# Our Eventual Demise



## windshore (May 20, 2010)

I see & understand the focus by composers here on "sampled" realism, but so often sense real hostility by some about incorporating live players. Posts continually harp on the lack of "a great ____ Library" and show impatience for it not having all the nuance of a live player with a valuable instrument and decades of skill! I just wonder if some people understand where it's all headed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2254232/pagenum/all/#p2

The technology will soon replace composers just as it has replaced live players. Most production music is pretty predictable and very derivative. If we don't do something to set our work apart, and keep the "humanity" in it, all of that production library music you've been writing will be soon replaced by cheaper computer-generated cues.

I guess I'm just advocating the importance bringing back at least one real player... even with your latest new wonderful sample library.

(Sorry if this is posted in the wrong forum, just wanted to find out other's views.)


----------



## Danny_Owen (May 20, 2010)

windshore @ Thu May 20 said:


> http://www.slate.com/id/2254232/pagenum/all/#p2
> 
> The technology will soon replace composers just as it has replaced live players.



Interesting article, but I don't agree that this statement is entirely true. Perhaps some production library music may be replaced or at least competed with with this type of technology- but for a film, television series where continuity is key, or advert seeking bespoke music or a computer game of the same variety? I think not. 

Using virtual instruments well enough to properly emulate an orchestra requires a huge amount of skill, I think anyone on this forum would agree. Would you not presume that this new technology would do the same? 

The question, at the end of the day comes down to business. Cutting an orchestra out of a budget and using virtual instruments saves tens of people's fee, recording studio time, and means the only person who has to be paid is the composer. As such it's entirely justifiable, though I agree using live players is fantastic when there's a budget for it. Using this new technology, if it ever gets that far, would still require one person to tell the computer what to do and there would more than likely be a distinct lack of originality or tailoring to the picture. There would be no money saved.

So, for film/television series music I would argue almost certainly not. For production library music... maybe. If enough money gets invested in it to take off. 

But think on this- whoever chose to develop this technology would know that their competition is thousands of great composers, all making great music. With the distance that this technology has to go, and the uncertainty that the music would be any better than the tens of thousands of production tracks out there, would you be the one to invest in such technology?


----------



## midphase (May 20, 2010)

I moved this to the Off Topics, but I do think it's a very interesting thread that I'm sure will catch on.

All of the composing simulators that I've ever heard seem to do really well with Bach type of music, or avant-garde tone-row type of stuff. I think there's a very good reason for that since both of those are very mathematical styles where a precise structure is part of the idiom.


----------



## Mike Connelly (May 20, 2010)

Agreed, I'm not surprised it can write a decent fugue since there is such a degree of formula to that (not that I'm dissing fugues), but could it really come up with something like a Mahler symphony or Strauss tone poem?


----------



## C M Dess (May 20, 2010)

Define, "eventual". :wink: 

I just watched a program called humans 2.0. I had to laugh because were soooo not there. There are sooo many obstacles in each stage of development.

It can do Bach like stuff?....but...who in the hell in the "masses" sits listening to Bach all day.

The human design element is the most imported aspect in music making, from the production to the individual notes. Computers are predictable but humans are not. A human may be a very well "programmed" musician, but decide to do something totally "out of the box"...A computer doesn't have the concept "out of the box" because it is not networked to see and make decisions from external sources, very subtle sources and subconscious reflections. As musicians, we go much deeper than the pace of theory which only provides a platform for the entry into creativity. We have the internal, external exposure, environment, our human network and of course "nature". 

At the same time, maybe some of this could be used as an asset, like "loops".

Maybe they can use this artificial intelligence and make a better toaster someday.


----------



## caseyjames (May 20, 2010)

Instead of debating 'if,' why not give it the benefit of the doubt and consider what it would mean WHEN a software comes along that can create entirely unique, aesthetic music that exhibits merits in abundance that are on the same plane of those of our cherished musical works.

We are a group that obsesses on the past but refuses to look more than an inch into the future...

The modernists are over a hundred years old. I think speculating into the future one or two hundred years is sensible in determining the meaning of our actions.

It seems to me that the kind of music 'problems' that were being worked out by Stravinsky, Debussy, Schoenberg etc have moved to a realm of complexity that is probably better suited to mathematicians. This is evident in most of the academic work being done.

Of course, there is a huge creative element, but again looking into the future, eventually someone will come along who is both artistically and technically competent -- inventive and lucky (probably a little crazy). The desire to create automated or guided music systems is clear. The debate is always about their success.

I assume that generative music will be realized... now as bach, later as merely acceptable implementations and then later still as exceptional and superior. 

I work professionally and I understand the concern for being replaced by robots but...

As artists, isn't it a bit meek to wait and hope that a newer different art doesn't overtake your own? When the day comes that a system can create better music than one could by hand will you still compete? What if its not 200 years from now what if its 8 years? 

I'm not suggesting we all start writing software, but that may, in the end, become the reality -- and it may even be fore the best, a way to move forward into unknown realms of music.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 20, 2010)

I understand they're working on a program that replaces the audience as well.


----------



## caseyjames (May 20, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 20 said:


> I understand they're working on a program that replaces the audience as well.



Elevator music did away with the need for an audience.


----------



## José Herring (May 20, 2010)

We just need to get better. No computer program will be able to write decent music on it's own. Sure with a lot of user input and programming it can write something given the rules of composition, ect..... But get real.

The reason why the orchestra hasn't been replaced by the sample stuff is because the orchestra is still better. Even with the best samples and the most careful programming. But don't forget that samples on their own can't create decent music. It takes a skilled programmer.

These music composition computers have been around for a while. At least 30 years and have yet to replace a real composer.

I mean really. How is a computer going to make an aesthetic choice? It's so subjective and constantly changing.

I'm just not impressed that a computer can pump out a piece, after 20 years of careful programming, that sounds like the first prelude from Ana Amagdalena Bach and bad, bad Chopin. If this is all they can do after all that time I think we'll be ok at least for the next 100 years. If not forever.

Jose


----------



## choc0thrax (May 20, 2010)

I'd like to see a computer try scoring to picture. Good luck knowing where to put the recurring themes/motifs etc.


