# What would composers of the past think of today's technology?



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I was listening to Trevor Pinnock's superlative Brandenburg Concertos on my Bluetooth noise canceling headphones, and the thought just struck me: What would Bach think of the way we listen to music now? 

By extension, everyone else, too. (We could travel back in time with some bone conduction headphones for Beethoven) 

What would they think of record players? Compact discs? Music players such as mine that can hold a thousand albums on them, conceivably the entire repertoire? Differing interpretations of their work?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

That would be great news to composers of the past.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It's quite easy to load up a piece, change the notes and harmonies around completely, and have it play back in front of you, splice segments easily out of the piece or into it, simulate an orchestra without hiring a single performer, thereby rethinking how music can be composed. I think past composers could've benefited from this technology if they weren't so stuck in their primitive paper-notation ways! It's possible to invent new varieties of digital instruments that sound better than the classical species of instruments we're familiar with, although this hasn't been widely presented yet. We also have developed AI that can compose musical ideas for us, asking for our preferences and creating something new we can utilize in a piece. Machine-learning algorithms have come up with random possibilities we have never thought of.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Picture the face of Beethoven as a nurse switches on a hearing aid and he hears sound again. A video of his realization and reaction would have won the internet.

Tchaikovsky prophetized in his latter days (I have long since forgotten the source) that the recording technology would revolutionize the way people can learn music.

Wagner would have _really _enjoyed cinema.

On a more cheeky note, Haydn would most likely wear a baseball cap and show off the possibilities of his newly aquired studio full of electronics to people on Youtube.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> Picture the face of Beethoven as a nurse switches on a hearing aid and he hears sound again. A video of his realization and reaction would have won the internet.
> 
> Tchaikovsky prophetized in his latter days (I have long since forgotten the source) that the recording technology would revolutionize the way people can learn music.
> 
> ...


Presumably Wagner's favorite movie would have been LOTR (extended edition)?

I wonder how they would react to a high end listening room, or to my NC headphones.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here are some comments that the organist Louis Thiry made in his essay on Arauxo. They may be relevant to the topic, they may not, I'm not sure



> . . . I would like to reflect on how we listen to this music in today's world. We are in an age of abundance: one can listen to music everywhere, all the time. The quantity is clearly there, but what about the quality? I am referring to not just the quality of the music, but also the quality of the listening itself. There are multiple ways to listen: one can listen all day long, with music in the background. A certain absorption takes place, but if there is a great diversity of music, the individual works and styles slip away without leaving a trace. One can listen while driving a car; the acoustic conditions are such that only certain elements penetrate above over the general hum of noise. One can listen with the score in hand; even if one is not a very good reader, this can provide reference points. In any case, the choice of approach is a personal one.
> 
> However to approach the qualitative rather than the quantitative I suggest a way of listening which suits this particular recording. If one listens to all of the tientos in succession, they may be perceived as monotonous. Each piece needs the space to deliver its own personality. Memory must do its work. That is why rather than listening to the ten tientos one after the other, I suggest that you choose one, listen and re-listen in order that that particular tiento takes its place in your memory. As when one takes a walk, different scenery is discovered and revisited, and the multiple past experiences color each subsequent one. This approach is appropriate even for those who have no special musical knowledge.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I was listening to Trevor Pinnock's superlative Brandenburg Concertos on my Bluetooth noise canceling headphones, and the thought just struck me: What would Bach think of the way we listen to music now?
> 
> By extension, everyone else, too. (We could travel back in time with some bone conduction headphones for Beethoven)
> 
> What would they think of record players? Compact discs? Music players such as mine that can hold a thousand albums on them, conceivably the entire repertoire? Differing interpretations of their work?


My initial thought was that some composers might think that listening on your headphones while working, travelling etc is unsuitable, because they were trying to make deep music which demanded serious attention - Bach may well have felt unhappy about you listening to his church music like that, and Beethoven may have been unhappy about that way of listening to op 111 and op 131.

Some more recent composers I'm sure would hate it - Pauline Oliveiros, for example.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> It's quite easy to load up a piece, change the notes and harmonies around completely, and have it play back in front of you, splice segments easily out of the piece or into it, simulate an orchestra without hiring a single performer, thereby rethinking how music can be composed. I think past composers could've benefited from this technology if they weren't so stuck in their primitive paper-notation ways! It's possible to invent new varieties of digital instruments that sound better than the classical species of instruments we're familiar with, although this hasn't been widely presented yet. We also have developed AI that can compose musical ideas for us, asking for our preferences and creating something new we can utilize in a piece. Machine-learning algorithms have come up with random possibilities we have never thought of.


