand:


The second main reason professionals don't default to average gear is simply because they don't have to. We use what we like because we can. Often times it sounds great straightaway and that's fine by anyone so long as they have the budget to acquire the gear. That still doesn't make it a necessity. That makes it a choice out of convenience and personal preference.




Again, all down to time and clients. Most of my clients will have a basic set up at home. They will expect me to turn something around rather quickly. Quality is a given. Why spend hours faffing with average gear and DSP when you can get that sound straight from the source? That is, after all, the most important part of the signal chain.

ken



The paragraph that I wrote just above the one that you've quoted addresses this. I'm quite aware of the efficiency benefits of high quality gear. I agree that in a professional setting this is important. Which is exactly why I wrote what I did in the bit that you didn't quote.




I was agreeing with you. I quoted that paragraph because I wanted to reiterate that point.

ken

--------------------
I'm All Ears.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Tui
active member


Joined: 02/09/02
Posts: 3305
Loc: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807127 - 26/01/10 09:41 PM
Bloody hell. I go away for a couple of hours to play some real music with real musicians, and there are 53 new posts about what does, or does not, constitute music. As one would expect, there are as many definitions as there are posters.

Quote The Southern Baptist:

In order to broaden my horizons i've just been to youtube and listened to 'windowlicker' and 'donkey rhubarb'




'Windowlicker' and 'donkey rhubarb'..? Hehe. I think this just about sums up the state of western, contemporary culture. It's a freak show, sophomoric and void of meaning. No, for this you need no Steinway or Stradivarius, or an Eventide or a Brauner mic. A Walmart PC will do.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: The Korff]
      #807142 - 26/01/10 10:46 PM
Quote Korff:

Quote The Southern Baptist:

As far as edits and drop-ins go, well once again the music is played by a person, there is a performance. Edits, sure, why not?




Pardon?






Quote The Southern Baptist:

As far as edits and drop-ins go, well once again the music is played by a person, there is a performance. Edits, sure, why not?




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
johnny h



Joined: 24/07/06
Posts: 3433
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hollowsun]
      #807143 - 26/01/10 10:54 PM
Quote hollowsun:

Quote johnny h:

If you want to experience God in musical form, remove the batteries from a Roland TB303 for a little while...



If you want to experience God in musical form, remove the batteries from a Roland TB303. And that's it!

More godliness can be felt if you then apply a lump hammer vigorously to the horrid, thin, weedy, nasal, whining little bastard!!!




Does have a good filter though. If you like that kind of music.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
johnny h



Joined: 24/07/06
Posts: 3433
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807144 - 26/01/10 11:01 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

Quote HugoL:

Quote The Southern Baptist:

Not for machines to exist, no. Machines are great tools for music composition and creation. But the idea that one can stand back while a machine plays a composition is laughable to me.





Well nuances are important I agree, but you can record or program these into the machine..... The machine isn't making the music, it's a tool enabling people to express themselves.




No it's not making or composing the music (well not yet generally) but it is performing it.

Say you have a piece to play, you've learned it and you know it well and you record it. Lets just say that as you record it you see your wife or girlfriend or child or mother through the glass and you feel some special emotion that takes you and effects your performance. That human condition/experience will come through, that's 'art'.

A machine will never have these feelings, they will never come through. Sure you can program things into the sequencer, but it will never 'perform' in a human way, it can't, it's a machine.




Supposing somebody were to release a piece of piano music twice three times.

The first time they played their midi keyboard into their computer and recorded the midi information, then mixed it down.

The second time they inputed the midi information with a mouse and used groove templates to simulate the performance characteristics of a real pianist, then mixed it down.

The third time, they played a real piano, but audio quantised the notes afterwards, then mixed it down.

Where exactly does your arbitrary line fall within these 3 records?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807145 - 26/01/10 11:07 PM
My line would be under take #1. The second two mean nothing to me. Vienna.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807146 - 26/01/10 11:11 PM
Nice chatting to you all. I'm outa here for a while...