----------



## caseyjames (May 20, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Thu May 20 said:


> I'd like to see a computer try scoring to picture. Good luck knowing where to put the recurring themes/motifs etc.




I would say a good share of film/tv composers just drop the theme when the character enters on screen a certain points in the move... If anything in the world is formulaic it is the structure of movies.

Even crappy cameras have face recognition.

Cuts can be automatically be detected with ease.

Scenes/sequences can be detected with easy because strict color scripts (for the color scheme) are used on most shows that make dead obvious the mood -- blue for suspenseful, alien, cold etc and warm hues for... you get the idea. 

Adobe features in it Premiere, as does Avid I believe, automatic dialog to text translation that is locked to the picture. Maybe this is linked to a database of dialog from a vast array of successful films linked to the accompanying score.

Loudness and spectral content can help to determine intensity -- this i do occasional while score -- adding a envelope follower to write a midi cc that represents loudness as a rough guide of intensity -- just to help me see thing I might otherwise ignore.

Gaps in the dialog can help determine both the tempo and where themes can fit and what must be underscore -- are they whispering (high noise content in dialog) = underscore

The list goes on and on but the point is it wouldn't be really surprising if they could at the very least build a TOTALLY acceptable structure for a film score based on the information in the film itself and a degree of existing AI.

Would it be genius with todays understanding? Probably not. But thats what I was trying to get across with my other post. Beyond being genius; as geniuses, we all are; it would probably better the most of what gets put out there.


----------



## Narval (May 20, 2010)

Computers can write novels too. Who wants to read them? http://futureperfectpublishing.com/2007/10/16/can-a-computer-write-a-novel/ (http://futureperfectpublishing.com/2007 ... e-a-novel/)

People buy art because they expect something human inside there that they can relate to.

Of course it's easy to automate the mass invention of "items" resembling art. But, remove the human conception, and the interest in art (and art itself) will be gone.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 20, 2010)

caseyjames @ Thu May 20 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu May 20 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see a computer try scoring to picture. Good luck knowing where to put the recurring themes/motifs etc.
> ...



How's the computer going to understand the emotional needs of a scene? If it has to place a recurring theme somewhere, what if the scene calls for a variation of the theme? I think the resulting score would be so disjointed and weird it would be easier just to get some human composer to do the whole thing.


----------



## castaliamusic (May 20, 2010)

I think windshore is provoking us to don't forget to make use of live players, sometimes it's easy to spend more money buying new libraries than hire a few good human players. Having real players give great results and often is even more fun. Very simple but also very true


----------



## caseyjames (May 20, 2010)

Again... easier now... But as history consistently proves... When it is cheaper to get acceptable results elsewhere they often do. I had capitalized cheaper, acceptable and often but though it might be rude -- this is the roomate note under the door version.

I think I make a good point... In linking to databases of successful movies how they ONE DAY will be able to make acceptable results.

I think by the low standards of things that something that could be deemed acceptable today is possible with the techniques I suggested. Naturally this is the group that would disagree -- though in the end, this is the group will have no say in the matter one way or another -- just as the orchestral players were in in most cases replaced by a cheaper acceptable result.


----------



## stonzthro (May 20, 2010)

I'm with choc0thrax - human input is media's greatest strength. 

McLuhan wasn't totally right - the media isn't the message, unless you've run out of ideas...


----------



## Hannes_F (May 20, 2010)

caseyjames @ Thu May 20 said:


> Again... easier now... But as history consistently proves... When it is cheaper to get acceptable results elsewhere they often do. I had capitalized cheaper, acceptable and often but though it might be rude -- this is the roomate note under the door version.



It is true, but only in certain segments of the business. Others will take the more valuable option.

We must remember ourselves and others from time to time that business in general is not about saving money, it is about _spending money at the right places_ in order to _earn more _money. And especially film is one of the last resorts where really big leverages are possible.

In this spirit composers need to convince directors and studios that if they add the sum X to what they originally wanted to spend for music they will probably get the sum X+delta in return because the value of the whole product is so much better then. As long as we succeed in that we are all set.


----------



## Ed (May 20, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Thu May 20 said:


> How's the computer going to understand the emotional needs of a scene? If it has to place a recurring theme somewhere, what if the scene calls for a variation of the theme? I think the resulting score would be so disjointed and weird it would be easier just to get some human composer to do the whole thing.



I agree, its hard enough for a human to do it, for a computer program it would have be incredibly complicated. Basically its not just music it would have to invent a very good AI which is very far off.


----------



## Ed (May 20, 2010)

caseyjames @ Thu May 20 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu May 20 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see a computer try scoring to picture. Good luck knowing where to put the recurring themes/motifs etc.
> ...



But scoring to picture is more complex and subtle than just "drop theme here when character enters". Maybe crap film scoring works that way, but even so I think a computer program would have a hard time.


----------



## windshore (May 20, 2010)

I started as a session player in LA over 20 years ago. At that time EVERY musician you talked to would have sworn up and down they will never replace live players. Now being a session player is a decent part-time job, even for top call players. 

I would argue that though the computer generated writing has a long way to go, there will come a time when Apple will release "Garage Composer" and it will auto-score to your home video in the style of_____.

Most Background music doesn't demand much creativity. It does require skill - now. As far as "Not realizing the emotions needed" the director of a film will be able to sit down as he does for a spotting session with a composer. He'll decide what the mood is, how quickly it should build etc. The computer has only to follow his direction.... much like we do when working with a director.

(... and yes, I'm advocating the idea that we need to keep a bit of chaos in our creations or we'll become obsolete. - and the best way to do that is to interact with other human beings.... not by using the "humanize" button.)


----------



## adrianallan (May 20, 2010)

My Pinnacle video editing suite *already* has mood music which can stretch to fit the length of the film clip - it just uses a mathematical formula to stretch out the music with new cadences and sections, etc. You choose the mood and plot how long you want the music to last for. It's fine for amateur productions.

5 years from now there will be an emotional graph which affects this music - you plot the emotional peaks, troughs and stable points, and the music stays on one level or the violins sweep up high for height of dramatic tension. 

