# Sound Synthesizers – Future of Classical Music?



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Software such as Kontakt and Garritan Personal Orchestra enables composers to write music and to hear it as though an orchestra or other ensemble were playing the music. Vast libraries of digitized sounds from instruments and groups of instruments are used to produce the new music. Essentially all that is needed is the software plus electronic systems (computers and speakers) that can convert the digital information to sound.

Present software and hardware are limited so it is rather easy to tell the difference between a real orchestra, for example, and the synthesized one. Presumably computers and software will continue to progress until there is very little to no difference between music produced by highly trained musicians and a computer running advanced software and speakers. It’s not clear when this threshold will occur, but there’s always a tendency to underestimate technological progress. 

My daughter, a cello student, dreads the very thought of this possibility, but there are some potential benefits to those who are not performing musicians. Obviously composers can actually have their music played and heard without needing an ensemble to perform the works. The vast majority of composers probably will never have orchestras play their music, but today they can write a symphony and have others stream it from Youtube. In the future composers will potentially make use of instruments or sounds that cannot be played in any ensemble. They will be able to determine exactly how the music “should” be played rather than just giving guidelines in their score. In effect, the software/hardware sound synthesizers will give them much more creative potential.

I personally view this possibility as inevitable, and I expect that ultimately (this may be a long time) performances will consist of machines running software rather than humans using instruments. Possibly some performances could even involve humans “programming” music in real time. Simply put, is this a good thing? Are there those who think it will never happen?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

It's already happening.

Composers have been using synthesizers since their inception. Classical composers were the first to mess around with the primitive synthesis technology before rock and pop musicians in the 60's/70's brought synths into the mainstream.

One thing a computer can't do is improvise like a musician. For inputting precise scores, then yeah, computers are great, but they aren't going to be able to judge the feel of a live improvised performance or even a freely structured composed piece, and thus skilled musicians will remain valuable. Musical 'cyborgs' will have no place, however.

It'll remain like it is now. Some music makers prefer the advantages of computer synthesis, others prefer real instruments and the smartest utilise both.

Personally, I prefer stuff intended for a live orchestra performed by a live orchestra, and music for electronics played on electronics. Different beasts.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

We already have the technology to allow a computer to listen to a live performer and play along, following their lead, so that a computer could play the piano part of a violin sonata for example and it sounds much closer to a live accompanist. This breaks down somewhat when it's time for the piano to take the lead.

I am anxiously awaiting technology that can read our brain waves and create musical gestures according to the sounds we "hear" in our heads. That's not far fetched at all. We already have a kind of headphone controller that works on the same principle for gaming software.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Hasn't New Wave come and gone? Just say NO to synthesis. I did like the theremin. It was well-placed in a Cold War era.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I personally view this possibility as inevitable, and I expect that ultimately (this may be a long time) performances will consist of machines running software rather than humans using instruments. Possibly some performances could even involve humans "programming" music in real time. Simply put, is this a good thing? Are there those who think it will never happen?


I expect that software instruments may some day become the standard for making recordings, and they are already widely used for music in films and TV. But they will _never_ replace live performances for the same reason recordings and high-fidelity audio equipment have not replaced live performances: people are there to see a live, spontaneous performance with music emanating from the bodies of real instruments, not the vibrating cones of a speaker!


----------



## Stasou (Apr 23, 2011)

Classical music requires human expression. When computers replace humans, classical music doesn't exist anymore. Only techno


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Stasou said:


> Classical music requires human expression. When computers replace humans, classical music doesn't exist anymore. Only techno


This is not true. Humans still compose the music and decide all the details concerning the interpretation of the piece when they configure the MIDI. The computer is just told which notes to play, when, and with what velocity (loudness) and duration... which is really no different than any other instrument. Using a well-sampled software instrument and a good MIDI file, the computer is (potentially) totally indistinguishable from the real instrument.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Organist friends of mine on our sister forum employ what is called "Virtual Organ" ... the sound waves themselves were sampled (taken) from actual organ pipes and sound quite realistic. There are applications called Hauptwerk, JOrgan and a few others. 

There is a human element in composing for the "Virtual Organ" but the playback is quite mechanical and so precise that it is, imho, quite unlike a human performer. 

What I am waiting for, technology wise, is an application that converts a digitally recorded wav or mp3 format piece of music into a visible score. I have many recordings of my improvisations that I would dearly love to be able to notate. I have the notation program, but no way to convert wav or mp3 to a written score.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

it is vital to create synth versions so it can be approved before using the whole orchestra. you might only have 3 hours with an orchestra but you can take years with the synth.

it's hard to tell the difference with things like piano, harp, flute. but if they start to add horns or chorus you start to realise.

i wouldn't say it is offensive to listen to though. if you need proof listen to the soundtrack for Metal Gear Solid 4.

one other point is that synthesizers are not always a half way effort but they are actually sought after. the synth gives a different sound and can often work better than a real orchestra.

not to mention it is cheaper and faster.


----------



## Slavenski (Apr 26, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> My daughter, a cello student, dreads the very thought of this possibility, but there are some potential benefits to those who are not performing musicians. Obviously composers can actually have their music played and heard without needing an ensemble to perform the works.


