Instrumental Future

[Taurus]

Recently I heard about a composer who made awsome orchestral music. It sounded like he really put a lifetime into getting that 90-man orchestra to work to reach true perfection!
He musta been the new beethoven or something... Really his pieces where so awsome I put him next to JR when it comes to composing skills...;)
Then i found out he did all of this with a rack of synthesizers! Even the choral parts where synthesized, everything was just a bunch of synthsounds..

Id like to be serious about this....:

Where is this going to? And i dont mean keyboardists trying to sound like a guitar no.. I mean everybody in every music style try to recreate something natural in a digital way.. Roland, Korg, Kurzweil, Casio even.. Softsynthesizers... Gigasynth Gigapiano or what are all of those called....
These days people try to immitate natural sounds and recreate all the instruments of nature as precise as possible.. but.. why? Why are we doing this?

Will the future for us hold nothing but a huge production of 'fake' music with 'fake musical instruments'? Will the acoustic instruments all die? What will come of this?

-Do we want to let us be fooled like this?- We KNOW what we hear isnt a real instrument.. it might be just computer-generated... the same shit we blamed the Trance-junkies for when they made awfull 'computermusic' that pollutioned our ears... Remember that expression? We all hated it.

But actually, we are doing the same right now.

In my opinion the ambiance and magic of real instruments of nature, including a real human choir or orchestra, will never be able to be taken over by their digital clones... But in reality, the media, market and the fact that digital instruments are easier to get/use might be going to change this... Will acoustic instruments die?

I'd like to hear your thoughs about this.

[Enigma™]

Although what you're saying makes sense, there is a lot to be said about acoustic instruments:

It's like telling a classical pianist to play with a keyboard. He may do it, and be VERY incredible at it, but it's still not a piano.
I think it'd be similar to asking someone to paint a picture without using a canvas or brush. There's a certain human element there that can't be duplicated. It CAN be emulated... but it's not the same.

I tend to think of some soloists, like a violin concerto: It's easy enough to emulate the sound, but how pleasing would it be to watch 30 people playing synthesisers? *and it's been done too*

What about humans? They're progressing in emulating the human voice, soon... there's going to be no need to have people singing on albums because the sound, pitch, etc.. will be perfect on these machines but does that mean people are going to stop singing?

I doubt it. :)

[Nick]

i reckon that instruments will soon be outlawed in favour of coconuts and small wooden boxes and a one single synth that has an iq of 8000 and rules the entire world. There will be secret hideouts with stashes of illegal instruments been played in sound proof underground shelters. all the musicians will be in a mass slaughter and all cds, dvds, minidiscs, tapes etc will be destroyed. Only synth stuff will be kept and these will be compulsory items on each person all the time. anti-synth gangs will hunt in packs on those who worship the synth and keep them hostage till instruments are made legal (which is an almost impossible job given the iq of that master synth)

so..theres the future :wink:

[King_Ellesar]

sorry nick, but id have to agree with enigma on this one. i think acoustic or "real" instruments are better for both the audience and the musician himself. some people are gifted with certain talents. i was watching this music station once that had a group of classical guitarists on there, and they freaking blew me away. they rocked. you could tell they felt what they were playing and the instrument seemed to be just another part of him, which is how i think instrumentalists should be like. and keyboard players can be the same way with their instruments too. but the bottom line is that though the synthesizer can get the same exact sound eventually as an acoustic instrument, that natural feeling with the instrument your emulating is gone. not everyone can play keyboard. i know someone who absolutely rocks at a classical guitar, but cant play keyboard for peas. he could play the same sound on a keyboard, yes, but he wont have that feeling, or the talent, because he plays the guitar. i think that if the world for some reason did go in the future to an all-synth world, the quality of the music will be less and so will the diversity, because we will only be getting music from keyboard players, so they probly will keep the acoustic instruments a part of music.

but i do agree, they do seem to be used less as time goes by.

[Spacehog]

I think that for software instruments and digital reproductions of acoustic instruments to take over the world, there'll have to be a major change in the way these things are put together. Firstly it's not just about sound quality, or even tonality and phrasing, but there's something ethereal about an acoustic instrument that cannot be reproduced electronically. Also I've yet to come across a software instrument / sampler that's actually *pleasant* to use... there are some that are OK, but a lot more work needs to be done on the actual ergonomics of the software, and the control surfaces we use to play them before they'll make any real impact.

Ever hear a film score without live orchestra? Composers use samplers all the time as an aid to orchestration, but will still use real musicians for the final thing, because of the natural variations you get in musicians, in instruments, in playing styles etc that cannot be emulated. And speaking personally I'd much rather play / record a real instrument than sit staring at a screen for hours configuring samplers and the like.