This software won't be able to write a memorable theme tune, but it won't be long until it meets all the requirements of incidental music, maybe even incorporating a motive from the original theme.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 20, 2010)

Ed @ Thu May 20 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu May 20 said:
> 
> 
> > How's the computer going to understand the emotional needs of a scene? If it has to place a recurring theme somewhere, what if the scene calls for a variation of the theme? I think the resulting score would be so disjointed and weird it would be easier just to get some human composer to do the whole thing.
> ...



Yeah, by the time they can design a program smart enough to do this stuff we'll all have bigger problems on our hands... like trying to smear mud on your skin to block out heat vision detectors while a titanium AI skeleton bites through your cousin Ricky's spine.


----------



## Ed (May 20, 2010)

For film scoring there are as I see two different issues. 

1. actually making the music itself 

2. being able to successfully score WELL to picture. 

For 2 you dont need 1. You could be talking about a program to mimic a music editor. If a "music library" the program was using was big enough and you were only talking about something like a reality TV show like Celebrity Get Me Out of Here... I think it may be possible to get something sounding decent... 

For a proper film or anything more complicated than that, no way. As choco says by the time that happens we'll have all transcended into machines ourselves or have been wiped out in some apocalypse.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 20, 2010)

windshore @ Thu May 20 said:


> I started as a session player in LA over 20 years ago. At that time EVERY musician you talked to would have sworn up and down they will never replace live players. Now being a session player is a decent part-time job, even for top call players.



Say thank you to those session players that agreed to record sample libraries. Musicians that are mainly performing in public (classical, bands, orchestras) are hardly seeing much change with the advent of sample libraries. But if you say that specially the typical LA session musician is in trouble then why has the one or the other of them worked so diligently at his own nemesis? Same for some guys in London, Vienna and East Europe. There will be a time when they will wake up and ask themselves what the hell they were thinking.


----------



## midphase (May 20, 2010)

I think a lot of it also has to do with the changing styles of music. The Black Eyed Peas don't really need Steely Dan style session guys. When was the last time you heard a guitar or sax solo in a song?


----------



## Mike Connelly (May 21, 2010)

I agree with Kays - some of it is samples replacing musicians, but much of it is simply going from lots of movies/tv/commercials with lots of scoring and tracks using lots of session musicians to much heavier use of pop songs instead.

In chicago, the whole jingle scene has pretty much died out, and it seems to be mostly because of ads licensing whatever song they like on iTunes instead of having something written for the spot.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 22, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Thu May 20 said:


> I'd like to see a computer try scoring to picture. Good luck knowing where to put the recurring themes/motifs etc.



You're right. What you need in a situation like that is James Cameron and a music editor.
Until you decides music editors are getting in his way, and just does it himself.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 22, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Fri May 21 said:


> I agree with Kays - some of it is samples replacing musicians, but much of it is simply going from lots of movies/tv/commercials with lots of scoring and tracks using lots of session musicians to much heavier use of pop songs instead.
> 
> In chicago, the whole jingle scene has pretty much died out, and it seems to be mostly because of ads licensing whatever song they like on iTunes instead of having something written for the spot.



It died in NYC as well, and took my gig with it! Bastids. I have a theory that when a young creative in advertising finds an obscure piece of music on the Web, it becomes 'their' music....no composer required.

As someone who was fully and gainfully employed in the music biz for 35 years ( and still is, though much less) it would be unseemly of me to complain. I do feel for younger musicians coming up. The clubs I played throughout the country in my younger days rarely hire bands, weddings and parties oftens hire DJ's, paying sessions in NYC are way down . I don't know where younger players can make their bones and make a (crappy) living these days.

All that said, algorithmic composition seems less of a threat. The technology is in its infancy, and I'd guess most directors and producers have too much ego to have their music written by HAL. Unless, of course, they make programs that say things like "wow,that's a great idea, replacing the guitars and drums in the rock section with an ocarina and a banjo-you're brilliant! Why didn't *I* think of that??" and so forth.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (May 22, 2010)

"But I am sure the computer can figure that out too, while it cooks us a 5 star dinner and plays the violin."

uhm.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzjkBwZtxp4

:lol:


----------



## Narval (May 22, 2010)

windshore @ Thu May 20 said:


> The technology will soon replace composers


Not so sure about that. A composer's production is based on creativity, while technological production is based on automation - and automation can't be creative. Automation and creativity are mutually exclusive, can't happen both at the same time, they cancel each other out. Automated creativity is as impossible as creative automation.


----------



## rayinstirling (May 23, 2010)

[quote:c7711aab44="NYC Composer @ Sun May 23, 2010 3:04 am"]

As someone who was fully and gainfully employed in the music biz for 35 years ( and still is, though much less) it would be unseemly of me to complain. I do feel for younger musicians coming up. The clubs I played throughout the counòË›   Ó­MË›   Ó­NË›   Ó­OË›   Ó­PË›   Ó­QË›   Ó­RË›   Ó­SË›   Ó­TË›   Ó­UË›   Ó­VË›   Ó­WË›   Ó­XË›   Ó­YË›   Ó­ZË›   Ó­[Ë›   Ó­\Ë›   Ó­]Ë›   Ó­^Ë›   Ó­_Ë›   Ó­`Ë›   Ó­aË›   Ó­bË›   Ó­cË›   Ó­dË›   Ó­eË›   Ó­fË›   Ó­gË›   Ó­hË›   Ó­iË›   Ó­jË›   Ó­kË›   Ó­lË›   Ó­mË›   Ó­nË›   Ó­oË›   Ó­pË›   Ó­qË›   Ó­rË›   Ó­sË›   Ó­tË›   Ó­uË›   Ó­vË›   Ó­wË›   Ó­xË›   Ó­yË›   Ó­zË›   Ó­{Ë›   Ó­|Ë›   Ó­}Ë›   Ó­~Ë›   Ó­Ë›   Ó­€Ë›   Ó­Ë›   Ó­‚Ë›   Ó­ƒË›   Ó­„Ë›   Ó­…Ë›   Ó­†Ë›   Ó­‡Ë›


----------



## windshore (May 24, 2010)

Ray Kurzweil says that computers will gain "consciousness" withing 20 to 25 years. 