Your daughter is right, and you are right. But, my feelings and convictions are with your daughter. Technology can be and has to be used as a technical support in education, creative process (for example, once a composer has the software and knows how to use it, it is much easier and cheaper to write a score and have it in clear print, also instrumental parts...). 
But, the day machine will replace humans on the podium will be the day the music, the real music as an art, will die. Anyway, it will not happen in a concert hall, because in that time there will be no more concert halls. Machines do not need acoustics. Machines do not react to audience, they do not need audience.

PS. By the way, this is my first, introducing post in TC. Just joined! My nickname was borrowed from and is tribute to Josip Stolcer Slavenski, one of the most interesting composers of my homeland, unfortunately very unknown to the world, although his work belongs to the world. (But, it is both us Croats, and the Serbs to be blamed for not promoting our best artists in a way they deserve. 
You can find some more info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Štolcer-Slavenski


----------



## Fugue (Apr 26, 2011)

As someone who uses virtual instruments to compose with I can say that the samples used to make up the range of a particular instrument are extremely good. Of course they are, as they are taken directly from fine instruments. One of the problems for me is the lack of rubato - a player's tool in how he/she can help to express themselves. Computers cannot do this and therefore sound mechanical and artificial. They will never be able to properly imitate or replace the most important artistic human condition - emotion!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Of course computers can have rubato. You can't easily step sequence a piece with convincing rubato, but if you play the piece into the computer with rubato then you have rubato. Perhaps you mean you can't play rubato and have a legible score arise from it at the same time, but with a bit of temporary quantizing even this should be possible.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Slavenski said:


> Your daughter is right, and you are right. But, my feelings and convictions are with your daughter. Technology can be and has to be used as a technical support in education, creative process (for example, once a composer has the software and knows how to use it, it is much easier and cheaper to write a score and have it in clear print, also instrumental parts...).
> But, the day machine will replace humans on the podium will be the day the music, the real music as an art, will die. Anyway, it will not happen in a concert hall, because in that time there will be no more concert halls. Machines do not need acoustics. Machines do not react to audience, they do not need audience.
> 
> PS. By the way, this is my first, introducing post in TC. Just joined! My nickname was borrowed from and is tribute to Josip Stolcer Slavenski, one of the most interesting composers of my homeland, unfortunately very unknown to the world, although his work belongs to the world. (But, it is both us Croats, and the Serbs to be blamed for not promoting our best artists in a way they deserve.
> You can find some more info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Štolcer-Slavenski


Welcome. We do have a Composer Guestbook section. If you'd like to start a thread on Slavenski, that would be the place.

I have mixed feelings about machines replacing people as performers. I do believe that ultimately machines will be able to play the music "better" than humans in the sense that machines will be able to play more closely to what the composer exactly wants from his piece. For example, machines will not play louder as they play faster or softer as they play slower (as Mahler said is true of orchestras). I also think machines will be able to eventually play as musically as the composer can imagine. She need only program whatever effect she wishes.

Obviously machines could not react to the audience unless programmed to do that (or if the machine were intelligent). I don't know if it would make sense to have concerts with machines. People might prefer hearing some works with other people there rather than while alone.


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

I really appreciate the fact that computers have brought composing into the realm of possibility for the layman, i.e. that composing is no longer restricted to the lofty domain of a highy-educated elite with special access to all kinds of resources. Musicians with ample composing talent--some of whom may even have genius lying dormant within them--who in the old system might not have had a chance to develop their art, can now pursue composing with the aid of these programs, and for me personally that is a great boon.

But I also believe that true art must be human in origin, because inherent in the idea of art is *feeling*, and computers will never be able to feel. The "soul" of music, that quintessentially human element, is what gives it its life and beauty, and machines are soulless.

Therefore, no matter what level of technical expertise or realism computers attain, their music will never really be art: it will be but a simulation of art, bearing the same relation to human art that a mirror bears to a physical object: a reflection, a mimicking, a clever reproduction, but never the real thing.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

chillowack said:


> But I also believe that true art must be human in origin, because inherent in the idea of art is *feeling*, and computers will never be able to feel. The "soul" of music, that quintessentially human element, is what gives it its life and beauty, and machines are soulless.
> 
> Therefore, no matter what level of technical expertise or realism computers attain, their music will never really be art: it will be but a simulation of art, bearing the same relation to human art that a mirror bears to a physical object: a reflection, a mimicking, a clever reproduction, but never the real thing.


Well I think there are two ways you may be wrong here.

The first is the assumption that computers will never have a soul/mind. This depends on your philosophical outlook. Dualists will argue computers can never attain such a thing, but materialists (such as myself) would say such could someday be possible. If we were to take a human composer's brain, replace each of its neurones one by one with a computer chip which perfectly duplicates the cell's function, and the proceed in this manner until the entire brain is replaced with synthetic computer chips, would compositions then produced by that synthetic brain not but just as great of art as compositions produced by the cell-based brain?

