"no true scotsman" syndrome

[SoundGoddess]

The fact that Glass does live performance and is talented in that area doesn't negate the point that I was making...he also does digital music.

I've seen a performance by the Phillip Glass Ensemble, around 8 or 10 performers, the majority of it played live on keyboards hooked up to sound modules.

So there is a digital element, and they might be using arpeggiators for some of it, but they are definitely not holding down individual keys for several minutes at a time to perform each part.

As for the main topic: I love electronic music and absolutely appreciate the skill required to write and produce a track or album. It is certainly an advanced skill, but it's very a different skill to a concert pianist or a soloist playing some other instrument to a very high level, which has a distinct human element to it.

And that's what some people are complaining about - it's not as human as a real, live performance. The machines are taking over, etc.

Whether it's better or not is for the listener to decide ...

Peace,
Andy.

Yeah I hear you...I get that.

People often complain about CGI in movies...just when people talk about such and such effect not "looking real" it's a bit different than acting like movies without CGI are "real movies" and that filmmakers using CGI are somehow cheating/less creative/talented or whatever just because they felt limited by the restrictions of a physical set.

So I get it if some music doesn't "sound real", in comparison to the physical instrument it's sampling from...I'm not bothered by that...I'm just annoyed when people casually talk as if it's a given that live performance is "real" music, because it seems rather dismissive of the effort that goes into digital/studio production.

Machines are "taking over" to an extent, I can't argue with you there. Personally I'm a simulist so this doesn't bother me too much...LOL.

But on some level I also think that there is a bit of power play going on, and that some of these attitudes are being propagated by people who are making a lot of money maintaining status quo...and that times are changing but people aren't really wanting to admit to it yet...but when I play around with ChucK I start getting that same feeling/energy that I got when I started playing around with HTML and PERL in 1995.

[SoundGoddess]

there's no way you're going to convince me that he was sitting at a keyboard playing this out by hand for 20 minutes instead of using an arp for the majority of it

This is part of a live performance of a piece from Einstein On The Beach (which is around 4 hours in total). As you can see (in this particular piece) the arpeggiator like sequences are played live:

fair enough; I stand corrected. I wouldn't have guessed he would actually physically play arp sequences on a keyboard, but it's cool that he does. I like his stuff a lot but I've never seen him perform, so I didn't mean to make assumptions. thank you for that.

[MadBrain]

Western music theory is all based on the ideas of composers arranging symphonies of string and wood instruments...mathematically base12. but I want to play around with notes, scales, and chord progressions in other bases. I'll probably start with base17 to see what I can come up with...the concepts of chords and scales are good, and structure is good, but chopping frequencies into blocks of 12 seems kind of arbitrary, and it's so ubiquitous that nobody really seems interested in challenging it in any way.

It's not at all arbitrary... to get a better sounding 5th (closer to 3/2), you need to go up to... 53 tone equal temperament! Of course that's going to be hard to fit on a keyboard! Plus you have to play the major 3rd differently from a ditone (2 consecutive major 2nds)...

[SODDI]

I have seen Glass at least 5 times. I have seen "Koyaanisqatsi" performed by The Philip Glass Ensemble in accompaniment to the film, and the keyboard lines are indeed played live. The proof of the pudding is not only in Glass' unique compositional style, but also in the fact that Glass played a Farfisa combo organ (no arpeggiator) - that's the high organ voice.

The digital instruments are second keyboardist Michael Riesmann switching out his organ for a Prophet 10 for cooler bass and in live performance they added a third keyboardist to reproduce the brass lines on an Apple SampleCell.

And Jon Gibson does play the flute lines like that live, playing counterpoint to Glass' organ runs - for 15-20 minutes. I can't figure out how any human being has the breath to do that, but he does it. But I imagine that being in the Philip Glass Ensemble circa 1982 imposed its own special discipline.

Perhaps an earlier piece by Glass might illustrate:

[SoundGoddess]

Thanks...I will study Glass' work a bit more.

I've basically jumped both feet into music as my career choice...at the moment I'm in knowledge acquisition mode, but I don't have much interest in live performance in the near future...I want to get really good at composition and sound design and mixing.

I have no experience with singing but I'm going to see how much of it is vocal skill vs. studio skill, and I don't really care what the balance is as long as the end result is good, and if it sucks, then I'll see if I can find someone who considers themselves a singer to collaborate with.

My background is programming, followed by marketing, followed by running my own business, and so my approach to things is unique...I'm trying to figure out where my niche will be...

I'm good at adapting to change, riding the waves of paradigm shifts, streamlining things to make them simple, shifting between the 10,000 foot view and micromanaging nitpicky little details. I like taking aspects of things that seem opposite and bridging them together to create a middle approach.

However I get bored really easily if it's not challenging enough or too repetitive. I'm not that great at sticking to a schedule or developing routines. I get frustrated if something is too intangible to where it's hard to gauge progress. I have really bad ADHD. I'm not very good at managing people or delegating.