There are lots of writing techniques that take into account the technical qualities of "emotional" musical phrases.

I think technology will demand that we raise our standards even higher, but economically it's hard to imagine that this technology wont replace many composers.

As I suggested before, studio musicians never thought they'd be replaced, yet now there's not one children's cartoon that's done with live instruments. Cartoons used to employ hundreds of studio musicians. Jingles and TV in general are done with few if any live players. The writer's time is coming too. (I'm not trying to be dark, just realistic... it's already started.)


----------



## JohnG (May 24, 2010)

The two are linked. Once we drop the live players, we lose one of the chief differentiators of our craft from that of, say, the director's nephew, who owns a keyboard and a few thousand dollars' / euros' / pounds' worth of gear.

If you want to convince a director or producer that you know something that is valuable to him, that he can't do himself, and that takes years of learning to master -- and thereby raise the question of whether his nephew can bring it off after all -- invite him to a scoring session; even a little one.

By contrast, watching the composer create an entire score at a computer can persuade a director that a monkey could do this with enough time and plugins.


----------



## Ed (May 24, 2010)

JohnG @ Mon May 24 said:


> The two are linked. Once we drop the live players, we lose one of the chief differentiators of our craft from that of, say, the director's nephew, who owns a keyboard and a few thousand dollars' / euros' / pounds' worth of gear.



Personally I cant wait to use the talents of Hannes and Herman when I get another film.  Annoying they are so far away and have to do it remotely but better than just using samples.


----------



## Narval (May 24, 2010)

windshore @ Mon May 24 said:


> Ray Kurzweil says that computers will gain "consciousness" withing 20 to 25 years.


Ray Kurzweil said lots of funny things, like: _"By 2009, computers will disappear. Displays will be written directly onto our retinas by devices in our eyeglasses and contact lenses.”_ :lol: 



> economically it's hard to imagine that this technology wont replace many composers.


Economically, idiosyncratically, or phantasmagorically, only a composer can replace a composer.



> studio musicians never thought they'd be replaced, yet now ... Jingles and TV in general are done with few if any live players. The writer's time is coming too.


Players are construction workers and not architects. Workers are not creators.



> (I'm not trying to be dark, just realistic... it's already started.)


You are not realistic, only confused. The Eventual Demise you're talking about has only started in your own head.


---

Now, allow me to explain:

A composer's only power, today as ever, is this: creativity.

There are quite a few things that binary minds can't automate, and creativity is one of them.

Your Eventual Demise as a composer will come upon you when you will lose your creativity. Automated devices are incapable to create, so it's not fair to put the blame on them for Your Eventual Demise.  

Also, please, don't make it sound as if your future as a composer has anything to do with anyone else's future. Your future will be no better and no worse than you're going to make it yourself. So, mind your own future, would'ya? :mrgreen: 

For one's own Eventual Demise there is only one person to be blamed.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (May 24, 2010)

Why must anyone be blamed? It's not a bad thing at all. Our eventual demise is a good thing for the next generation.

Oh and as for software replacing us, I think it will only happen when the software is also doing the one doing the listening. Which will happen, IMHO. But only in quite a few more decades. We'll just be cows for the AIs of 2080 - they'll keep us around for fun or as pets. And like pets, we will only barely be able to appreciate the incredible music that self-created software will compose.

Too pessimistic a vision? Nah, it's just evolution. I'm already a slave to my iPod, laptop, desktop, sextop (ooops! Fuhgetabout that one please)...


----------



## dinerdog (May 24, 2010)

Narval - what new age book did you just finish? (Wayne Dyer, Jack Canfield - all good books btw) I think your being a little technical for this discussion. Of course we're all 100% responsible for everything in our lives. Every thought, decision, indecision etc..., but your taking it to the extreme here. There are very real outside forces at work here that are making our jobs a LOT HARDER. You can be as positive as you want (in your mind), but you can't hold back the technical tides of change or the new paradigms they unleash. Perhaps composers will be the best "algorithmic operators" or construction artists, but really, the positive attitude will only get you so far.

Your also assuming that "creativity is king". Perhaps even that "the best music will win". Of course that's true in some situations, but less and less. In a lot of ways, music today doesn't need to be 'creative', it just has to be right. If your at ease with that notion, you'll probably go a lot further with less pain along the way.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 24, 2010)

Narval @ Mon May 24 said:


> Players are construction workers and not architects. Workers are not creators.



I hope I don't come over as self-praising or tooting my own horn if I say that this is not true for the kind of players that I represent (so I think, at least I always try). 

True, composers often originally come to me because they basically want "the same as with samples but without the artefacts". What happens instead is a deep understanding of their music that then flows into an interpretation, and often an opinionated one. I even consider the musical shaping more important for my style of work than the delivery of just beautiful notes. All in all working on an interpretation is not just a service, it is an experience that can bring both the player and the composer forward artistically.

That is why I personally still don't loose any sleep over samples, even if they already sound very good. While doing a recording I spend the better part of my time on interpretation and working on musicality. And - the advent of samples technology is actually driving me forward in my own non-samples studio work (sounds crazy, I know). 

But then ... I am not really a typical session player, more somebody that has always been thinking like a composer, and that may make a difference. For musicians that are strictly required to deliver music more as a sort of standardized product it is certainly different ... this can be replaced more easily (maybe).


----------



## Narval (May 24, 2010)

Hannes, if you can play creatively other people's music, and they like it, then all the power to you!

dinerdog, if you can get the music right without being creative, then all the power to you!

 



> There are very real outside forces at work here that are making our jobs a LOT HARDER. You can be as positive as you want (in your mind), but you can't hold back the technical tides of change or the new paradigms they unleash. Perhaps composers will be the best "algorithmic operators" or construction artists, but really, the positive attitude will only get you so far.
> 
> Your also assuming that "creativity is king". Perhaps even that "the best music will win". Of course that's true in some situations, but less and less.


The "outside forces at work" are neither good nor bad, or as good/bad as their results. Same about "the technical tides of change or the new paradigms they unleash" :shock: (wow, what a gloomy vision, like Isengard unleashed :mrgreen: )

Technology, when properly used, makes life easier and not harder, never mind "a LOT HARDER."