The second is that perhaps computers cannot ever become truly conscious, but can someday _simulate_ art to such an extent that two pieces of art are placed before you, one machine-produced and one human-produced, and both emotionally move you equally such that you cannot distinguish which one is which. Do you then consider neither art until you are told which one is human produced, at which point that piece becomes art, or do you consider both to be art until you are told which one is machine produced, at which point that piece ceases to be art?


----------



## Stasou (Apr 23, 2011)

Couchie said:


> This is not true. Humans still compose the music and decide all the details concerning the interpretation of the piece when they configure the MIDI. The computer is just told which notes to play, when, and with what velocity (loudness) and duration... which is really no different than any other instrument. Using a well-sampled software instrument and a good MIDI file, the computer is (potentially) totally indistinguishable from the real instrument.


What I mean to say is that music needs to be played by what it was written for. I have never liked a string quartet or orchestral version of any pop song, and have never liked a MIDI or techno arrangement of anything classical. If music was composed to be played by MIDI, then yes, it needs to be played by MIDI. If it was written for an orchestra of humans, then... you get the picture.


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Well I think there are two ways you may be wrong here.
> 
> The first is the assumption that computers will never have a soul/mind. This depends on your philosophical outlook. Dualists will argue computers can never attain such a thing, but materialists (such as myself) would say such could someday be possible. If we were to take a human composer's brain, replace each of its neurones one by one with a computer chip which perfectly duplicates the cell's function, and the proceed in this manner until the entire brain is replaced with synthetic computer chips, would compositions then produced by that synthetic brain not but just as great of art as compositions produced by the cell-based brain?
> 
> The second is that perhaps computers cannot ever become truly conscious, but can someday _simulate_ art to such an extent that two pieces of art are placed before you, one machine-produced and one human-produced, and both emotionally move you equally such that you cannot distinguish which one is which. Do you then consider neither art until you are told which one is human produced, at which point that piece becomes art, or do you consider both to be art until you are told which one is machine produced, at which point that piece ceases to be art?


But I didn't say a "soul/mind," I said a "soul." I wasn't equating soul and mind.

If I _had _meant mind when I said "soul," then I might agree with your reasoning here; but there is more involved in the creation of art than the mind. In fact, I don't know of too many artists for whom the mind is the primary force behind their art: most that I have talked with seem to speak of such things as the heart, feelings, emotions, and soul.

Unfortunately your second point is too far into the realm of speculation for me to give more than a speculative answer in return: I don't know how I would behave in the scenario you describe (if indeed that scenario were ever possible, which is debatable). All I can say is that there's something that indwells all true life, and that something springs from a power beyond man's ability to replicate. Life indwells human art; and therefore the true duplication (as opposed to simulation) of human art by a computer seems to me fundamentally impossible. Even the simulation of it could not be done without leaving some telltale trace of its artificiality.

I do agree, though, that it is already getting hard to spot that trace in some artistic media, like photography for instance.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Synthesizers are the past, actually. Lots of composers have written lots of music for electronic instruments. As for the sample libraries - they are not nearly complex enough, nor are they easy to use. Now, in some 20 or so years - yeah, this technology holds vast potential. It won't replace the real orchestra or real recordings, but it would be immensely popular with enthusiasts - e-performing obscure pieces and with composers - a chance to listen to their own works as if played by real musicians and you no longer need to be popular to have your music performed, now everybody has a chance to listen to your work.

In fact, nowadays sample libraries are widely used in film and game soundtrack production/composing. The results, if done properly, are pretty darn good. Of course, soundtracks feature "tamped" sound (lots of effects, lots of fiddling with dynamic range), whereas classical music production nowadays is about being as natural as possible. But still, 10 years ago this was next to impossible. Yet now we can make a premium soundtrack on a computer. I've little doubt that in 10-20 years from now you would be able to recreate Mahler on a personal computer with extreme realism.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

You know what's the future of classical music for real? This:






Musicians will be replaced by machines. And then the end will come for us...


----------



## AmateurComposer (Sep 13, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> My daughter, a cello student, dreads the very thought of this possibility, but there are some potential benefits to those who are not performing musicians. Obviously composers can actually have their music played and heard without needing an ensemble to perform the works. The vast majority of composers probably will never have orchestras play their music, but today they can write a symphony and have others stream it from Youtube. In the future composers will potentially make use of instruments or sounds that cannot be played in any ensemble. They will be able to determine exactly how the music "should" be played rather than just giving guidelines in their score. In effect, the software/hardware sound synthesizers will give them much more creative potential.
> 
> I personally view this possibility as inevitable, and I expect that ultimately (this may be a long time) performances will consist of machines running software rather than humans using instruments. Possibly some performances could even involve humans "programming" music in real time. Simply put, is this a good thing? Are there those who think it will never happen?