Indeed, and we would then have no idea whatsoever of the genesis of each piece, no ideas about first thoughts, no original versions. Personally, I'd feel that without things like that the world would be a poorer place.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The idea of thematic stealing is not a new one, we don't need AI for that. I think what this merely demonstrates is that an individual will always still select ideas for their music based on their own taste and imagination for why something sounds good to them, that might not be comprehended by lesser imaginations. ie. Beethoven might've been fully influenced by all the great classical music of his childhood, but he still had to select his preferences, know how to interpret them through his unique vision of why they'd work in the first place, and build upon them in the clever way he did. Learning from AI could simply mean to learn oneself more deeply than ever before, to become a greater student of art; we cannot know unless we embrace the positives (and try to avoid the negatives like them taking over the world  ). And for those who are perplexed by this topic, just go back to your noise-cancelling headphones conversation.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I used to think, gee, isn't it too bad that composers of old didn't have music notation software like Finale, Sibelius, Dorico and others. Then an older, wiser brother-in-law (who is a philosophy professor) said, "not so fast". He believes, strongly, that the physical act of writing with a pen on paper, as slow as it may be, forces deep, serious thought and that using a computer likely results in a more superficial, glib creation. He mentioned studies which show that college students who take notes by hand outperform students who sit at their desks with a laptop trying to take everything down. I don't know - but if Beethoven could have had computerized typesetting it sure would have made some of the questionable issues in his horrifically messy scores easier to resolve.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> I used to think, gee, isn't it too bad that composers of old didn't have music notation software like Finale, Sibelius, Dorico and others. Then an older, wiser brother-in-law (who is a philosophy professor) said, "not so fast". He believes, strongly, that the physical act of writing with a pen on paper, as slow as it may be, forces deep, serious thought and that using a computer likely results in a more superficial, glib creation. He mentioned studies which show that college students who take notes by hand outperform students who sit at their desks with a laptop trying to take everything down. I don't know - but if Beethoven could have had computerized typesetting it sure would have made some of the questionable issues in his horrifically messy scores easier to resolve.


As a former philosophy professor myself, I always advised my students to obtain paper copies of the books, precisely for reasons of increased comprehension.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> My initial thought was that some composers might think that listening on your headphones while working, travelling etc is unsuitable, because they were trying to make deep music which demanded serious attention - Bach may well have felt unhappy about you listening to his church music like that, and Beethoven may have been unhappy about that way of listening to op 111 and op 131.
> 
> Some more recent composers I'm sure would hate it - Pauline Oliveiros, for example.


FWIW, I frequently listen intently in the late evenings. But either way, noise canceling headphones like my Sony MDR-1000X deliver superlative sound quality and eliminate distractions. I have to think being able to listen to Beethoven's 6th while actually walking outside would be a plus.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Beethoven loves cds. He told me through my spirit guide, Derek Acorah.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

To me, the interesting question is what composers of the past would think of the way we _create_ music today.

Here's a fun thing to ponder: who were the first composers to *intentionally* choose *not* to use the latest technology in their compositions?

Can we imagine, for example, Chopin refusing to use the best pianos of his time? Try to imagine Beethoven shouting into the uncomprehending void, "NO! NO! NO! I WANTED SACKBUTS! SACKBUTS AND ONLY SACKBUTS! GET THESE TROMBONES OUT OF HERE!"

And, realizing that rejection of technology had not been part of the classical tradition, what were the factors that influenced so many composers and audiences in their choice to reject it? What does this transition from embracing to rejecting technology tell us about the evolution of the classical tradition?

Interesting to ponder.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*What would composers of the past think of today's technology? *

They would likely have enjoyed turning on the lights with a wall switch as conveniently as we do today. As well, they may have spent so much time texting that their music never got written. We might ponder Beethoven's nine text messages rather than his nine symphonies! At worst, the music of Philip Glass could have been written by Bach.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I was listening to Trevor Pinnock's superlative Brandenburg Concertos on my Bluetooth noise canceling headphones, and the thought just struck me: What would Bach think of the way we listen to music now?
> 
> By extension, everyone else, too. (We could travel back in time with some bone conduction headphones for Beethoven)
> 
> What would they think of record players? Compact discs? Music players such as mine that can hold a thousand albums on them, conceivably the entire repertoire? Differing interpretations of their work?


Bone conduction headphones would not help Beethoven as he had a severe hearing loss and it was sensorineural.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Suddenly, today, Haydn has clicked for me. I always found his symphonies pleasant but little more. But today, while listening at work, walking to pick up my kids from school, and late at night now, I've felt a sense of pleasure, enrichment, and amusement that had evaded me prior to now.