Composers are and likely will always be composers, which means creators, and not "algorithmic operators" or "construction artists."

The "positive attitude" is just a way of speaking and won't get anyone far for sure. Same about personal assumptions.

Creativity is not "king," it is only the composer's lot.

The "best music" will not necessarily "win," but the appropriate music will prevail and abide, as always. The "right music" as you put it.


(your other "psychoanalytical" assumptions are simply not worth addressing)

Hope this clears things up a bit.


----------



## windshore (May 24, 2010)

Narval @ 5/24/2010 said:


> Players are construction workers and not architects. Workers are not creators.
> 
> 
> > Wow Narval. It's so impressive to have such high regard for your own artistic value, and so little regard for those you would have realize your creations.... or perhaps you haven't worked with a lot of live professional session players...
> ...


----------



## dinerdog (May 24, 2010)

This would just be an endless philosophical discussion that doesn't really have a right or wrong.

I've been using my creativity for 20+ years. I'm just saying that you need to add "craft" (among many other things) into that formula, besides creativity. I'd like to think that most of us are creative if we've been doing this for any length of time and making a living at it. I'd like to at least assume that much.

There's nothing really to clear up. The entire universe simply "is". Nothing is good or bad, only what you interpret them to be. Yes of course, nobody can argue with that for sure. It's just stating an obvious philosophical bent.

If you don't want to label anything and "just be", that's fine.


----------



## Narval (May 24, 2010)

dinerdog @ Mon May 24 said:


> most of us are creative


When we come up with music that is meaningful to the intended audience, yes, we are musically creative. In short, composers.

When it comes to film scoring, more specifically to narrative dramatic underscoring, the musically creative person, the scorer, is someone who provides the film with the music that is meaningful for the film and/or for the audience. In this sense, the scorer is a musically creative film maker. Whether or not he is also the producer, or the director, or both, or just a hired composer who creatively contributes to the process of film making, that is of little relevance for the film - the music just has to do its job.

Fact is, dramatic underscoring requires, along with other qualities, musical creativity - something that technology can't provide. Right now, the musically creative guys are the hired composers. Whether or not, in future, directors and producers will become musically creative themselves, that remains to be seen, although I can see no trend indicating that. So far, Charlie Chaplin, Clint Eastwood, and Tom Tykwer (am I missing anyone?) are insignificant exceptions.

So, no reason for dark thoughts, or for panic.


----------



## P.T. (May 24, 2010)

"Players are construction workers and not architects. Workers are not creators. "
______________

I have to disagree.

The notes on a manuscript are not the music.
Notation is a rough estimate of the music at best.

Good players learn more than technique, they learn to bring the music alive and it takes interpretation. Whether interpretation is 1% or 20% or 80% is something for the nit pickers to squabble over but it is an important part.

Listen to many different performances of a piece and hear how different they can be.
See how distraught a composer can be upon hearing an interpretation.


----------



## dinerdog (May 24, 2010)

Narval - point taken. And I do believe in the positive thought process. So, I'll keep my dark thoughts to a minimum. 

Also, glad you don't see directors & producers becoming more musically creative. We should all stick to what we love doing.

I do believe (not a dark thought) that those of us left standing will be better equipped to do music than any director (or his nephew). We just need to hang tough while the boredom (hopefully) sets in with generically produced music.


----------



## Narval (May 24, 2010)

dinerdog @ Mon May 24 said:


> We just need to hang tough while the boredom (hopefully) sets in with generically produced music.


Right, before getting better, things need to get worse. Was it Obama or Plato who said that? :lol:


----------



## windshore (May 25, 2010)

P.T. @ 5/24/2010 said:


> "Players are construction workers and not architects. Workers are not creators. "
> ______________
> 
> I have to disagree.
> ...



+1 o-[][]-o


----------



## JohnG (May 25, 2010)

P.T. @ 24th May 2010 said:


> Notation is a rough estimate of the music at best....
> 
> See how distraught a composer can be upon hearing an interpretation.



How painfully true.

Good one, P.T.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 25, 2010)

Narval @ Tue May 25 said:


> The player has no creative input on the piece, he is just the executioner.



I am fearing you really mean that, and maybe other composers too.


----------



## JohnG (May 25, 2010)

Unfortunately, music notation is far from exact or complete. While accepting the point that players are not coequal creators of typical, notated scores, they do bring a tremendous amount to the music.

If the notation tells the player exactly what to do and we have click tracks, what does the conductor do? Why is there ever a need for more than one recording of a piece? Why not use samples only if it's mere mechanics?

Building and architectural analogies only go so far. While an architect can specify a particular type of steel, with a particular hardness, the range of interpretation of what "adagio con brio" means, or "sweetly," or "espressivo," or many other qualitative instructions in a score.

How much "molto vibrato" is too much? When you ask the violas to bring out a certain passage, they do so without changing the notation, before or after, nor is there (necessarily) any ambiguity or defect in the notation.

Players bring taste, as well as technique and experience. They know what you mean, not what you wrote, more often than we composers might like to admit.

Henry Mancini said that he had that one particular tenor saxophone player in mind when he wrote the Pink Panther theme, because that particular player would play those particular notes in a particular way.

So it's not all on the page. Wish it could be!


----------



## Narval (May 25, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Tue May 25 said:


> Narval @ Tue May 25 said:
> 
> 
> > The player has no creative input on the piece, he is just the executioner.
> ...


Hannes, keep that in mind next time you execute a piece, you can only do it in two ways: you either execute it, or you execute it. :D 

JohnG, P.T., Hannes, and everyone else - I have made no judgment upon what players do to a piece of music. I only said what they don't do: they don't create it. Which, for unknown reasons, some people seem to consider as a negative thing.

Btw, I greatly admire the performers who play meaningfully. At the same time, as a player myself, I have no delusions about creatively collaborating with Bach. o/~


----------



## midphase (May 25, 2010)

I agree with Narval. No composers = no players.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 25, 2010)

Narval @ Tue May 25 said:


> JohnG, P.T., Hannes, and everyone else - I have made no judgment upon what players do to a piece of music. I only said what they don't do: they don't create it. Which, for unknown reasons, some people seem to consider as a negative thing.