It all has its uses, but you will never get away from the natural human interaction that cannot be simulated, and which makes performed music "real". Yes, you can get very realistic sounding approximations to real musicians, but digital is only ever an approximation. It's no less worthwhile in its part (noone would ever have a full orchestra sat around while orchestrating!) but I don't see it ever replacing the real thing. Certainly it won't in my musical world!

Martin

[lighthouse]

I agree with Martin you can`t have the same results with a sampler or midi program as with humans, cause you don`t get the random patterns resulting from different styles of playing. Midi is too "perfect" humans are not and as listeners we like to feel that there are people like us behind the instruments. Try writing drums in midi for example, you can sit for hours trying to make that groove feel ok, but no matter what you do It`ll still sound mechanic!.
I use a lot of samples and music programming on my computer, and they can be of a lot of help, but never forget to add human musicians to my recordings. I can use an orchestal strings sample, but throw in one real cello and violin so I`ll get that human sound.
Use the best of both worlds!!

Juan Pablo

[Taurus]

Yeah midi sounds like robots... Though i dont really mean that, i certainly believe music in that 'perfect' way wont stay forever, except with dance tracks, where it is a -requirement-.
I meant samples/synthesis and such though. Its kinda what Enigma said about the group of keyboardists performing like members of an orchestra haha :D

[Over The Edge]

You know, it totally depends on the performer/composer.

I've heard electronic masterpieces by such luminaries as
Hans Zimmer who literally used a room full of Kurzweils
to achieve a very feelingful 'orchestral' track.

Another cat who amazes me is Jan Hammer and his album
"The First Seven Days"

Some of the most moving and emotional tracks sound like
a huge symphonic group of musicians coming together and
playing simultaneously.

The interesting thing about this recording is that it was made
in the early 1970's with monophonic synths such as the
early mini-moogs. Imagine trying to do that now on
such a huge scope of a movie-type score!



FL
www.franklucas.net

[Kurzweilfreak]

I find a few things to be contradictory in the initial post. He starts out by saying he was surprised that the piece of music he heard was coming from a rack full of synths rather than the 90-piece orchestra like he was fooled into thinking, and then goes to say "We KNOW what we hear isnt a real instrument.. it might be just computer-generated..."

Does it really matter if the sound coming out of your speakers was generated from a real violin or a synthesized one if you can't tell the difference in the end?

Also, the comment about "the same shit we blamed the Trance-junkies for when they made awfull 'computermusic' that pollutioned our ears..." is just a matter of opinion, which I happen not to agree with; Trance is obviously a style of music not to your taste, that doesn't make it bad except in your own opinion, and "we all hated it" certainly doesn't apply since apparently there are many people who like it. Acoustic instruments will never die because playing is an artform in and of itself, as well as the live aspect of music performance is much more entertaining than just pressing the play button on a computer (although nowadays, many audiences seem to not really care if the performer on stage is just standing behind that keyboard pretending to play or actually playing, as long as they can shake their asses to the dum dum dum dum of the bass.)

The physical sensation of hearing and playing a real instrument is impossible to produce from a speaker, so a synthesized instrument will never sound like a real one because the physics of how each moves the air is completely different. Once an acoustic instrument is recorded and played back, however, the playing field is leveled since both are producing sound from a vibrating speaker cone; in this case, does it really matter where the source came from if both sound equally as good and "real" to your ear?

If the composer's orchestral music was as awesome as you say, why does it make a difference to you that his sounds were generated synthetically? I say more props to the composer because not only did he have to score for an orchestra which is where the work of a "traditional" composer would stop, but also had the added work of actually BEING the orchestra and manupulating that sound until it could fool even your ear.

With the high resolution of sound that current technology is able to produce, when you're making a recording and you have to choose between paying a musician to play or using a synthesized instrument that sounds indistingishable from - or at least close enough to - a real musician, you'd probably go with the cheaper option as well. ;)

Just a few things to think about... :lol:

[Taurus]

\/

[Taurus]

I like the way you use 'he', Togakure.

>Does it really matter if the sound coming out of your speakers was >generated from a real violin or a synthesized one if you can't tell the >difference in the end?

Yes it does :) You can be fooled by it when its not, like I was with the composer i talked about it.
I believe music made with real instruments somehow holds a certain spirit within. Think of all the hard work that has been put into it, the instruments, the wood needed for the violins, the trees that have been cut for it, the strings that have been put on, the endless time of practice the musicians have done in order to play what they just did! Perhaps i go a bit deep, but I'd rather have a real hamburger than a vegetarian one!


If we continue immitating instruments of nature, and perhaps will be mixing it with all our knowledge of synthesis creating all new kinds of sounds. Sounds we perhaps cant even imagine yet.. Maybe -then- musicproduction will be more important than the actual instrument-playing.
The music-market is already seemingly more important. Just look at MTV.