A little bit of history may calm your daughter and yourself down. When the movies, and especially when the talkies where invented, people like yourself and your daughter thought this to be the end of the live theater. Well, live theaters have been alive and well to this day.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

chillowack said:


> If I _had _meant mind when I said "soul," then I might agree with your reasoning here; but there is more involved in the creation of art than the mind. In fact, I don't know of too many artists for whom the mind is the primary force behind their art: most that I have talked with seem to speak of such things as the heart, feelings, emotions, and soul.
> 
> Unfortunately your second point is too far into the realm of speculation for me to give more than a speculative answer in return: I don't know how I would behave in the scenario you describe (if indeed that scenario were ever possible, which is debatable). All I can say is that there's something that indwells all true life, and that something springs from a power beyond man's ability to replicate. Life indwells human art; and therefore the true duplication (as opposed to simulation) of human art by a computer seems to me fundamentally impossible. Even the simulation of it could not be done without leaving some telltale trace of its artificiality.


There are two separate possibilities here. Couchie states that computers could be 1) conscious or 2) technically advanced. A conscious machine, if it could be built, would essentially be similar to a human. It's music would potentially be produced (written, imagined, created, etc.) in the same manner as human music. One can argue whether machines would ever be as good as humans, but conscious machines would still produce music in a similar manner.

The second possibility is vastly different. The machine would simply be another instrument. The machine would not be creating or in some sense playing the music. The composer would be "playing" the instrument. The composer would take the place of today's performers. Any musicality would be programmed by the composer. Anything a performer can do today could be done through programming of the computer. The bottom line is that the machine would not be musical. Only the composer would be musical.

I am not advocating for this second (or first) possibility, but I believe it is likely inevitable.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

AmateurComposer said:


> A little bit of history may calm your daughter and yourself down. When the movies, and especially when the talkies where invented, people like yourself and your daughter thought this to be the end of the live theater. Well, live theaters have been alive and well to this day.





Couchie said:


> I expect that software instruments may some day become the standard for making recordings, and they are already widely used for music in films and TV. But they will _never_ replace live performances for the same reason recordings and high-fidelity audio equipment have not replaced live performances: people are there to see a live, spontaneous performance with music emanating from the bodies of real instruments, not the vibrating cones of a speaker!


You both could very well be correct that people will only want to go see other humans - not machines.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> You both could very well be correct that people will only want to go see other humans - not machines.


Yep, that's exactly right. Unless it's a marching band; then it's just the opposite. And, oh yeah, opera too!


----------



## Stasou (Apr 23, 2011)

The ambiance and stimulation provided by the audience in a live performance is absolutely uncapturable by a machine.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> You know what's the future of classical music for real? This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fear not. People thought the camera would replace artists, but it never has. Some artists use cameras, but contrary to myth, the camera always lies. It doesn't see the way the human eye does, so it has never been able to replace life drawing as an art form. Both the camera and drawing exist happily side by side as two separate art forms. They are different media.

That is why I think it is borderline silly to try making synths sound like an orchestra, unless you are composing for orchestra and need them as a stand in. They have the capability of sounding like the mating call of the extinct tree toad sloths of Calamari 9, located about 712 light years away in the constellation Phoenicopterus -- and so they should. Crappy bleep fart music as HarpsichordConcerto is fond of calling it.


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> There are two separate possibilities here. Couchie states that computers could be 1) conscious or 2) technically advanced. A conscious machine, if it could be built, would essentially be similar to a human. It's music would potentially be produced (written, imagined, created, etc.) in the same manner as human music. One can argue whether machines would ever be as good as humans, but conscious machines would still produce music in a similar manner.
> 
> The second possibility is vastly different. The machine would simply be another instrument. The machine would not be creating or in some sense playing the music. The composer would be "playing" the instrument. The composer would take the place of today's performers. Any musicality would be programmed by the composer. Anything a performer can do today could be done through programming of the computer. The bottom line is that the machine would not be musical. Only the composer would be musical.
> 
> I am not advocating for this second (or first) possibility, but I believe it is likely inevitable.


I agree that the second possibility is quite likely, and indeed, is already happening in various ways.

The computer as a musical instrument may simply the next step in musical evolution. Like all big steps into something new, it is initially greeted with hostility by purists and traditionalists, but eventually it becomes part of the standard repertoire.


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

Weston said:


> Fear not. People thought the camera would replace artists, but it never has. Some artists use cameras, but contrary to myth, the camera always lies. It doesn't see the way the human eye does, so it has never been able to replace life drawing as an art form. Both the camera and drawing exist happily side by side as two separate art forms. They are different media..


There is a similar phenomenon happening in the world of chess: computer chess programs, after decades of weakness, suddenly made a quantum leap and surpassed human beings in the late 1990s, which some feared would lead to the "death" of human chess; but nothing of the kind occurred, human chess is still as vibrant and alive as ever.

Again: the computer can never equal the creativity of the human player, because it has no creative spirit: all it has are mindless one's and zero's. It functions on the "infinite monkey theorem": by randomly calculating trillions of variations, it eventually stumbles upon a strong move.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

chillowack said:


> I really appreciate the fact that computers have brought composing into the realm of possibility for the layman, i.e. that composing is no longer restricted to the lofty domain of a highy-educated elite with special access to all kinds of resources.


You don't need much in the way of resources. I think Beethoven had a pencil and some paper...



> Musicians with ample composing talent--some of whom may even have genius lying dormant within them--who in the old system might not have had a chance to develop their art, can now pursue composing with the aid of these programs, and for me personally that is a great boon.