Well, if I remember well you said players are just construction workers, not more. Which makes me wonder whether you consider construction workers as artists? And if not, whether you then consider players as artists. And in case they are for you, then how can a player can be artistically active if zero creativity is involved?

I understand why you compare composers to architects but seeing players as "construction workers and nothing else" seems to be a flawed analogy, no? I am wondering a little since you proved to be so logical in other posts.


----------



## germancomponist (May 25, 2010)

No composers = no players = no listeners.


----------



## Narval (May 25, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Tue May 25 said:


> Narval @ Tue May 25 said:
> 
> 
> > JohnG, P.T., Hannes, and everyone else - I have made no judgment upon what players do to a piece of music. I only said what they don't do: they don't create it. Which, for unknown reasons, some people seem to consider as a negative thing.
> ...


Please quote me correctly. What I said is that players are "construction workers and not architects," and that "workers are not creators." I did not say or imply that they are _"nothing else"_ and definitely I did not mean anything negative. It is a positive thing that architects are not allowed to lay their hands on the bricks, just as positive as workers not being allowed to touch the blueprint with a pencil. It is a positive thing that composers are not allowed to touch the horn with their lips, just as positive as horn players not being allowed to touch the score with a pencil.

Thanks for doubting that I think of players as artists. Of course players are artists. There are two categories of musical artists: creators and performers. Creating is not performing and performing is not creating. Composers are creators. Players are performers. It is simple and straightforward, and I don't see any contradiction anywhere. What seems to be the problem? My analogy, flawed? I don't see how. If you are set to find fault in what I say, at least find something that works, like: construction workers, unlike some (most) players, never go out of their way by attempting to stealthily "collaborate" with the architect.



germancomponist @ Tue May 25 said:


> No composers = no players = no listeners.


No composers = no players = no listeners = no mon = no fun
/\~O


----------



## midphase (May 25, 2010)

"My problem is that in my property as a player (I am both a player and a composer) I feel disrespected by being equated to a construction worker. "

Meh...get over it. I have construction workers at my house right now and they're looking at me through my studio windows and I'm sure they're thinking that I'm a total loser and I should get a real job.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 25, 2010)

midphase @ Tue May 25 said:


> "My problem is that in my property as a player (I am both a player and a composer) I feel disrespected by being equated to a construction worker. "
> 
> Meh...get over it. I have construction workers at my house right now and they're looking at me through my studio windows and I'm sure they're thinking that I'm a total loser and I should get a real job.



Yeh, maybe. But don't forget that players spent the bigger part of their life in order to be ready for your works (meaning composers collectively). So for a good player a good composer is somebody of highest respect.


----------



## JohnG (May 25, 2010)

midphase @ 25th May 2010 said:


> I have construction workers at my house right now and they're looking at me through my studio windows and I'm sure they're thinking that I'm a total loser and I should get a real job.



and?


----------



## Narval (May 25, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Tue May 25 said:


> Narval @ Tue May 25 said:
> 
> 
> > What seems to be the problem?
> ...


I think you are both misinterpreting and overreacting. "Disrespectful"?? Well, honesty is a remarkable quality, and you are of course entitled to submit to your own feelings. Although I think you don't give it enough thought, otherwise you would see that there is nothing negative, never mind disrespectful in what I say. There is nothing offensive in my analogy: being able to contribute as _construction worker_ to such grandiose _edifices_ as Bach's (among other great _architects'_), that's for sure something to be proud of. Or perhaps, since you are being denied the right to creatively collaborate with Bach, that would transform your _construction_ experience into a humiliating one?

I am a player myself and I know exactly why a player is not a creator, and why it is good to keep things this way, separated. You say you are a composer too. Never occurred to you that you use a different set of tools when creating your own music, than you use when performing someone else's music? As a composer, would you allow players to mess up with your scores? If so, you think Beethoven should have allowed that too? It's a principle we are talking here about, not your hurt feelings. "Composers are made of fire." - Beethoven.

"Not very human," says you? Because I see the difference between performance and creation? That's so _very human_ from your part to present me in that light, thanks. And since you apparently think performance is creative because it ads _feeling_, then you must be doubly human. Oh, and you can also see "sub-texts" - that would probably make for triple human. A whole holy trinity. Well, here we must part. In my farewell line - since I lack "nobleness of heart, a composer's prerequisite" - allow me to consider myself unworthy to bow down to you, sir.


----------



## TuwaSni (May 25, 2010)

Hmmm... An interesting thread!
Players compared to construction worker? Well - in a way. But as any good and talented craftsperson can add so much to a construction of say something other than sterile glass/steel structures - so to the musicians.

Think about it - there are literally billions of ways to form and perform any given note - let alone a passage or entire score. Samples are limited to a few ways of making the notes - whereas a really gifted musician is capable of performing all of those permutations - and they can be instructed and guided to achieve the desired performance (well pretty close anyway.) The same can't be said of samples.

Now as to computers replacing composers - well it's an interesting experiment - and in the today's mindthought of corporate muddled masses of mediocrity - it could be that (at least for a while) computer generated composition could replace human creativity. It could be argued that, to a certain extent, some modern "human" music forms already are based on "mindless/unimaginative" constructs.
As long as there are humans composing creatively as an alternative - eventually the computer music will wane in popularity as a computer program can only operate within the realm of possibilities and can't judge the quality of it's results (except by interpretation based on programmed parameters.)

Computers achieving consciousness? An old false-prophecy that's nowhere near fruition - the stuff of "Twilight Zone" and the "Matrix". The results of such piffle as computer generated composition would range from extremely obtuse and unenjoyable to rote, redundant and boring. The same can be said of many "human" compositions.

Tuwa


----------



## Hannes_F (May 25, 2010)

Narval @ Tue May 25 said:


> I am a player myself



If that is really the case then you must know that a good player adds features like

Micro-timing
Micro-intonation
Interior dynamics
Direction and arc
Timbre
etc.