Take care.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
The Korff
Loose Cannon (Reviews Editor)


Joined: 20/10/06
Posts: 2352
Loc: The Wrong Precinct
Re: Audio myths new [Re: The Korff]
      #807147 - 26/01/10 11:16 PM


The point I was trying to make was:

What's the difference between someone using "the MIDI facilities to capture some on/off messages" and then editing those events, and someone (for example) using a digital recorder to "capture some on/off messages" (those little ones and zeros that live inside your computer) and editing those?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
The Korff
Loose Cannon (Reviews Editor)


Joined: 20/10/06
Posts: 2352
Loc: The Wrong Precinct
Re: Audio myths new [Re: The Korff]
      #807148 - 26/01/10 11:16 PM
Oh, he's gone.

Does that mean I win?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hugol



Joined: 28/03/06
Posts: 844
Loc: London, UK
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807149 - 26/01/10 11:33 PM
Oh God what have we created with this thread? Thanks a bunch Ethan!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
onesecondglance



Joined: 02/01/08
Posts: 2140
Loc: Reading, UK
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807153 - 27/01/10 12:17 AM
Quote HugoL:

Oh God what have we created with this thread? Thanks a bunch Ethan!




i'm just waiting for Godwin's law to kick in...

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
hollowsun



Joined: 20/01/05
Posts: 5582
Loc: Cowbridge, South Wales
Re: Audio myths new [Re: johnny h]
      #807169 - 27/01/10 03:56 AM
Quote johnny h:

Supposing somebody were to release a piece of piano music twice three times.

The first time they played their midi keyboard into their computer and recorded the midi information, then mixed it down.

The second time they inputed the midi information with a mouse and used groove templates to simulate the performance characteristics of a real pianist, then mixed it down.

The third time, they played a real piano, but audio quantised the notes afterwards, then mixed it down.

Where exactly does your arbitrary line fall within these 3 records?



For me, it depends on the circumstances...

For a 'real' piano piece (composed by, say, Debussy, Fauré, whoever), none of the above. All would be (and would sound) fake. But for someone banging out l, lV, V chords in a pop/dance tune in a mix, any of your scenarios would be acceptable.

And as far as the performance of of a 'real' piano piece, again, it depends on the circumstances...

For a live performance in concert of, say, 'Clair De Lune', I'd expect the performer to have rehearsed and practiced to an extent where they can play it throughout as flawlessly as possible with all due expression and interpretation. There may be mistakes in the live performance (or not) but within the environment of listening to it once in a concert environment, if I noticed a mistake, that's fair enough. If I noticed a mistake...

In that environment, I might not notice the odd duff note here and there because I'd be so wrapped up in 'the moment' and the performance and the environment.

But for a recording of it for repeated listening?

Well for that, I'd accept (and even expect) multiple takes and maybe even some splicing together of the best takes so that it bears repeated listening.

But to put that level of musical expertise and recording engineering on the same level as some 16-year-old dicking around with quantise and MIDI on their home computer is laughable. You won't find the Labeque sisters 'inputting' their performances into a computer with a sampled piano played from a MIDI controller, you just won't - ever. It will be done 'for real'! And for them, nothing but the finest is enough. Which is fair enough.

But that's a rarified atmosphere. For MOST people (especially yer 16-year-old banging out simple triads in a dance toon in their bedrooms on their PCs), MOST gear these days is good enough to realise their ambitions and aspirations for a MySpace release especially if it all electronic.

If, however, acoustic instruments are involved, then good old traditions come into play and proper acoustic treatment, choice of mic and that mic's placement in front of decent instruments played by a competent muso are likely to yield FAR better results than "Which audio IO / monitors for under £100?"

'Boutique' gear has it's place in the right recording environment (especially where big money is involved) but for MOST people in MOST situations working in MOST genres, prosumer gear is, by and large, more than adequate to produce good recordings these days if you know what you're doing. And there's the rub - a lot of people don't.

That's not to dismiss the newbie (we all had to start somewhere) but to crave some £x,xxx valve topology pre-amp, whatever, as a solution is to miss the point. There is so much more to it than that not least of which is 'content' and frankly, it doesn't matter what gear you have to capture that - if the 'content' is good, the gear is almost irrelevant!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Edited by hollowsun (27/01/10 04:00 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Pete Kaine
Scan Computers


Joined: 10/07/03
Posts: 3576
Loc: Manchester
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hollowsun]
      #807194 - 27/01/10 09:59 AM
Quote hollowsun:

Quote johnny h:

If you want to experience God in musical form, remove the batteries from a Roland TB303 for a little while...