Ah, the dormant genius. The musically uneducated have fantastic works within them if we sould just find some way of liberating it without them having to do anything so tedious as gaining a musical education?
It's a remarkable ambition, I must say.
You know how readable things are when written with just the help of the spell-check and the grammar-wizard?
That's what you'll get with these 'music-chunk' computer programmes...
cheers,
GG


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

GraemeG said:


> You don't need much in the way of resources. I think Beethoven had a pencil and some paper...
> 
> Ah, the dormant genius. The musically uneducated have fantastic works within them if we sould just find some way of liberating it without them having to do anything so tedious as gaining a musical education?
> It's a remarkable ambition, I must say.
> ...


This comment would fall into the "inevitable resistance to new ideas" category I mentioned earlier, except that instead of overt hostility, this particular individual chooses to dress his derision in the garb of sneering sarcasm, and so foist off as a "civilized" response what is in fact a backhanded slap in the face.

Nevertheless: the idea itself, though veiled in contempt, still deserves a response, and mine is this: armed with "just a pencil and paper," no composer would ever be able to hear his work. You need musicians for that.

If you can't afford to hire an ensemble or orchestra (which is the case for most of us), you'd be out of luck, forced to abandon your love of composing as an impracticable dream, were it not for the advent of new technology that simulates orchestral sounds. This technology makes it possible for composers with latent talent to develop their skills, even if they can't afford a $100,000 music-school education--an education, I might add, that I personally would find anything _but_ "tedious."

And you are behind the times if you liken these programs to "spell-checkers": the sounds being conjured from computerized music programs by skilled artists nowadays are often of a very high quality; and at the highest levels, works so composed are even being performed by national orchestras.

Cheers!


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

chillowack said:


> Nevertheless: the idea itself, though veiled in contempt, still deserves a response, and mine is this: armed with "just a pencil and paper," no composer would ever be able to hear his work. You need musicians for that.


What, you think that's how Beethoven composed? Wrote down some music, rushed off to get an orchestra to play it, and then re-worked it on the basis of how it sounded? Bruckner *never heard* his own 5th symphony (or the 9th) played by an orchestra, yet managed to write it down. Hell, there are dozens of masterpieces that were never even heard by their composers.



> If you can't afford to hire an ensemble or orchestra (which is the case for most of us), you'd be out of luck, forced to abandon your love of composing as an impracticable dream, were it not for the advent of new technology that simulates orchestral sounds. This technology makes it possible for composers with latent talent to develop their skills, even if they can't afford a $100,000 music-school education--an education, I might add, that I personally would find anything _but_ "tedious."


Rubbish. What the hell kind of composer is it who can't write music unles he hears someone else playing it?



> And you are behind the times if you liken these programs to "spell-checkers": the sounds being conjured from computerized music programs by skilled artists nowadays are often of a very high quality; and at the highest levels, works so composed are even being performed by national orchestras.


 I wouldn't deny their value as composing tools; they produce readable parts, amendments and edits are simple to do; yes, they have a great role to play as tools for the composer to use. What I dispute is their ability to creatively add to the process; I'm fearing the equivalent of office software - something like a 'harmony-wizard' that will do your orchestration at the press of a button. Tempting, lazy, and quite banal. OK, straw-man argument - no need to pursue.

In any case, my original point remains. It is not necessary to hear a work performed in order to compose it. It is not necessary to hear a work in order to study it. Music exists on paper, you know, not just when it is being played. That's the point of education; you can compose without _having_ to hear the music played.
cheers,
GG
[/QUOTE]


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

GraemeG said:


> What, you think that's how Beethoven composed? Wrote down some music, rushed off to get an orchestra to play it, and then re-worked it on the basis of how it sounded? Bruckner *never heard* his own 5th symphony (or the 9th) played by an orchestra, yet managed to write it down. Hell, there are dozens of masterpieces that were never even heard by their composers.
> 
> Rubbish. What the hell kind of composer is it who can't write music unles he hears someone else playing it?
> 
> ...


I beg to differ, sir: music does not exist on paper. Music, by definition, is *sound*, not writing. You're confusing music with music _notation,_ which is like confusing actual terrain with a map of that terrain. (Hint: the terrain doesn't actually exist on the paper.)

Your ardent and expletive-laced tangent about "writing down music without hearing it" is even wider of this thread's actual subject than your first disdainful comments were; and since I have no wish to stray any further from the topic, I will address that tangent once only, and after that devote no further time to it.

For a composer to write an entire piece without ever bothering to test, on his piano, a single note of what he is writing, and then, "sound unheard," have the piece publicly performed, without any rehearsal at all, would be an unnecessary folly.

If you are suggesting that this was the general process followed by the great composers, I would strongly disagree with you. On the contrary, every great composer I ever heard of followed just the opposite course, composing at their pianos, alternately writing and testing what they wrote; and if a handful of exceptions can be found from among thousands of compositions, then that tiny fraction proves _my_ point, not yours, by establishing the overwhelming rule of which your handful are but the aberrant exceptions.