All that means that decisions have to be taken, and I consider these artistic decisions as being creative. In order to find the right decisions the musician should understand how the composer thought, and ideally this understanding should enable him to compose something similar. Then he will understand why the composer decided for exactly the choices he did.

And that is why I don't agree with



> why a player is not a creator, and why it is good to keep things this way, separated.



More examples: I often get compositions for recording without dynamics. I have to understand which harmony goes where, how the counterpoints work, why the melodies are like they are and what potential they have to be shaped in order to find a compelling dynamical interpretation, how long or short notes should be. Is't that architecture already?

Sometimes I even only get an uncleaned midi file that a composer played into the keyboard on a generic strings patch. I basically do my own voice leading then. Is that architecture already?

More often than not I find writing errors in the submitted material. I will correct wrong or missing notes automatically and by ear. And - with all given respect - only a minority of composers nowadays have full command over the traditional rules like avoiding parallels, note exchanges etc.. I hear those things already in the midi version and know how they will then sound like with a live ensemble (those rules are there for a reason, right?). I then make sure those passages nevertheless will work in the recording. Is that architecture already?



> You say you are a composer too. Never occurred to you that you use a different set of tools when creating your own music, than you use when performing someone else's music?



Sure. But I am performing _as if I would compose the music in the moment_.



> As a composer, would you allow players to mess up with your scores?


You totally did not get what I meant with creativity. I am _not _changing any notes (obvious writing errors aside) and if note choice is the only criterion of creating, then the composer is in charge, of course. In every other aspect of the creation I am required on a daily basis.


----------



## midphase (May 25, 2010)

JohnG @ Tue May 25 said:


> midphase @ 25th May 2010 said:
> 
> 
> > I have construction workers at my house right now and they're looking at me through my studio windows and I'm sure they're thinking that I'm a total loser and I should get a real job.
> ...



I'm just saying it's all in the perspective. To them, they're the ones with a real skill and what I do must seem like child's play.


----------



## JohnG (May 25, 2010)

sorry Kays; my idea of a joke.

I got you -- I feel the same way when I have people working here.


----------



## Narval (May 25, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Tue May 25 said:


> Narval @ Tue May 25 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a player myself
> ...


All your strings belong to you, Hannes. :D 

No hard feelings, ok?

Now, mods, please make Hannes' previous post an ad sticky in the Working in this industry board. 0oD


----------



## Hannes_F (May 25, 2010)

Narval @ Wed May 26 said:


> Now, mods, please make Hannes' previous post an ad sticky in the Working in this industry thread. 0oD



Believe it or not but I am currently reducing my recording activities for other composers to a certain group of composer buddies and am certainly not keen on getting hired by you.


----------



## Narval (May 25, 2010)

Touché! :wink:


----------



## windshore (May 26, 2010)

Coltrane, Monk, Miles... Yeah, Players are construction workers! Bach & Mozart as well. Hmmmm I'm a little foggy on this notion.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jun 2, 2010)

windshore @ Wed May 26 said:


> Coltrane, Monk, Miles... Yeah, Players are construction workers! Bach & Mozart as well. Hmmmm I'm a little foggy on this notion.



A comment like that would make more sense if you listed guys who were just great players - those guys are known for their composition (including improvisation) as well as their playing.

Not to be disrespectful to the players, but there's a reason we all know the name of Mozart but for the most part not the names of the guys who performed his music. In the age of recordings obviously that has changed somewhat.

If the orchestra playing beethoven's fifth goes on vacation, you can find another orchestra to do it. If Ludwig goes on vacation, it's not like you can hand anyone else on the planet a pencil and paper and expect to have that piece written.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 2, 2010)

Seriously? We're having an argument about whether players (who aren't also composers) are like construction workers?!

Well of course they are! Absolutely anyone can become a great player. It's trivial.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jun 2, 2010)

I know some construction workers and they'd probably be just as offended by this discussion.

And I'd bet that many of them make more money than many of us.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 2, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Jun 02 said:


> Not to be disrespectful to the players, but there's a reason we all know the name of Mozart but for the most part not the names of the guys who performed his music.



Don't know about you but I know

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

and

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

These guys obviously inspired Mozart to write his clarinet and horn concertos and also he was goods friend with them privately. 

BTW Leutgeb (or Leitgeb) was not only a horn player but a composer too. Interestingly enough Mozart himself was the first interpreter of not only his piano concerts but also his violin concerts, and appearently a very good one. Remarkeable if you consider that the mozart concertos are still the stepstone for an orchestra audition.

As we see the lines were more blurred then. People were both in personal union, improvising cadencas was common for every soloist. This is a sort of integral approach that I like much more than the division into creative people vs. mere finger-movers. The old system where virtually everybody was a bit of both feels more healthy to me.


----------



## Narval (Jun 2, 2010)

I'm not sure I understand well - is building a house somehow humanly degrading or something? Or is it inferior in some way to playing a symphony?

As a player, I am proud to have been contributed to a number of musical _buildings_, symphonies and other pieces. If I was a construction worker, then probably I would have been just as proud when looking at a house that I have worked on. I see these two professions are equally noble, and actually I have a great admiration for construction workers, and I too know a few of them. Anyone who looks down on construction workers, or thinks they do an inferior work, well, I'm not sure how superior that way of thinking is.

My analogy was not perfect of course but just functional: If the end product - the performance of a symphony - can be seen like a building, then the composer acts like an architect providing the blueprint, the conductor acts like the engineer translating it into a real-life action plan, and the players act like the construction workers actually building it. There are differences of course, but, if you think of it a bit more abstractly, you'll see the general idea is pretty straightforward and the similarities are pretty clear. A similar analogy can be made with staging a play: The playwright acts like an architect (or composer), the director is the engineer (conductor) and the actors are the construction workers (players).

Here's another analogy: when mixing you need the qualities of both an electrician and a plumber - in the sense that you need to have a good command on the signal flow, and to have a clear idea of what is expected to come out at the end, and how to achieve it effectively and efficiently. And I'm pretty sure most sound engineers would agree with this analogy without big fuss.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 2, 2010)

I have nothing to say, I'm just posting so this amusing thread can natter on :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 2, 2010)

That is one of the most outrageous things I've ever seen in the last five minutes, Larry. The nerve of you, posting when you have nothing to say.