(Do you think they actually use a real orchestra to play those strings on that nr. hitsong? Or even use a real guitar? Forget R&B drums... They're all electrical.. Nothing acoustic to find here.. Perhaps a little guitarsolo, thats it.
Ofcourse, having a guy writing all of britney spears her songs with nothing more than a bunch of synths is the *cheapest* way to do it. Also less time consuming for both the composer AND britney spears ;) )

About live playing....: After reading Enigma's post it kind of convinced me things will probably not go this way though. I believe now that as long as music will be performed live, the vibe of playing an instrument, the -seeing- of people playing it, will make the natural instruments stay. As well your point Togakure wich is sadly true:

>Acoustic instruments will never die because playing is an artform in and >of itself, as well as the live aspect of music performance is much more >entertaining than just pressing the play button on a computer (although >nowadays, many audiences seem to not really care if the performer on >stage is just standing behind that keyboard pretending to play or actually >playing, as long as they can shake their asses to the dum dum dum dum >of the bass.)


However, perhaps music COULD seperate itself a bit more: *having a group that is focussed on creating the best sound/synthesis that is possible to make, using ANY gear and technology possible. Instrumentation being an important word here.
*And a group that is solely based on playing/composing/harmony, basically the -notes- are what count.

This is EXACTLY the contrast wich Dancemusic and Classical Music (Chopin piano i.e. ) nowadays is. We have the synthesized looped music with crossfading of incomming instruments and a lot of futuristic special syntheffects on one side.
And then we have the 'brilliant masterpieces!!' as some people call it, on the other side, where harmony, shape and the whole use of the notes gets all the attention.

Look at this line:

Classical ------ Jazz ------ Rock ---X--- Pop ------ R&B ------ Dance

X=Middle


Quite roughly made, but it should indicate some contrasts.

Besides all this, I think society is having to do with this a lot too. The more you go away from this 'middlepoint' on the line I made, the more you come to an isolated musicians group. Just picture a long hardrocker ^5-ing a Skinhead Hardcore-raver.. Sometimes it seems their living style is influencing the *music*, instead of the music influencing their living style.

My 30 minutes of typing end here.
Your thoughts?



Oh yeah..How would like to hear Overture from 6doit being performed with a REAL orchestra? :) That would rock, and i remember many people being disapointed that it was recorded on 6doit with the 'almighty kurz'.

[ChrisMcCoy]

Symphonies have been around long before any of us, and no doubt they'll be around long after we're gone. I live near Washington, D.C. and like most major cities, the Symphony is a big deal here (NSO) that's really part of an outing. It's a fancy tux and high dressed event where people gather to enjoy the music, but also to have an "out on the town" event.
They usually go out to some fancy restaraunt, dressed up and in the big "town car", and then over to the Kennedy Center where they can see the NSO or the Washington Opera, or whoever is there.

As long as that's a part of urban culture, there will be a demand for it, no matter how many Megabits you can squeeze into or out of a sample. There's no substitute for watching the real thing happen in real time.
Can you imagine watching Handel's Messiah with just the 4 Soloists and 1 Synthesizer Player ? It just wouldn't be the same.

(Of course, my personal taste I'd rather throw on a pair of black jeans and a T-shirt and check out a rock concert, but hey, that's just me) :)

[Kurzweilfreak]

There's an extreme difference between a live performance and a recorded piece of music. Please clarify which is the topic of conversation here. I think it's pretty obvious that the point of a live performance is the "live" aspect of the entertainment, and it wouldn't be very entertaining to watch a single (or multiple) synthesizer player perform a piece (unless you're Jordan and doing Rudess Morganstein Project stuff :P ).

However, on a recording, I'm not seeing the big deal on whether or not a recorded sound originates from a "real" instrument or an electronic one. If you can't tell the difference, what's the big deal? Sure, you can talk about whatever kind of "spirit" or whatever you want that you want to believe the music "contains" if it was done with real instruments, but if you can't back up your argument with facts, it's just you're opinion. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion. My opinion is that if you can't tell the difference between a real instrument and a digital one on a recording, but you think less of the digital instrument just because it's not "real", then you're missing the point. :P

[ChrisMcCoy]

However, on a recording, I'm not seeing the big deal on whether or not a recorded sound originates from a "real" instrument or an electronic one. If you can't tell the difference, what's the big deal? Sure, you can talk about whatever kind of "spirit" or whatever you want that you want to believe the music "contains" if it was done with real instruments, but if you can't back up your argument with facts, it's just you're opinion. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion. My opinion is that if you can't tell the difference between a real instrument and a digital one on a recording, but you think less of the digital instrument just because it's not "real", then you're missing the point. :P

I agree with you. If the focus of one's musical enjoyment is only to listen to recorded work then how would you really know the difference ?

With that in mind, I don't think synthesis will ever replace Symphony.
The Symphony is still a good draw for live entertainment.

8)