If I had to rely solely on live performances, this might never have happened. I probably take in 5-10 live orchestral performances per year, between free concerts in the park, the University of Chicago, and the CSO. 

But having several hundred albums on my music player, and listening on my lovely NC headphones, has allowed this to happen.

So I've got to think many composers would appreciate their music being heard.

Another thought occurred to me as I was walking - I wondered if I was the only person listening to this particular piece of music right then on the earth?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

If Beethoven was transported to our time, he would play modern keyboards in a mall like crazy:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It would actually be fun to see him react with horror to that music. 

Of course we know what that would look like -- just see how anyone whose tastes were formed even in the late 18th century reacted to rock and roll. 

It'd be as big of a shock to him as the atonalest atonal music ever atonaled was to the sweetest old listener ever.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

science said:


> To me, the interesting question is what composers of the past would think of the way we _create_ music today.
> 
> Here's a fun thing to ponder: who were the first composers to *intentionally* choose *not* to use the latest technology in their compositions?
> 
> ...


Music is not always about _mooaaaar_ of everything. It is a game with a meta shaped by how human hearing and emotions work. At some points quite a few quillibriums might have been reached, that are virtually impossible to deviate from if one is to survive a comparison with the effect the greatest music of the past has on us, just like in a competitive game certain "new" strategies do not work, and one must yield to a meta. In competitive games, there is virtually always a natural meta at the end. If you consider various goals of music: reaching the audience, reaching the virtuosos, after hundreds of years of great people playing the game, a meta of sorts will have shaped based on what the audience fundamentally is, and what virtuosos typically can do. Even the greatest violinists cannot play a trumpet and a violin at the same time, even though an octopus alien perhaps could. So writing a "virtuoso piece" for one person for a trumpet and a violin at the same time is hardly a sign of a great master. The reality will be a splitting of the parts into two musicians.

The same with sound clusters, wild sound effect coming out of nowhere one after another in great density, etc. If one would split them into different works, some sort of reasonable density would be reached, and one would even perhaps have two great works. But everything playing at the same time, all the tones possible? Bad move. Mistake. Not because listeners are to blame, but because the composer does not abide to the "good" in music being measured by being a human, and tries to make "objectively" good music instead, which just means nothing, like those "objective" ranking lists.

Unless you truly understand that, and just _how _innovations can be good, neutral, or detrimental, you will have a very limited vision of the issue.

Consider again game theory. In typical game theory problems there are usually thresholds, where people change their behaviour, because an increase in some factor overwhelms their initial position. So for example a composer who sees the evolutionary superiority of valved brass, will draw a line on introduction of a section of six vuvuzelas [Edit: I realize the irony that they are not valved, but they are also not brass; it's just an example]. They are new, but they do not improve the music---even drown it in their noise.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

That's definitely how I feel about Beethoven's music at times. It tends to fit at just the right spot, and nothing more--that creativity is not confused with reason.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fabulin said:


> Music is not always about _mooaaaar_ of everything. It is a game with a meta shaped by how human hearing and emotions work. At some point quite a few quillibriums might be reached, that will be impossible to deviate to if one is to stand a comparison with the greats, just like in a competitive game certain "new" strategies just do not work.
> 
> Unless you truly understand that, and just _how _innovations can be good, neutral, or detrimental, you will have a very limited vision of the issue. Consider the game theory. In typical game theory problems there are usually thresholds, where people change their behaviour, because an increase in some factor overwhelms their initial position. So for example a composer who sees the evolutionary superiority of valved brass, will draw a line on introduction of a section of six vuvuzelas. They are new, and they do not improve the music---even drown it in their noise.


Of course we're not talking about isolated composers here or there occasionally choosing not to embrace a particular example of a new technology. We're talking about an entire tradition doing so, and to such an extent that it still looks askance at the use of any of the technology of the past ~140 years.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I'm unsure if the technology itself would change much. Composers after World War II, in the main electronic composers akin to Stockhauzen, used the new technology of their time to create new sound worlds that classical music conservatives did not consider music. I'd guess they would have exploited any other technology that came along.

Bach was known to orchestrate or reinvent the music of others, Vivaldi among them, and he may or may not have been influenced by technology. If you believe the stops and registrations an organ creates are technology then Bach probably would have used any expansion of that in musicmaking.

Beethoven consistently tested the bounds of every instrument and voice he wrote for and it is clear he would have used a 7-octave keyboard had one been available in his day. There still is no such instrument but today's technology could probably induce one.

However, I think one thing is clear about the greatest classical composers whose music has endured over centuries: their interst was in the art, not the means to the art. When the sousaphone became available composers wrote for it but the gain was the music, not the instrument.


----------

