droddey


I said nothing about composing. I was talking about performance, what you hear on the record. I don't care if you use a string synth if you can't afford a string section, but you shouldn't expect to have the same respect for your work (as a performance) if you type it in vs actually play it.

The quality of the *composition* is a completely different thing. Everyone knows that many great classical composers suffered over their compositions and rewrote and corrected them extensively.  It's not a performance, and unless you are Mozart it's generally a heavily edited piece of work, with multiple revisions, and everyone knows that. It's equivalent to writing a book.

But NONE of them sat down with a player piano and tried to pawn it off as them actually playing the piece. And none of them used a piece of software to write their harmonies or melodies and then pawned them off as their own composition.

And again, I have no problem with obviously artificial music. The problem I have is with people putting forward music that is ostensibly played by them, when they are actually using modern tools to create something they couldn't themselves reproduce.  And not just that, but the casual indifference with which people do it now, where they don't even consider that may they could actually learn to play and put in the work to do so.  Where every pop song you hear on the radio is incredibly edited and manipulated, not in the sonics enhancing way but in the making the performance inhumanly accurate way, though it is often clearly being presented as recorded peformances of real humans. At the very least the vocal performance is assumed to be a real human, but the vocal's are often the most edited and corrected.
 

Sure, they didn't, but to put a disclaimer - every time a "synthetic" piece is put out is ridiculous. How about this: 


"Though it sounds like a real piano (due to enhancement), it is not. I wish I had one though!" That sounds stupid though you've admitted it.


Again, you seem to be one who gets too hung up on humans playing what's in the speakers and apparently to does the rest of the audience as they'll tar and feather you if you lip-synch during a live performance. I'll admit I'm guilty of falling in love with the recording, but that is from a production standpoint (a completely different animal) and I fall in love with my compositions as well, but I don't get too hung up on actual humans playing. Do I think what it would sound like if it happened? Yes. This is no different than a composer who hears music/words in his or her heads and puts them to whatever canvas available to them; however, that is completely different as opposed to having that dictate what it is you end up writing.


May some things need to be changed? Absolutely! I've got some what would be considered complicated harp parts; however, I don't necessarily need to rip up what I've already written. Repetition? Split it between two harps or one and another instrument. Is it too hard in terms of movement? Again, write for another instance or one that complements it.


Regarding "Authenticity"


It is unnecessary to put that footnote every time your song comes on. That would be insulting the listener's intelligence if you did and the listener would be ignorant to think so!


T-Pain, you actually sound like that? No, I do not. (whether he decides to dive into what was done is his choice) Especially, when you hear him give an interview. However, no matter how saturated his voice is due to the effect, it is still he who is singing! This goes for everybody else who uses it and/or will use it!

But you are embarking on the old argument of: What makes a musician? This word's meaning has changed as has the root of it, but you know that; therefore, I needn't go further.

I also find it odd that some try to separate composition from performance. Believe it or not, performance is where composition comes from.

How can I compose if I don't imagine how the performance will turn out - no matter how perfect it sounds? Why not because it sounded perfect in my head! I realize sitting at your DAW where you can hear what you write, but that's no different than sitting at the piano or on your bed with a guitar. 

This is very akin to PBE players who are scared of music theory because "You can't tell me what to do!" or sight-readers who are scared of improvisation because they should "Do what they're told!"

Performers are scared of composition due to their complexity OR simplicity (hmm?) (in whatever form it might be) where as composers are scared of performance because it may not turn out like they heard it. However, I think composers know that performances do change; therefore, we are the ones who have to adapt the compositions. All performers have to do is follow our instructions. We have alot more to think about than they do and we were doing that way before we came to them. Yet, compositions change all the time, too. Mine have changed and will continue to change, but not because I've placed a human behind the instrument (even if I do apply personification when writing). For me, that is the biggest mistake any composer can make!

An Example:

I wrote this awesome bass line, but while listening, I imagined Danny playing it and came to the conclusion that this won't work because he can't or shouldn't do it.

OR

I wrote the same bass line as I wanted and asked him if he could do it. Based on his response, I may or may not revise it or he'll help me tailor it, so we're both happy. It ends up comfortable for him in terms of fingering/movement, but its identity is not sacrificed - despite not being exactly how I wrote it (and I may have changed it a buttload of times before asking him.)

Which one limits me? Which one doesn't?

It's not what you used whether it "belongs" to you or not (human drummer vs. loops), but it's the identity it gains depending on how it's used when it's used.

Recorded music has a different identity than live music - that's what makes them unique. Put these two together and there's another unique identity! Composing/compositions have theirs as does performance/performing, but put them together and you have something else altogether.

Arrangements consist of two compositions - the one that has the central idea and the other surrounding ones. Put them together and the central idea is something different altogether.

Real bass (actual) and a sampled one. Separately, they have their own identities, but together ... 

Saturation of one over the other may be a problem sound wise, but I'm not talking about sound. I'm talking about ideas! This is what creativity is all about whether it's ground-breaking or been done ad nauseum! Limited creativity is still creativity!

Rus W
Sure, they didn't, but to put a disclaimer - every time a "synthetic" piece is put out is ridiculous. How about this: 
 

I never said anything like that. Obviously I didn't intend that every time someone releases a song that they make such comments. I assumed that everyone here is intelligent enough to realize that isn't practical. But have you ever seen an interview with an artist, for either public consumption or for industry consumption, where he said something like, "Well, we used a lot of editing, auto-tune, and timing correct on this album because we just couldn't play the parts"?
 
I doubt seriously you have, but everyone knows perfectly well it's going on all the time. That's what I'm talking about.

"Though it sounds like a real piano (due to enhancement), it is not. I wish I had one though!" That sounds stupid though you've admitted it.

Again, I said nothing of the sort. I made it clear that it doesn't matter if you have a real piano or not, in terms of respect, though it may matter in terms of the sonic quality of the result. If you don't have one you don't have one. If you play the part and what I hear on the record is the part you actually played, then I'm happy on this front. If what I hear on the record is actually you recording the MIDI and then laboriously tweaking it until it sounds like youc an play a lot better than you actually can, then I'm not so happy.
 
 
And I don't have a problem at all if someone who is clearly a good musician or vocalist does a killer take and flubs one note, and fixes that note in order to keep the really killer take. That is CLEARLY something being done in reasonable good faith. There's a common tendancy in discussions on this subject for people to disallow that at some point a difference degree becomes a difference in kind. The fact that someone might fix a single note, or that back in teh 70s people would comp parts on tape, doesn't in any way relate to the kind of manipulation that's going on today. It's a difference in degree that definitely becomes a difference in kind, and the two aren't equivalent, and one having happened doesn't make the other in any way right or natural.
 

+1 on Perception

Not to derail ...

Audience perception vs. artist (producer, composer, arranger, etc.) must be 'factored' in ... for us hobbyists at least :):):):)

The difference btw audience and artist perception is great!  But how do I know if I'm 10 years ahead of my time (like VanGogh probably didn't). 

I suppose if VanGogh became an instant hit, he would have adapted to the mediocre performances ... like the has-beens of his day.

But yes, bonafide perceptions (if there be such a thing) ... seem to be a key to musical beauty, IMHO.

In hip-hop, the false claps and cher-robotics ... while enticing and oft romantic ... are equally quirky in some artist and audience perceptions.  The fact is ... they are loved by many artists and audiences, though ... so such perceptions seem wonderful and valid for music per se ... worth learning even, IMHO.