If, on the other hand, your point is that "_real_ composers don't _need_ to hear their work played as they're composing it," then I would dispute that as well: I doubt there is a single prominent composer today who follows such an absurd and unnecessary policy as a rule, and frankly, the whole notion smacks more of bravado than wisdom.

If you are saying that composing without ever bothering to listen to a single note of your work is the procedure _you yourself_ follow, then I would say one of three things: either you are a fool, or you are a liar, or your work must not be very good.

There's nothing particularly "skillful" or "impressive" to me about composing without hearing one's work--such an idea seems more akin to braggadocio than sound composing methodology. If wanting to hear my work as I'm writing it somehow brands me as an "inferior composer," then I would rather be so branded than meet some ridiculous standard of "voluntary deafness" to prove myself to you.

However: if you really believe in what you're saying, then I challenge you to a composing duel: you compose something without the use of "crass" software, and without ever listening to a single note of what you're composing; meanwhile I'll compose something in my "inferior" way; and we'll see whose composition turns out better.

With your expensive music school education, and your boasting about "_real_ composers not _needing_ to hear what they're composing," you should win such a contest easily, without ever hearing a note of your piece played until the final unveiling.

If you accept the challenge, I will present the terms of the duel for your approval.

If you don't accept the challenge, then let us be done with this debate: it is a waste of time.

Cheers!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I agree with chillowack here. The groundbreaking harmonies of Chopin, Debussy, and Stravinsky were the result of those composers spending hours at the piano tapping out notes and experimenting with different sounds. The piano was also an indispensable tool for orchestration. Had all composers insisted on strictly writing music without listening, music never would have moved beyond Haydnesque conventionality. I doubt very much any of these composers would have chosen to forgo the use of Sibelius in favour of pencil and paper had such technology been available to them at the time.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Oh dear. The discussion really has gone off at a tangent. It was your very opening paragraph in the thread that I had the problem with; perhaps I didn't express my disagreement very clearly. You said


> I really appreciate the fact that computers have brought composing into the realm of possibility for the layman, i.e. that composing is no longer restricted to the lofty domain of a highy-educated elite with special access to all kinds of resources. Musicians with ample composing talent--some of whom may even have genius lying dormant within them--who in the old system might not have had a chance to develop their art, can now pursue composing with the aid of these programs, and for me personally that is a great boon.


I read this as a suggestion that the current abilities of music software (simulating an orchestra, for example) would somehow be an acceptable substitute for an expensive musical education, ie "who in the old system might not have had a chance to develop their art, can now pursue composing with the aid of these programs". In the base sense - sure, someone who doesn't know how to 'write notation' can now 'compose' with the software - but how worthwhile do you think the result is likely to be?
Do you actually believe that some computer software can replace rigorous technical training?

Of course there's nothing new about composing at the keyboard. And I'm sure every composer in history would have liked the ability of modern software to play back to him what he was writing. But it wasn't _necessary_ to produce great music - that's what the education did.

Computer-aided composition software won't make a great composer any more than CAD-programmes make a great architect. And great architects don't need a 'pretend building' constructed for them (much as they'd like) so they know what they've designed, any more than Beethoven needed something to tell him how the 9th symphony would have sounded (which he couldn't hear at all, as you'll recall).

I can't think of any reason why a modern composer shouldn't avail themselves of of this type of software. But it's just an addenda - it doesn't replace anything that went before. Like proper musical training...
cheers,
GG


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Couchie said:


> The piano was also an indispensable tool for orchestration.


That, you'll have to explain to me...
GG


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

GraemeG said:


> Oh dear. The discussion really has gone off at a tangent. It was your very opening paragraph in the thread that I had the problem with; perhaps I didn't express my disagreement very clearly. You said
> 
> I read this as a suggestion that the current abilities of music software (simulating an orchestra, for example) would somehow be an acceptable substitute for an expensive musical education, ie "who in the old system might not have had a chance to develop their art, can now pursue composing with the aid of these programs". In the base sense - sure, someone who doesn't know how to 'write notation' can now 'compose' with the software - but how worthwhile do you think the result is likely to be?
> Do you actually believe that some computer software can replace rigorous technical training?
> ...


If you interpreted my words to mean that I thought computer software was a substitute for a rigorous musical training, or that a computer could "make someone a great composer," then either you misunderstood me, or I communicated poorly, because neither was my intention.

All I was trying to say is that a door of opportunity has opened for the many lay composers out there--musicians with legitimate talent who, for whatever reason, may not have had the benefit of a formal musical training--to take up the art of composing as they never could before, aided by tools which simulate the sounds of orchestras, allowing not merely the silent plotting of notes on paper, but the ability to _hear_ what has been written, and even (if the composer is so inclined) to fashion it into a realistic soundtrack.

I respect musical education greatly, but it is not a substitute for talent: I have known music school graduates whose composing work (while technically correct) was totally uninspired and insipid. And I have heard works of _non_-music school graduates that was brilliant.

But again: this is off-topic, and with apologies to the OP, I withdraw now. Thanks for the debate and cheers!


