Members Cry Logic Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 "...The technology now exists for a pretty mediocre musician to use loops and corrective technologies to create music that comes pretty close to what truly talented people can do with real instruments..." IMHO, that means "loops and corrective technologies" are just as "real" as traditional instruments. It's just a different set of skills and talent required.... I also believe it's a myth that it's easy to make music using these new techniques ... it's actually quite difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kendrix Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 The lava lamp is almost 50 years old.'NUff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jotown Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 IMHO, that means "loops and corrective technologies" are just as "real" as traditional instruments. It's just a different set of skills and talent required.... I also believe it's a myth that it's easy to make music using these new techniques ... it's actually quite difficult.It is always quite difficult to do something truly creative. The point of that post was to say that somebody with very little talent, and garage band with some loops and pitch correction, can create something that - to the average listener - sounds a lot like what they hear on the radio. Whether what they hear on the radio, or what the kid did with garage band is any good in the first place is another issue altogether. And I disagree that loops and autotune take the same degree of talent as mastering a traditional instrument. They are two different worlds. Yet somebody with actual musical talent will make more musical noise using those tools than someone without talent every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 IMHO, that means "loops and corrective technologies" are just as "real" as traditional instruments.It's just a different set of skills and talent required....I also believe it's a myth that it's easy to make music using these new techniques ... it's actually quite difficult. God help us if even that is now considered difficult. The next step is just boxing up another artist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 The next step is just boxing up another artist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 I agree with what pretty much everyone has said, that we've always had everything we "need" to make music - seemingly for as long as we've been homo sapiens and have had voices and hands and feet, we've been singing and dancing and playing drums and then flutes. And I'm sure, really, that I'd have been happy doing that. There are numerous points in musical history that I'd be happy to have lived through, and there have seemingly always been peaks and valleys and plateaus. But in terms of where music technology is today, if it froze right now I'd be pissed off. Because I really don't think digital technology is anywhere near "mature," and I think tons of wonderful innovations are yet to be made in terms of both sonic quality and human interface. Like Duddits said, DAWs are way more complicated than they need to be, and I actually think it gets in the way of creativity. I also think a lot of DAWs are counterintuitive in terms of the way they "feel" to use, vs. using physical instruments and other hardware. Now some people are going to say "Well you're just used to using hardware, but to someone who's used to using a DAW, it's second nature." And that is true (although it's certainly not true that I'm not well used to using a DAW or computers in general), but it's only true up to a point. That is, sitting in front of a desk with a keyboard and a mouse is fine for certain types of work, but the interface simply was not designed to do everything we now do with computers, and that includes making music. Our "kinetic expectations" that have evolved over thousands of years demand tactile surfaces and physical feedback. Although Jeff's suggestion that we'll be able to just imagine music and have it materialize will probably happen at some point, IMO that would be a disaster. The thing that moves people about music is not just the composition, but the performance, the feel of musicians interacting and putting effort into their instruments. And today's music already largely takes that out of the equation, to its extreme detriment so far as I can hear. I'm all for tools that help composers, but the trouble is that most people don't leave it at that. The moment musicians aren't "needed" in order to sound "realistic," they're eliminated. So Geoff, if you ever want to hear anyone's music performed by a real symphony again, you'd best start praying that software never sounds "too realistic." But back to the interface thing: sure you can add a (piano) keyboard and/or a control surface, but I'm thinking that interfaces are gonna get freakier over time. I think creative people will still prefer to use tactile playing surfaces and recording/mixing surfaces if they are truly fun to use. And the trouble is that a mouse isn't anywhere near fun to use, at least not for music. I'd love a multi-touch screen that emulates a mixer so you can grab multiple faders and pan knobs, or draw multiple envelopes with your fingers, or pinch EQ curves. That'd be a lot more fun than what we have now, but I'd love to see something even more tactile. How about 3D "putty" that allows you to mold and twist envelopes? How 'bout an interface that reads body gestures so you can "dance" a mix or a composition, or tap them out on walls or tables? You know, be able to map whatever