If you want to experience God in musical form, remove the batteries from a Roland TB303. And that's it!

More godliness can be felt if you then apply a lump hammer vigorously to the horrid, thin, weedy, nasal, whining little bastard!!!




I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at a post on here. The description pretty much nails it for me.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: The Korff]
      #807203 - 27/01/10 10:30 AM
Quote Korff:

Oh, he's gone.

Does that mean I win?




Yes, you win the music.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
johnny h



Joined: 24/07/06
Posts: 3433
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hollowsun]
      #807217 - 27/01/10 11:55 AM
Quote hollowsun:

Quote johnny h:

Supposing somebody were to release a piece of piano music twice three times.

The first time they played their midi keyboard into their computer and recorded the midi information, then mixed it down.

The second time they inputed the midi information with a mouse and used groove templates to simulate the performance characteristics of a real pianist, then mixed it down.

The third time, they played a real piano, but audio quantised the notes afterwards, then mixed it down.

Where exactly does your arbitrary line fall within these 3 records?



For me, it depends on the circumstances...

For a 'real' piano piece (composed by, say, Debussy, Fauré, whoever), none of the above. All would be (and would sound) fake. But for someone banging out l, lV, V chords in a pop/dance tune in a mix, any of your scenarios would be acceptable.

And as far as the performance of of a 'real' piano piece, again, it depends on the circumstances...




I was actually joking, I wasn't expecting serious answers! I was making the point about the ability to make fake distinctions between "music" and "non-music".

An individual's own personal opinion has no validity or relevance in the outside world. And while it may be grimly satisfying for the victor meldrew types to say "i hate music that wasn't made like the music i had as a teenager" or variants on, it contributes nothing of value.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: johnny h]
      #807225 - 27/01/10 12:19 PM
Don't make me get my handbag out.

Now, if you're refering to me when you use the VM referene then please be aware that i do like lots of tracks that you have refered to as 'non-music' in fact i stated that much earlier in the thread. In fact, i have spent many a happy hour programming beets and everything. I even went to a rave once, i mean they took my stick off me at the door, but i went there anyway.

And don't forget Kraftwerk and Jean Jarr, greenfield, bowie and many others. They were doing electronica before it was called that. And the sugar hill guys doing hip-hop. I've often waved my stick around to that stuff.

Those were the days.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Guy Johnson



Joined: 02/05/03
Posts: 4339
Loc: North Pembrokeshire
Re: Audio myths new [Re: The Korff]
      #807228 - 27/01/10 12:26 PM
Quote Korff:

Oh, he's gone.

Does that mean I win?



No.

--------------------
Facebok Page for acoustic music PA-ing in smaller venues


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
johnny h



Joined: 24/07/06
Posts: 3433
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807233 - 27/01/10 12:46 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

Don't make me get my handbag out.

Now, if you're refering to me when you use the VM referene then please be aware that i do like lots of tracks that you have refered to as 'non-music' in fact i stated that much earlier in the thread. In fact, i have spent many a happy hour programming beets and everything. I even went to a rave once, i mean they took my stick off me at the door, but i went there anyway.

And don't forget Kraftwerk and Jean Jarr, greenfield, bowie and many others. They were doing electronica before it was called that. And the sugar hill guys doing hip-hop. I've often waved my stick around to that stuff.

Those were the days.




What is all that supposed to mean?

The victor meldrew thing isn't about age, I know people in their mid 20s with attitudes like that, in fact they may even be the worst ones.

It was actually you that referred to certain genres as "non-music". Incorrectly. I was arguing that music does not necessarily have to be played live to be accurately described as music.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: johnny h]
      #807236 - 27/01/10 01:01 PM
Quote johnny h:

...It was actually you that referred to certain genres as "non-music".




You go off and find where i said that and quote it.

I said that music performed by machines is not 'proper' music because imo, for music to be 'proper' it music has to be performed by musicians, and by definition a machine cannot be a musician.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
johnny h



Joined: 24/07/06
Posts: 3433
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807239 - 27/01/10 01:13 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

Quote johnny h:

...It was actually you that referred to certain genres as "non-music".