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Krummhorn said:


> What I am waiting for, technology wise, is an application that converts a digitally recorded wav or mp3 format piece of music into a visible score. I have many recordings of my improvisations that I would dearly love to be able to notate. I have the notation program, but no way to convert wav or mp3 to a written score.


This could be a bit off topic, but going back to the somewhat confusing notion of a written notation being such a crucial part of the classical music definition, what exactly are the pieces that have been recorded (and so can be heard), but don't have a written notation as of yet? (As in example with Krummhorn above, for instance.)

Have they even been composed already or not until they were written down? 

Also, what about the future in the classical music of computer generated sounds that do not try to replicate traditional instruments?


----------



## hemidemisemiquaver (Apr 22, 2011)

Uhm, let's start with deejays. They are not especially respected, but honestly, some of them are really involved in what they do, romping with faders, touchpads or whatever else is mounted into their gear they control things on macro-level. Certain conductors may as well be less attentive to detail, doing their job in a slipshod - it all depends on a person, you know?

And it is not just "you gotta do what you gotta do", as that Futurama poster suggests. You gotta do something wholeheartedly, only then people would like your oeuvre. And there's nothing wrong with MIDI sequencers: if a composer was working for several hours on a single bar, you would hear that; if a considerable effort was put into work, if a piece was strongly inspired, you would hear that.

I don't see anything wrong with all the software. First of all, there are things in our lives that don't let us die out and, believe it or not, a software synth may make you really excited and for a long time you will be finding enjoyment in messing with it. Among other such things is music: you all know the situation when you feel completely jaded, but everything changes after you hear some reviving tune - the tune that may have been written in Sibelius, but eventually it was a person (or persons) who played it. And because we all need the prop that music gives us, never, hear me, never will programs substitute musicians - for reason that mechanical patterns can't have that impact on us, and - again, - life-supporting impact; no one would saw the branch one is sitting on: that theoretical situation with forelom musicians is comically utopic, and utopias (or dystopias, if you like) do not exist. Being a composer and musician myself, I don't think that dissemination of computers and useful applications is something I should bother about foremost.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Krummhorn said:


> What I am waiting for, technology wise, is an application that converts a digitally recorded wav or mp3 format piece of music into a visible score. I have many recordings of my improvisations that I would dearly love to be able to notate. I have the notation program, but no way to convert wav or mp3 to a written score.


the answer is: direct note access. Probably it has still a lot of limitations, but i bet it will be improved a lot in few years


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

This might be an "off the wall" contribution/observation to this discussion from a non-musician, so please excuse me and it beforehand. To those members who contend that a piece of music has to be played by an orchestra and listened to by the composer before it can be deemed "good" or not, how did Beethoven compose all that great music after he had gone completely deaf?
Just saying--and wondering.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

In the world of arts, they call this “good guesswork”... I guess.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Serge said:


> In the world of arts, they call this "good guesswork"... I guess.


No offense meant--but on whose part--Beethoven's or mine


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

samurai said:


> No offense meant--but on whose part--Beethoven's or mine


Why, Beethoven's of course… He was the artist and he created something outstanding that he himself couldn't even hear.


----------



## Jobe (May 28, 2011)

An interesting forum thread this is, certainly the philosophical discussion. I will add anecdotally. 

Synths, for me, are* half-necessary*. On one hand, I need them to produce the sounds I would otherwise not be able to make and I seldom compose anything that doesn't make use of rather large romantic orchestra -I use _Cubase_ with_ Edirol VST, fyi_. That said, I'd always resort to composing piano sonatas and string quartet with a bit of tea-stained manuscript paper situated near the piano. I'd pick a symphonic orchestra over a synthonic orchestra any day.


As for actively replacing classical music, what is there to replace? We're in an era where people don't actively search for and listen to classical music - certainly not new composers who would have used this acclaimed synth equipment, at least not many people far beyond myself and many of you reading (If I'm wrong, be sure to inform me some of these classically-crazed pads that you so often attend). Within the right social circles, one can compose however you like and be praised or reproached accordingly. There technically will never be a "future for classical music" because all production is technically dead, unless you go back in time to the years of about 1750 - 40, and start composing there... Okay, that's me being a pedant. Shoot me now.

Whatever the case, I see not why we should worry. I believe that the people who are using these new synthesizers for classical music are people with a little less cash in hand or experience, such as me - or people who are just comfy - such as I. I always have an image of an opulent Haydn sitting in his house writing about 10 musical notes onto a piece of paper, running across to a concert hall where attentive musicians are waiting for him, having them play those notes, ponderning, and running back to change his mind. This is of course not the case and has never been the case... Although I'd quite like it to be that way.


----------



## AmateurComposer (Sep 13, 2009)

samurai said:


> This might be an "off the wall" contribution/observation to this discussion from a non-musician, so please excuse me and it beforehand. To those members who contend that a piece of music has to be played by an orchestra and listened to by the composer before it can be deemed "good" or not, how did Beethoven compose all that great music after he had gone completely deaf?
> Just saying--and wondering.


Novice composers may need to hear their compositions in order to be sure that their output matches their intention.

