|
|
|
Computer Music vs. Classical
by Silvia Francesca Maglione
In the last decades, technology has advanced at a constant and rapid rate. Computers are able to do things that have always been attributed solely to the possibilities of human beings; such as composing music.
Lately, some programs are able to “create” music through a predefined algorithm (entered by a human), and they’re even able to use heavy counterpoint. There are two main types of computer music: the one composed by humans but generated through computers, and the one composed and performed by computers.
However, computer music is not the only one based on math. Classical composers have always canalized mathematics into their music, though some might argue that they utilized it in a more rudimental way than computers do. The canon for instance is pure mathematics, and was first introduced more than five centuries ago. Nowadays, modern synthesizers are able to produce sounds that instruments physically cannot produce. Furthermore these synthesizers can imitate very well the traditional instruments and human voice’s sound. Computers have a scrupulous accuracy for beats, tempo and dynamics, while human performers might somehow personalize an execution with mistakes and tempo changes.
On the other hand, humans performers can donate something more to music; emotion. This is the difference between Art and Science: the indeterminacy of certain parameters that establish the beauty of itself. There is something charming and mysterious about music, that is not mathematics, that is not the instrument with which is produced, and that communicates deeply with our emotions. There is no algorithm to express feelings.
Nevertheless, computer music is still in its infancy, and in the coming years we will have further proof of what they can or cannot do. May computer music surpass one day human instrumental music?
The views and opinions in this blog post are those of its author.
|
|
|
User comments:
|
 I think that no matter what, there will be recorded classical music. No matter what, even if computer music sounds surpass the human players, purely becuase there are musicians to play that music, if the world ran out of musicians, then yeah, we would use computers for music |
Posted by mahmood_195 on June 6th, 2006 @ 4:20 am GMT |
| | Once more Silvia wrote a great article,exploring the two faces of the topics but the answer is on the edge.The charming and mysterious can be (partially) analyzed with computer. For example what makes a clarinettist different from another is the minute irregularity in the fingering. Funny,it was the way to play in baroque period.Ben is right technology can foul the ear ,not the soul that vibrates with human imperfection.Besides mathematics ,mysticism or at least philosophy has always been the foundation of arts |
Posted by Doc on April 26th, 2006 @ 6:27 pm GMT |
| | Hi Silvia,
I remember the early attempts at synthesised music such as Bach on the Moog synthesiser which came out in the sixties at the same time as Jaques Lucier's 'Play Bach' album. The Moog is now regarded as a "classic" among synthesisers but, compared to Lucier's seminal jazz-on-baroque album, in which the human art of improvisation enriched and enhanced the original score, probably much as JSB would himself have done, there is no competition.
While precision of pitch and tempo are skills to be admired, the almost mystical experience of being transported in the living organic flow of "The Music" is something no machine, irrespective of how sophisticated, can ever know or communicate. I have heard well regarded classical musicians sound like machines/computers but I know I will never experience a computer being able to generate the depth of humaness heard in, for example, a Glen Gould performance.
There is a definite communion between the vibrations of a real insrtument, for example the beautiful matured woods of a fine violin, and the human ear and therefore soul. In a recording, no matter how excellent, the limitations of technology stand between the living vibrations of strings bowed by an artist in a near trance state and the listeners ear. At that point the illusionist with the computer or a computer itself might be able to step in and fool the ear, but fooling the soul? I think not.
Live music lives, it can be copied but the musical soul will always know the counterfeit from the true source.
Ben Edom |
Posted by ben7string on March 19th, 2006 @ 11:36 am GMT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