I said that music performed by machines is not 'proper' music because imo, for music to be 'proper' it music has to be performed by musicians, and by definition a machine cannot be a musician.




Yeah, and that's just total rubbish!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
JamesSimpson



Joined: 24/12/05
Posts: 1075
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807241 - 27/01/10 01:20 PM
I remember a time when we were allowed different opinions and so long as we didn't millitantly try to explain ours (or force them on others). Then many people didn't mind you having those opinions. Sometimes i get the feeling on forums that there always has to be a right answer and while this may be correct for technical based questions such as how many spdifs can I adat to my firewire? With which there is one such answer, something as complex and subjective as music cannot be contained down to one right answer.

Remember the Musique Concrete composers slammed modern pop music as useless and worthless "not real music".

Then Lennon and McCartney put some daft loops and textural noises in a Beatles album or two and send a Christmas card, feature a face on an album cover. Whaddaya know? Suddenly pop music isn't quite so bland says Stockhausen.


Lets all have a cup of tea and agree that perhaps we can be happy without agreeing.

--------------------
Squarehead Jam Jar Facebook Jam Jar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
onesecondglance



Joined: 02/01/08
Posts: 2140
Loc: Reading, UK
Re: Audio myths new [Re: johnny h]
      #807242 - 27/01/10 01:21 PM
let the above exchange stand testament to the fact that sarcasm and dry wit do not translate well over the internet.

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807243 - 27/01/10 01:24 PM
Quote johnny h:

Quote The Southern Baptist:

Quote johnny h:

...It was actually you that referred to certain genres as "non-music".



I said that music performed by machines is not 'proper' music because imo, for music to be 'proper' it music has to be performed by musicians, and by definition a machine cannot be a musician.




Yeah, and that's just total rubbish!




You think a machine can be a musician?

You think someone sitting in front of a piano roll, waving their arms around and smiling is a pianist?

You think a sequencer playing erik satie's gymnopedie #1 can give you the same listening experience as a fantastic pianist playing that piece with all the subtle nuances they feel effected by at the time of the perormance that you both share?

There's rubbish, and there's 'utter ill informed rubbish.''


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Richard Graham



Joined: 10/04/06
Posts: 3021
Loc: Gateshead, UK
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807246 - 27/01/10 01:27 PM
Quote HugoL:


Well nuances are important I agree, but you can record or program these into the machine.....




This is the nub of the argument for me... when you hear human beings *expressing* themselves on an instrument, they are expressing *themselves* (their emotions, thoughts, or 'soul' if you like) through the actions of their bodies, finely controlled (or not!) by their mind through their technique.

When you hear a simulacrum of expression that has been programmed on a machine, however well... all you are hearing is a simulacrum.

If you are interested in hearing what simulated emotion sounds like, then you should listen to music that simulates emotion (and this goes for a lot of non-programmed stuff too).

Given a free choice, I'd rather hear somebody playing their heart/mind/soul out and really giving it up.

I am interested in hearing how close a machine can be programmed to sound, too... but it will never make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

--------------------
"if you don't have much soul left and you know it, you still got soul" - Bukowski


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807249 - 27/01/10 01:33 PM
Spot on!

I'd rather listen to this! At least there's some expression going on here and not just the ching of a cash register for the dumbed down masses!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ860P4iTaM&NR=1&feature=fvwp


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
johnny h



Joined: 24/07/06
Posts: 3433
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807254 - 27/01/10 01:43 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

Quote johnny h:

Quote The Southern Baptist:

Quote johnny h:

...It was actually you that referred to certain genres as "non-music".



I said that music performed by machines is not 'proper' music because imo, for music to be 'proper' it music has to be performed by musicians, and by definition a machine cannot be a musician.




Yeah, and that's just total rubbish!




You think a machine can be a musician?

You think someone sitting in front of a piano roll, waving their arms around and smiling is a pianist?

You think a sequencer playing erik satie's gymnopedie #1 can give you the same listening experience as a fantastic pianist playing that piece with all the subtle nuances they feel effected by at the time of the perormance that you both share?

