TubeNet

I've been spending some time at the Vienna Symphonic Library web ste:

http://www.vsl.co.at/index.html

A lot of the samples are darned impressive (I really like the rendition of Jupiter) and others have a way to go (e.g. Bydlo) before they'll fool me. In general, I found the sound overly "transparent" (not that I'm sure that it's a bad thing), but, for some clips, very convincing.

So, here are the questions.

1) Do you think this technology will displace conventional orchestras for things like movie soundtracks?

2)Would you consider buying a CD of a performance created using this technology?

Chuck(G),
I think (question #1) that this is probably an inevitable development.
Question #2-If I ever would buy one, I would have to hold my nose and have a big need for it.

So, who needs "American Idol"?

http://www.vocaloid.com/en/index.html

You can download a free trial version here:

http://www.zero-g.co.uk/index.cfm?articleid=802

Question #3: If you were a young stripling looking toward a music eduction as an avenue toward a professional career, would it be in your best interest to learn the mastery of this technology?

1. Eventually the technology will progress to the point where people can be as expressive with it as they are with instruments now. It will still require someone to express something, but with recording and other technological advances it may be possible to perform large-scale works with much fewer people. It may also be possible to re-create performances from previous time periods much more accurately than is possible now.

2. See No. 1

windshieldbug wrote:1. Eventually the technology will progress to the point where people can be as expressive with it as they are with instruments now. It will still require someone to express something, but with recording and other technological advances it may be possible to perform large-scale works with much fewer people. It may also be possible to re-create performances from previous time periods much more accurately than is possible now.

2. See No. 1

For some musical styles, I'd agree. But given that older musical styles are largely imitative (e.g. Haydn, Mozart), why not also mechanize the interpretive aspects?

And, unlike humans, computer-realizations have no practical lmits. So there is the prospect of composers writing parts that are impossible for humans to play.

From an objective standpoint, I think the possibilites are exciting.

These sound really good Chuck neat find thanks for sharing! I would definetly purchase a cd using this technology, It could be absolutely perfect and an exact mirror image of that which the composer wants or whoever it is that creates it.

edit to say also firebird finale sounds very nice synthetic style lol.

I guess I have to say I don't find the sound all that convincing. It's impressive that they can do what they do, but none of the tracks I listened to came close to the recordings I've got of real musicians.

Doug "who thinks there may be some neat possibilities, but would be very sad if technology in this state were used to replace live musicians"

Doug@GT wrote:I guess I have to say I don't find the sound all that convincing. It's impressive that they can do what they do, but none of the tracks I listened to came close to the recordings I've got of real musicians.

Doug "who thinks there may be some neat possibilities, but would be very sad if technology in this state were used to replace live musicians"

I'm not saying it's perfect or even close--but it's a heckuva lot better that what you could hear 5 years ago. (But then I didn't find the special effects in the last Star Wars flick very convincing, either)

What it is right now is impressive, considering that there's not a lot of high-buck corporate R&D behind it. Where will it be in 5 years?

There are a bunch of folks who are going to see nothing but negative in all of this. I'm not quite as cynical.

Consider, for a moment, a budding composer. First off, he has to know what's possible and/or desirable on all the instruments that he's going to use. Then, he's got to write his score within those parameters. And finally--and this is the hard part--he's got to find some way to get a real live orchestra to play his work.

What if, instead, the composer was freed from the constraints of the physical instruments and it was possible to produce a sound record of his work being performed without the necessity of hiring an orchestra?

It could mean a rennaissance for orchestral music--even if it didn't involve flesh-and-blood instrumentalists.

Chuck(G) wrote:And, unlike humans, computer-realizations have no practical lmits. So there is the prospect of composers writing parts that are impossible for humans to play.

Been there, done that. What you'd need are more creative composers.

Thanks for the link Chuck. Very interesting.

I listened to 'The Planets (Jupiter)' and 'MidsummerNight's Dream' and they are impressive. But the first thing I noticed is there is no vibrato -- not even the strings.

But the woodwinds actually sound better than live

A similar topic comes up in photography circles quite frequently. Digital photography and work flow has caused a number of film photographers to complain that the digital results are not as good, based on the fact that they are not the same.

As long as digital photography is expected to replace the characteristics of film photography, it will never measure up. But it might be possible for digital photography to excel at producing art in ways film can't, if it is allowed to be evaluated on its own merits.