instruments or controls to whatever gestures suit you. Not saying these ideas are "the" answer, but hopefully you get the idea - we need to free ourselves from the kinds of interfaces we've been using. It used to be that the musician and the recording engineer were nearly always separate entities, and now that this isn't the case we need some tools that will make it easier and more creative to play both roles. Right now, trying to wear both hats is often a hindrance to the creative flow. And another thing - headphones! Those things are abominations. There is already technology that exists for "personal sound fields" - that is, the ability to project sound into a very narrow field in the air around your head, so that you can hear it but someone standing next to you can't. Want to share what you're listening to with a friend? Just widen your field to include your friend. Of course, this won't work for a lot of recording situations where you're recording a loud instrument and need to isolate what's coming through the mic, but it's just another pet peeve of mine. Headphones suck, even though I like the way music sounds in headphones. And I think we need to improve technology for the listener as well as the player, if we want people to be truly engaged with music again. Right now, it seems like most people treat music as background wallpaper for their videogames or while doing other things. We need to invent listening environments that are so compelling that it immediately invites the listener to stop what they're doing and just listen. Yeah, I know - this is a function of the artist, not the technology. If a piece of music truly was that compelling, people would listen anyway, even if it was on AM radio. Yada yada yada. But the discussion here is about technology. And I do think that a lot of technology at this point in time is alienating to people in one way or another - it doesn't sound good and it doesn't feel good, compared to where it could be, and that can prevent the artist's intent from really getting through. Fortunately, I see a lot of signs that that is starting to change. This technology is simply immature and we haven't near seen the last of it. It'll happen soon enough. Meanwhile, I'll keep using tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 The next step is just boxing up another artist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 But in terms of where music technology is today, if it froze right now I'd be pissed off. Because I really don't think digital technology is anywhere near "mature," and I think tons of wonderful innovations are yet to be made in terms of both sonic quality and human interface. Exactly. That's also what I've been trying to say. Since the question is "need", I'd agree that we have everything we "need". But digital technology is definitely not matured yet, and we have a really long way to go. We're going to see some fantastic advances in the next ten or twenty years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 I'm all for tools that help composers, but the trouble is that most people don't leave it at that. The moment musicians aren't "needed" in order to sound "realistic," they're eliminated. So Geoff, if you ever want to hear anyone's music performed by a real symphony again, you'd best start praying that software never sounds "too realistic." The software would have to not only sound realistic but the realistic results would have to be as immediate as they are with a symphony for software to make a real dent in the fast paced way big budget soundtracks are composed and recorded. I think that if that day ever arrives, symphonic musicians may well be replaced in the studio -- provided that by that time there are still any studios left that can record a symphony. If that ever happens, I will grieve. I would happily stop using my orchestral samples if I could work with a live symphony orchestra in the studio again. I hate the tedium of using the software and I love the interaction of live players that you described. But, at least in the pop recording industry, live symphonic players have largely been cut out already -- much more due to shrinking budgets than to the existence of sample libraries. However, I don't think that traditional performing symphony orchestras are at any risk from sample libraries. No one is going to go to symphony hall to listen to a few keyboard players perform Beethoven's Fifth. Okay, maybe if you add a light show and some flash pots... Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 Of course, the first sounding of the death knell was amplification. When it became possible for a rhythm section to play as loudly as -- or even louder than -- a big band, it was out with 25-piece ensembles and in with four-piece combos. Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 I'm just glad Les Paul didn't think nothing new was needed for making music. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 Judging by Rudy Van Gelder's work, I'd say we had everything we needed back in the 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 The recent turn in this thread brings to mind the interrelationship between creation and destruction. Can we advance technologically without losing something in the process? Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 Can we advance technologically without losing something in the process? Usually not. This isn't an argument against advancing, but it's an argument for considering what we will lose in the process and, possibly, trying to mitigate the loss if it's something we value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jotown Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 Although Jeff's suggestion that we'll be able to just imagine music and have it materialize will probably happen at some point, IMO that would be a disaster. The thing that moves people about music is not just the composition, but the performance, the feel of musicians interacting and putting effort into their instruments. And today's music already largely takes that out of the equation, to its extreme detriment so far as I can hear. I think that's it in a nutshell. We make these technological leaps, and it takes a few years to integrate their effects. But after its all said and done; the human element is what makes great music. The more that technology takes the human out of the equation the less musical the music becomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 While I totally agree with that, the sort of music that we would get by just imagining it and having it happen would be astounding!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jotown Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 In my experience (and have heard this theme repeated a thousand times by artists throughout history) what you imagine, and what you create, are not always the same thing. The process by which an artist takes something out of the imaginary realm and makes it tangible in a form that others can experience is the magic of being an artist. The dialogue that an artist has with their work shapes it, and frequently takes it to places that they hadn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted February 28, 2010 Members Share Posted February 28, 2010 Speaking of advancing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 skilled musicians, engineers, etc that know what 900 series rack equipment is API 500 series > dBx 900 series. IMHO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted March 1, 2010 Members Share Posted March 1, 2010 However, I don't think that traditional performing symphony orchestras are at any risk from sample libraries. No one is going to go to symphony hall to listen to a few keyboard players perform Beethoven's Fifth. Okay, maybe if you add a light show and some flash pots... LOL... true, which begs the question of why this would be unacceptable in the classical world yet pop fans will put up with it. I don't think it's any more excusable in pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted March 1, 2010 Members Share Posted March 1, 2010 While I totally agree with that, the sort of music that we would get by just imagining it and having it happen would be astounding!!!!!! I don't know - would it? It might, again, if you could just use this kind of software as a "sketch pad" to come up with stuff that will eventually be performed by real musicians. But a lot of people probably wouldn't use it that way. Luckily, I'm sure it will be a long time before we have something like this that actually works. By nature it seems that it would interpret your thoughts wrongly a lot of the time, or just that you couldn't hold the piece steadily in your mind long enough to "record" it whole. So you'd have to do a lot of editing. Then the software would have to interpret which instruments you were imagining, and record them to different tracks, unless the whole thing was being recorded "live to stereo" so to speak. In which case it'd be a lot tougher to come up with a whole piece edited together. Then again, the mistakes it made might occasionally be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted March 1, 2010 Members Share Posted March 1, 2010 skilled musicians, engineers, etc that know what 900 series rack equipment is API 500 series > dBx 900 series. IMHO of course. Well at least you know what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members techristian Posted March 1, 2010 Members Share Posted March 1, 2010 I have never used more than a 3rd of the stuff in any DAW software but ,as a drummer, I wanted a pitch tracking interface because I naturally hum while playing. So, over 20 years ago I wrote some PITCH TO MIDI software for the C64, but in so doing, found the limitations of that software. My biggest limitation was isolating my humming from the drums. The pitch tracker picks up the drums as well as the humming and ruins the pitch. So in a nutshell, I would like to see, an acoustic coupler of some sort that eliminates the background noise and allows live, on stage, pitch tracking. It may be ugly though, like a cup over the mouth. Now that I'm retired, perhaps I will pursue the development of that device. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lsits Posted March 1, 2010 Members Share Posted March 1, 2010 Has everything we "need" to make music already been invented? Absolutely not! Right now there are probably hundreds of inventors trying to come up with the next "must have" item. As a drummer, I have been guilty of buying some gear because I "needed" it. The ads in Modern Drummer told me I "had to have" it. Back in the 70's and 80's you were limiting yourself if you didn't have a 10-piece kit with 12 cymbals. And I also "needed" those roto-toms and the Simmons electronic drums. Now I'm back to playing a four-piece and It's exactly what I need. I don't know what's around the corner, but history shows that inventors will invent and entrepreneurs will, well, do what entrepreneurs do, find a way to manufacture and market for a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhytmman55 Posted March 1, 2010 Members Share Posted March 1, 2010 NO. We're not dead yet are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.