There's rubbish, and there's 'utter ill informed rubbish.''




Perhaps it could yes, i wouldn't rule out the possibility.

Supposing a world leading expert on classical music developed a program which could simulate the subtle nuances of the piano and how they relate to the feeling and emotion which registers in the listener. This could be based on studies of hundreds pianists and how they perform different material. Or even extend this to whole orchestras.

Just because the technology does not yet exist, doesn't mean it won't. With time, its extremely likely that some technology will come into being, and it may well be that experts will not be able to tell the difference.

You may be able to click a preset box and decide which orchestra you wish to perform your work, and all the subtle nuances, variations, interaction, conductor and room will be simulated to a degree which makes it impossible to differentiate from the real thing.

Its tempting to believe this cannot happen, that some magical human quality will spoil the illusion and that there will always be something artificial about the simulation. But there is little / no evidence for this. It is more likely that the computer performance will eventually become superior to that which can be performed by musicians, in the same way lexicon can make reverbs which sound more pleasing than real reverberent spaces.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Wizard Moon Chopper



Joined: 28/10/05
Posts: 620
Re: Audio myths new [Re: hugol]
      #807255 - 27/01/10 01:47 PM
I guess the question is similar to this one. Would you rather spend an hour on the Star Ship Enterprise's Holodeck with a woman, or get a real one?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
JamesSimpson



Joined: 24/12/05
Posts: 1075
Re: Audio myths new [Re: onesecondglance]
      #807257 - 27/01/10 01:49 PM
Quote onesecondglance:

let the above exchange stand testament to the fact that sarcasm and dry wit do not translate well over the internet.




Perhaps I'm not funny in real life either though, that would be the rub I suppose.

--------------------
Squarehead Jam Jar Facebook Jam Jar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
ZukanModerator
Zukan


Joined: 12/09/03
Posts: 9246
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807263 - 27/01/10 02:06 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

I guess the question is similar to this one. Would you rather spend an hour on the Star Ship Enterprise's Holodeck with a woman, or get a real one?




That's opened a whole new can......



--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
johnny h



Joined: 24/07/06
Posts: 3433
Re: Audio myths new [Re: Wizard Moon Chopper]
      #807267 - 27/01/10 02:19 PM
Quote The Southern Baptist:

I guess the question is similar to this one. Would you rather spend an hour on the Star Ship Enterprise's Holodeck with a woman, or get a real one?




Its quite easy to get a real woman, and its very familiar. Given the chance to visit a spaceship, yeah it would be amazing! Who wouldn't want to do that?

You'd turn down the chance to visit a real spaceship for another notch on your bedpost? Woman can smell desperation you know...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)

Rate this thread

Jump to

Extra Information
0 registered and 21 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  David Etheridge, James Perrett, zenguitar, Martin Walker, Forum Admin, Hugh Robjohns, Zukan, Frank Eleveld, SOS News Editor,  
Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled
Rating: *****
Thread views: 49394

September 2014
On sale now at main newsagents and bookstores (or buy direct from the
SOS Web Shop)
SOS current Print Magazine: click here for FULL Contents list
Click image for September 2014
DAW Tips from SOS

 

Home | Search | News | Current Issue | Tablet Mag | Articles | Forum | Subscribe | Shop | Readers Ads

Advertise | Information | Privacy Policy | Support | Login Help

 

Email: Contact SOS

Telephone: +44 (0)1954 789888

Fax: +44 (0)1954 789895

Registered Office: Media House, Trafalgar Way, Bar Hill, Cambridge, CB23 8SQ, United Kingdom.

Sound On Sound Ltd is registered in England and Wales.

Company number: 3015516 VAT number: GB 638 5307 26

         

All contents copyright © SOS Publications Group and/or its licensors, 1985-2014. All rights reserved.
The contents of this article are subject to worldwide copyright protection and reproduction in whole or part, whether mechanical or electronic, is expressly forbidden without the prior written consent of the Publishers. Great care has been taken to ensure accuracy in the preparation of this article but neither Sound On Sound Limited nor the publishers can be held responsible for its contents. The views expressed are those of the contributors and not necessarily those of the publishers.

Web site designed & maintained by PB Associates | SOS | Relative Media