The examples you have provided aren't quite as far along. We all still very much evaluate the electronic music according to how closely it sounds like acoustic instruments rather than whether the result is artistic on its own merits. Our perspective on the art (especially in a tuba forum) is dominated by our experience with analog acoustic instruments.

Do we master technique in order to be admired for our technique, or to serve our art? That is not a trivial question at all. I know photographers who use glass plates and uncoated lenses because they believe that struggling with the technology in the same ways that the pioneers of photography did will allow them to produce the same results. They believe that the resulting art reflects that struggle, and for them it may be true.

As long as electronic music is evaluated by how closely it imitates acoustic instruments, it will not be allowed to mature into its own art form if it can.

To me, trying to match acoustic instruments is an exercise either in simulation or in economics. The market will decide the latter, but people still hire photographers who know about light and composition, and they will still hire musicians who can make them feel as well as hear. That doesn't mean all currently working musicians will continue to be working, of course. That's a tough standard. But there are no longer professional sarrusaphone players, ophicleide players, or even violone players, outside the limited confines of historical groups. The tuba may well someday fall into the same category.

But there is usually a backlash against electronics at some point. Hence the popularity of the recent "unplugged" recordings of rock musicians. That backlash keeps acoustic instruments alive at some level. Why is there this backlash? I think it's because people want to feel the music, and often the electronic enhancements cover up the emotional content that can be felt.

The simulation aspects of electronic music imitating acoustic instruments might be helpful to young composers, as you mentioned. But I'm reminded of the aphorism, "All models are false, but some are useful."

And we should remember that comparing a digital image to film by viewing both on a computer monitor isn't really a fair comparison. Film was intended to be printed on chemical-process materials. When we scan it and display it on a monitor or print it on an Epson, we create a hybrid that changes the characteristics of the original medium, possibly in important ways. Thus, comparing recorded sounds from electronic sources with recorded acoustic orchestras undermines the comparison. The question is: Can the imitation stand up to scrutiny when compared to a live performance? That question has been around for as long as recordings have been available. In the current context of digital music, however, it's a matter of simulation quality rather than art.

In the early days, photography could not come into its own as art until it stopped trying to imitate painting and stood on its own as an art form. The same thing is happening again with digital photography, and it's happening with digital music.

No matter how good the simulation, can it match the accumulated musical sensibility of 75 performers? Being impressed and being moved are two different things. My fear is that fewer and fewer people are prepared to sensitize themselves enough to be moved by something subtle.

The whole issue can be summed up by looking at what electronic pianos have done to sales of real pianos. I suspect they have weeded out a lot of cheap pianos bought to actually play, and left the real piano market to furniture-grade junk and relatively high-end pianos for playing. The middle--for those who actually want to play but who can't afford a real piano--is the domain of the electronic keyboard. Digital pianos can sound good, but only when compared to recordings of real pianos.

Rick "blah, blah, blah" Denney

I think Rick's got it nailed.

Certainly, iIn the future, there will still be traidtional wire-and-brass-and-wood intstrumentalists, because there is a certain dimension to an "authentic" performance, no matter what the field is.

But let's keep in mind what digital photography is doing to the manufacturers of film and traditional cameras. I suspect that, for the vast utilitarian need for instrumental music for soundtracks and commericals, this technology will be dominant.

As far as the collected musicianship of 75 performers playing together, I'm of the opinion that at some level, a computer is a conductor's dream--just think of being able to execute a single musical concept. In some respects, I think the coherence of a musical idea is better exhibited by a quartet or quintet. Symphonic orchestra material reminds me of trying to marshall an army.

Vibrato in the VSL sound samples seems to be avilable if the operator thought to include it. But I noted a definite llack in several samples, also.

The Yamaha voice tool ,OTOH, automatically adds vibrato (but you can defeat it) if a note lasts for a certain lengh of time.

Too bad the demo only allows you to create 4 bars worth of sound; I'm not ready to spring $200 to see how good or bad it might be.

1) In some areas, I think it is here. Many churches, even those with full orchestras, tend to have soloist use the "trax." It's been used in television and radio for a long time. The Lone Ranger on radio, from the time it debuted in 1930, used recorded orchestra music as its soundtrack.

2) When I have played a solo in church, I use either a piano accompanish or a synthesizer accompanist. My answer is no.

A lady singer I met called her taped tracks "The Duracell Orchestra."