PAUL SELLARS: MIDI + Audio Sequencing

Paul Sellars challenges the idea that MIDI + Audio sequencing has had a negative effect upon musical proficiency.

In Paul White's Leader in SOS July 2000 he reflected upon the emergence of MIDI + Audio sequencing and suggested that this technology, whilst not intrinsically destructive, has had regrettable effects upon the musicians who have been exposed to it. Musical proficiency, he argued, has begun to die as computers have taken hold in the studio and rather than recording real‑time performances we have instead taken to constructing tracks out of short, quantised and edited sections.

There can be no doubt that this is indeed the case for many of us. However, so what. Why should this be a cause for concern? Is the fact that fewer people strive to achieve technical competence with traditional musical instruments necessarily something to regret? There are doubtless a number of readers who have already answered my question with an emphatic 'Yes!' For those of you who said 'yes', hear me out on this one...

Take, as an example, writing. Would any writer seriously suggest that the development of word‑processing software, which allows authors to cut, copy, paste, edit, re‑edit, arrange and re‑arrange text in order to construct a finished article, has had a detrimental effect on the quality of writing in general? I doubt it. An author who has become used to the labour‑saving luxuries of Microsoft Word would probably be dismayed to discover how much more difficult and time‑consuming it is to achieve respectable results with a manual typewriter and a bottle of correction fluid. Present the same writer with a quill pen, some parchment and a bottle of ink, and you should not expect the results to be pretty, never mind publishable.

I do not mean, by making this comparison, to under value the art of calligraphy: a skilled practitioner can achieve beautiful results — but who would consider calligraphic skills a necessary qualification for an aspiring writer today?

There is a tendency amongst some musicians and music journalists to sneer at music that is made entirely with 'machines'. The few dance acts that do receive approval from the mainstream music press are often those who use 'real' instruments as well as their samplers, synths and sequencers. There seems to be a suspicion that those artists who make music entirely with machines are only doing so because they don't have the talent to learn how to play a 'proper' instrument. Perhaps this is true.

Perhaps, on the other hand, these musicians simply don't see the point in investing time and energy into learning to play the guitar when they see the potential for creativity, innovation and self‑expression offered by the sampler, for example, as so much greater. It is perhaps the case that these musicians did once learn how to play 'proper' instruments, and even played in 'proper' bands but found the experience to be unrewarding and frustrating. Perhaps the discovery of technological marvels like the sequencer felt like a fantastic liberation from the arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions of the guitar, bass and drums format.

It is not my intention to set myself up in opposition to guitarists, bass players and drummers. However, I do not accept that what guitarists, bass players and drummers do is intrinsically better than what musicians working purely with sequencers do.

Music technology is becoming more widespread and this has many side effects, some of which are not good. However, one very postive side effect of this proliferation of technology is that artists, musicians and other creative people are periodically presented with new and powerful tools to help them.

In the case of music, in particular, the development of samplers and sequencers has made possible the development of new forms of music that would have been inconceivable as little as thirty years ago. These new forms may not require people to painstakingly acquire traditional musical skills, but they do require them to spend time learning new and often demanding techniques. The technology does not create the music on its own; it must be constructed skilfully. It is not, in other words, simply a case of 'pressing a button'.

Of course, if some musicians are not interested in mastering this new technology and its associated techniques, and instead feel compelled to study traditional instruments then more power to them.

However, they should not delude themselves into thinking that they are somehow acting as the guardians of 'real' music when in reality they are simply seeking to preserve the customs and traditions of a bygone age. 'Real' music, surely, is about innovation, experimentation and the discovery of new possibilities; about looking to the future, rather than clinging to the past.

If you'd like to air your views in this column, please send your ideas to: Sounding Off, Sound On Sound, Media House, Trafalgar Way, Bar Hill, Cambs CB3 8SQ. Any comments on the contents of previous columns are also welcome, and should be sent to the Editor at the same address.

E soundingoff@soundonsound.com