I tend to question everything at least until I understand the logic behind why someone does something a certain way.

I'm a polymath and I pretty much master anything that I find really interesting. But once I feel like I've hit a certain level of proficiency in one area, I would rather focus on mastering a new skill or talent.

I like being productive, and I like creating things that enrich other's lives...but I'm not interested in fame, and I see money as a nice tool for providing freedom rather than something to focus energy on specifically.

I'd say that the first techno song I produced 12 years ago when I was feeling inspired has improved my life a whole lot more than spending months learning piano concertos and getting a rush out of playing it a couple times for an audience when I was in middle school. No doubt both of them influenced my decision to pursue music but I just don't see why studio work is any less important than performance arts.

[Acid Mitch]

Apparently London council won't give you a license to busk with a laptop as "it's not a real instrument"
http://www.musicradar.com/futuremusic/l ... nts-246296

Anyone know if the council changed their minds since the article was published ?

[SoundGoddess]

Apparently London council won't give you a license to busk with a laptop as "it's not a real instrument"
http://www.musicradar.com/futuremusic/l ... nts-246296

Anyone know if the council changed their minds since the article was published ?

I wouldn't know, but this is the kind of crap I'm referring to. if someone hooks up a maschine to their laptop, or shows up with a tenori-on would they get also be excluded from performing? what if someone writes some app for their droid tablet and hooks it up to some speakers and starts jamming?

[Phil999]

However I get bored really easily if it's not challenging enough or too repetitive. I'm not that great at sticking to a schedule or developing routines. I get frustrated if something is too intangible to where it's hard to gauge progress. I have really bad ADHD. I'm not very good at managing people or delegating.

I tend to question everything at least until I understand the logic behind why someone does something a certain way.

I'm a polymath and I pretty much master anything that I find really interesting. But once I feel like I've hit a certain level of proficiency in one area, I would rather focus on mastering a new skill or talent.

I like being productive, and I like creating things that enrich other's lives...but I'm not interested in fame, and I see money as a nice tool for providing freedom rather than something to focus energy on specifically.

I'd say that the first techno song I produced 12 years ago when I was feeling inspired has improved my life a whole lot more than spending months learning piano concertos and getting a rush out of playing it a couple times for an audience when I was in middle school. No doubt both of them influenced my decision to pursue music but I just don't see why studio work is any less important than performance arts.

nice post.

I agree that music should be interesting, thrilling. In our times, music is often driven by commercial means, or made by people with undeveloped musical skills. This often leads to frustration when listening to new releases or Soundcloud posts.

I think there is no way around profound education in music theory, or inspiration. But when a good idea comes to your mind, it is sometimes hard to transcribe this into a real piece of music. This is where the music theory (and experience) should be there.

[Lode_Runner]

I've been giving a lot of thought to this topic lately, since my brother asked me 'isn't it cheating to make one instrument sound like another instrument?' As someone who wants to produce electronic music that is essentially progressive/post rock, I've been wondering how rock audiences might react to my music being programmed. I know they'd mostly be okay with it if I produced music like Moby or Gotye, but if I created a virtual Led Zeppelin, then I think there'd be the kind of threats that are normally reserved for Rolf Harris's Wobble Board. I've had the following thoughts about what is and isn't likely to cause accusations of cheating:

1) If I produce Electronic Music or Pop, most people won't care less if it's programmed or performed. For these genres it is the norm to produce without 'real' musicians, and it's accepted by it's audience without much thought. If I wanted to produce Metal or Punk on the other hand it's sacrilege, unless I do it as an obvious cross over genre and make it sound obviously synthetic (eg Industrial Metal).
2) Some instruments seem to be 'allowed' to be 'fake' in rock if done in the 'right way', others are less accepted if done in the 'wrong way'. For example, if I play piano/electric piano/organ samples using a keyboard, no one's going to care less, as I'm essentially using the same skill set to perform (although if it's sequenced there will probably be a very different reaction). If I want to add a flute or a glockenspiel or a string section performed using a keyboard no one's going to care less, as these instruments aren't particularly respected in rock, and there's a long history of using melotrons or string synths in rock (once again sequencing might be less accepted). If I want to play a shredding guitar solo using a keyboard, then it's more likely to tick people off and be labelled cheating. If I sequence a very basic drum beat, and it's not a focal point of the music, then it's not likely to offend too many people, but if I program a drum solo like Moby Dick, there'll be beer bottles thrown.
3) What is and isn't accepted shifts over time as people get used to it. There was a time when overdubbing additional guitar tracks was considered cheating for example, so what some people consider cheating today, might be completely accepted in 10 years time, so maybe it's just a matter of confronting audiences with something they don't like until it's finally accepted.

At the end of the day, I've decided to not worry about possible rejection, and if anything, the thought has just inspired me to move further away from my rock roots and embrace the many experimental possibilities electronic music production offers, it's far more interesting that way.