Please take this to heart: if you're not going to contribute to a thread then please don't post.

Got it?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 2, 2010)

Also: please make your posts count when you post them. Or else don't post them at all.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 2, 2010)

And if you must post something useless, please consolidate it with another post instead of separating it into several posts.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 2, 2010)

I will try


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 2, 2010)

to keep that


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 2, 2010)

in mind!


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jun 3, 2010)

And if you ever need to hire a plumber, before he starts a job I recommend you explain how little respect you have for his work and that you consider being compared to him a huge insult.

Good luck with your toilet then.


----------



## Narval (Jun 3, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Thu Jun 03 said:


> And if you ever need to hire a plumber, before he starts a job I recommend you explain how little respect you have for his work and that you consider being compared to him a huge insult.


And the plumber, being a pro, he will probably say "I'm sorry to hear that sir" and will do his good job regardless. Unlike Hannes, who - out of his primadonna hurt feelings overclouding his capacity to understand - he will probably walk out and refuse to play the music of a composer who thinks players to be as diligent and effective as construction workers. Hannes, ever played Ravel? He said "interpreters are slaves." http://www.maurice-ravel.net/austria.htm


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 3, 2010)

Narval @ Thu Jun 03 said:


> Mike Connelly @ Thu Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > And if you ever need to hire a plumber, before he starts a job I recommend you explain how little respect you have for his work and that you consider being compared to him a huge insult.
> ...



The plumber, being highly in demand, will probably tell you where you can stick your pipe before he departs.

Perhaps it's time to concede that great musicians are artists/creative interpreters/important partners in music creation, and that maybe your take on it was slightly flawed or poorly expressed?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 3, 2010)

Narval, without wanting to sound patronizing or nasty, you really need to go to a good orchestral concert, put up your antennae, and just let yourself feel what's going on.

Or if you believe it's all instructions in the score and the conductor, go to two different conductor-less chamber music concerts where they play the same piece and listen to how different they are. 

Or just go listen to two different string quartets playing, say, the same late Beethoven quartet on iTunes. Thirty seconds should be more than enough to hear what your statements lead me to believe you're missing.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jun 3, 2010)

While I think it's going too far to say that performers add no creativity to a performance, it's orders of magnitude less than the creativity provided by the performer (particularly in orchestral music which is what this discussion seems to mainly be about).

Will two performances of the same piece sound different? Sure, but to a very small degree compared to how similar they are. Of course performers are artists and highly skilled and important. But in the list of things they contribute to the end result, "creative" is generally going to be fairly low.


----------



## Narval (Jun 3, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 03 said:


> Let me ask this: how many violinists have plumbers' ass cracks sticking out of their pants?


I get your intention, very considerate. You probably don't have much respect for people like chimuelo, do you?

Let me answer your question this way: the ass crack in the plumber's pants is likely to make him do a less good job about as much as a similar crack missing from the violinist's pants contributes to a better performance. Not to mention that that crack's absence also ensures creativity.


----------



## George Caplan (Jun 3, 2010)

are good plumbers harder to find than good violinists?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 3, 2010)

Narval @ Thu Jun 03 said:


> Mike Connelly @ Thu Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > And if you ever need to hire a plumber, before he starts a job I recommend you explain how little respect you have for his work and that you consider being compared to him a huge insult.
> ...



Narval and Mike,

you are more off than you ever think. Because I happened to work with my hands a lot in my life, for example in a mechanical workshop for quite a time before my studies, and later even had an own small but commercial workshop for electronics. I have probably tightened more screws in my life than you have written notes. And if you ever would ask one of my co-workers of that time about my attitude you would not post such silly statements about me having no respect for craftsmen and hand-working people. You simply try to foist that on me in the attempt to damage my credibility in this thread - which is a cheap shot.

But since I have actually _worked _in a number of professions - worked in the sense of really earning money with it and not just excrete some theoretical blabla - I am able to tell about the differences between an artistic and a non-artistic profession. One is not necessarily better than the other, even less for everybody. But to be a professional musician demands an engagement on totally different layers. And creativity, or you will sound like a parrot, no matter what you play. If you should have missed both these observances so far ... every more comment is in vain anyways.


----------



## Narval (Jun 3, 2010)

Hannes, suppose you're on stage playing a symphony by Beethoven. Would you call your contribution to it as a violinist: creative? If so, please point to me, what exactly would make your contribution - creative? What would make it more creative than the "creative contribution" of the violinist on your right side? And what would make it less creative?

Here is how I see it: On that stage, you are supposed to be doing what's written (or assumed) in the score, also what the conductor cues you or has instructed you at the rehearsals. That's all. And that is not creative. It is artistic, it requires skills and aesthetic sensitivity and many other fine qualities, but no creativity. You can be creative with your own music, as a composer, or as an improviser. But you are not supposed to be creative as a violin player in a Beethoven's symphony. Remember, you either execute it, or you execute it. :wink: 

Now, I will say it again, hoping that you will understand my meaning: Players are construction workers and not architects. Workers are not creators.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jun 4, 2010)

Kinda late to the party for this thread... interesting for a while. But pragmatism wins the day. Saving 100+ salaries on a symphonic orchestra and replacing them with excellent samples makes obvious commercial sense. Replacing 1 composer (ok with a couple of assistants) with a computer... even in theory... is nowhere near such a big a deal.

And when it comes to scoring to picture... understanding a scene's subtext... making the left-brained decisions composers make every second.... it's comparing apples and oranges. There's much less imperative to drive this.

That said, a computer composed trance track.... how hard can THAT be?!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 4, 2010)

Is this the silliest argument in VI-C history or just in the top five?


----------



## JohnG (Jun 4, 2010)

Hannes_F @ 3rd June 2010 said:


> ...excrete some theoretical blabla...



This may be my favourite quotation of all time, so to that extent, this thread is well worth it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 4, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 04 said:


> Is this the silliest argument in VI-C history or just in the top five?



I wouldn't have missed it for the world. By the way, who's on first.


----------