Experienced composers can rely on their ability to internally hear their music in their mind.

Beethoven and Smetana acquired this ability while they could hear, using it after they became deaf to continue composing.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Interesting debate!

I think one point that people are ignoring (though I may have missed it in the posts I didnt read) is that they are assuming that computer music is 'soulless' because computers are machines. Violins and pianos are also 'soulless', since they are merely instruments that are used as a channel. Would it not be the case that rubato etc could certainly be input into a computer in the same way that any conductor has input into the tempo etc of the orchestra under his direction? IMO, the lack of feeling in any synthetic symphony would be because the person doing the programming is not putting any feeling into it - the same effect as giving a programmer a conductor's baton and watching him flounder.

In addition, software could be used to hear each instrument clearly and be able to modify it in any way that might be desired. Of course, that would give the 'conductor' absolute power - an interesting notion. 

As far as my own limited experience goes, anything that I have heard that has been simulated has just been a reading of the score in not-very-good digitised sound. If the sound were as perfect as a real instrument, I would be a little more happy to endorse it as a creative tool. Synthesizer also conjures up the image of doing away with the constraints of conventional instruments, which I don't like. You automatically remove barriers of speed, pitch and playable chords when you don't have to deal with a real instruments. Has anyone ever seen videos of 'Circus Galop'? We aren't living in times where we are constrained to the instruments of the romantic era orchestra, but it would seem somehow wrong to me to dabble around with other sounds. Yet that is just personal taste. 

As far as putting musicians out of work goes - people like to go see a live event. That's the difference between watching a play and a dvd. Or going to a sports game vs watching it on tv. People still need a live performance. Also, to be honest, most of my classical cds were recorded a long time ago by musicians and conductors that are long dead or retired. No live musician is benefitting from Klemperer, Toscanini, Stokowski etc etc. Bernstein and Von Karajan are 20 years dead and Solti is dead nearly 15. Yet they, and others, still sell a lot of music. This is probably a worse threat to recording musicians than the virtual orchestra.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

samurai said:


> This might be an "off the wall" contribution/observation to this discussion from a non-musician, so please excuse me and it beforehand. To those members who contend that a piece of music has to be played by an orchestra and listened to by the composer before it can be deemed "good" or not, how did Beethoven compose all that great music after he had gone completely deaf?
> Just saying--and wondering.


Well, music is still highly mathematical and uses patterns. The great composers are likely to have had perfect pitch, so they could imagine melodies in their head after they wrote them down. There are plenty of tricks of the trade which don't need any listening at all. You need a melody and then you can add other voices to compliment that through harmony, polyphony or whatever. I have read somewhere that Beethoven really got down to the nitty gritty when it came to his melodies and constantly rewrote them. A lot of the pieces that he wrote while completely deaf weren't liked by his contempories, but there are several reasons for that. I personally believe that Beethoven and Smetana didnt need to hear their compositions because they had perfect pitch and a phenomenal memory and talent for orchestration.

Most composers use a piano or similar test instrument to hammer out their 'first draft' and then orchestrate according to their experience of what instruments sound like when played together.


----------



## Mandraque (Jul 29, 2011)

Sorry for reviving this old thread but I can here to google and felt that I needed to give my 2 cents.

First, Art is based on emotion and robots cant have emotion, but that by no means restricts humans from feeling emotion from something machine generated. Next, just because the instrument is electronic doesn't mean that it doesn't have someone playing it. Synthesizers can be played in any way you can think of, literally; a theremin is just a creative way of playing a synthesizer. Even a regular synthesizer, even without velocity sensitive keys, can perform though pitch shifting, the mod wheel, and manual control of the settings. Even if what is played is strictly a mechanical sounding arpeggio, that sound does generate a mental emotional response that should be of some use to classical composers. You can even imitate the sounds instruments through analogue or even sample real instruments and manipulate them electronically. How expressive the music gets depends on the instrument, the performer, and the composition, not on the whether it is electric or not. Sound waves are sound waves, doesn't matter were they come from.


----------



## fahl5 (Apr 9, 2011)

Why arguing so theoretically? 
What you discuss, is what I already do since some years.

On one hand it keeps me of the physical slavework of musicmaking, meanwhile I am happy to have the experience of studying the classical piano literature for years.

More important is, that it gives me a new approach to interpretation, just to think about how I want it to sound and to delve into the composition in a more compositionlike way. I like that and it is very human, very warm and soulful just because it is no one else but me who wants the music sound this or that way, so what you hear is nothing else but what I intended and what I like to hear.

If anyone states that he cant hear the human emotions here, just because I used modern instruments to create this recordings, I have severe doubts that he will be able to here them anywhere, since all good musicians tried to make musical use of the most current instruments and technics. None of those who dont has created anything of prevailing interest.

Listen to nearly 800mp3 recordings of classical music all made with samples I hope you like them since I only did them, because I like the compositions I recorded.

Many of them are recorded for the first time. I don't know how long it would needed togive them a voice, without sampled instruments.

see klassik-resampled and discuss the concrete thing. I at least am very curiuos what other think what should be improved.
best
fahl5


----------