As a separate thought, was it cheating for Tchaikovsky to write music that was then performed by an orchestra because Tchaikovsky didn't perform it himself? I would suggest that if someone calls your approach to creating music cheating, to just say that you don't claim to be being a musician when you are working on your project, but a composer/producer. It's the difference between being a screen play writer/director and being an actor.

You could also ask, how many guitarists or drummers know their way around a mixing desk, know how to use a compressor, or how to arrange instruments across a stereo field? Some do, but a lot don't. It's a different skill set. Since I've started doing this, I've had to put down my guitar for extended periods to learn keys, mixing, what a drummer actually does, and I still want to learn how to arrange for orchestras... It's not at all easy.

Also, one more thought. I think when people talk of 'real', it's not necessarily always used as a put down of electronic music as 'fake'. I know I use 'real' as a label for that which isn't 'virtual'.

[GeckoYamori]

I've been giving a lot of thought to this topic lately, since my brother asked me 'isn't it cheating to make one instrument sound like another instrument?' As someone who wants to produce electronic music that is essentially progressive/post rock, I've been wondering how rock audiences might react to my music being programmed.

Prog rock circles would likely have been among the first to latch on to programmed music in the 70's.

[Lode_Runner]

I've been giving a lot of thought to this topic lately, since my brother asked me 'isn't it cheating to make one instrument sound like another instrument?' As someone who wants to produce electronic music that is essentially progressive/post rock, I've been wondering how rock audiences might react to my music being programmed.

Prog rock circles would likely have been among the first to latch on to programmed music in the 70's.

This is true. I also think Post rock fans are likely to be open to electronic music, so I've probably worried too much about it. On the other hand I also know that I'm not going to get away with creating a virtual John Bonham...

[ariston]

I'm always interested in what happens when two worlds collide. I like sequencing, and bouncing a real performance off of it. There's something that's very intriguing about a metronome-like beat offset by a lurching solo. There's also something to be said for meticulous sound design at the computer balanced by a hand-held recording of an instrument played out in the woods at night. These opposites rubbing against each other generate friction, and friction is what piques my interest.

I was once a temporary substitute in my wife's band - their drummer had moved away and they hadn't found a replacement. I didn't drum, I programmed beats. They had a really hard time trying to adjust to that. They had to adapt the style of their playing, and ultimately, we had to re-arrange the songs. Simply exchanging the drums for beats sounded absolutely awful and unconvincing. And this is what some people don't understand: it's a new thing. It has its own strengths (and weaknesses, yes), and it can't be compared to the old thing. Which is why I'm not a fan of synths trying to sound like real instruments, because they'll always lose in direct comparison. I want them to sound like Synths (with a proud capital "S"), and when they do emulate real instruments, I want them to sound as fake as possible. It's a different aesthetic, with different MOs and different results. And a tremendous expansion of our tonal palette - we can make music today that was unheard-of in times gone by.

So yeah, it's all music.

[Tricky-Loops]

However, I'm working on some ideas how both sides could finally come together...

Can you tell me more about what you're working on in that regard?

Nope. Top secret!

First I need $50,000 to buy all Bavarian instruments...

[streifentier]

This is part of a live performance of a piece from Einstein On The Beach (which is around 4 hours in total). As you can see (in this particular piece) the arpeggiator like sequences are played live: ...

fair enough; I stand corrected. I wouldn't have guessed he would actually physically play arp sequences on a keyboard, but it's cool that he does.

I think that you've got the answer to your own question or problem there. You think that it's cool that those arpeggiated sequences are played manually by a human being. Doesn't that mean that you'd find it less cool if it was done by a machine?

I think the simple knowledge that there's a real human being at work makes much of a difference. It is fascinating to see someone performing a task that is really difficult in a live situation. And even if you don't see it, it is fascinationg to know that it has been created like that.

Whereas creating the same thing with a computer is in many cases rather a work of diligence, sometimes of try and error, and that's less fascinating, even if the result might be sounding the same.

Maybe it's also worth looking at other forms of art. Nowadays computer programmes can produce "oil paintings" from photos in a fairly convincing way (if you don't stand too close). But if you know that a "painting" is computer-generated, it won't be half as interesting as a "real" painting that someone created with his hands. Same goes for buildings, e. g. the pyramids. Many people find them quite fascinating, probably because it was a really very difficult task to build them at the time. If someone would build some new pyramids today with the help of cranes, trucks and hydraulic machines of all kinds, it might rather attract mockery instead of awe.

So with computer music, people will probably have the feeling that the resulting music is rather the machine's achievement, and not yours. And to a certain degree, they might be right. (Please don't stone me ...).

[whyterabbyt]

Same goes for buildings, e. g. the pyramids. Many people find them quite fascinating, probably because it was a really very difficult task to build them at the time. If someone would build some new pyramids today with the help of cranes, trucks and hydraulic machines of all kinds, it might rather attract mockery instead of awe.

or a lot of gamblers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_Las_Vegas