Perception of others

[Richard N.]

I lent one of my live brass and JABB rhtyhm section cd's to a musician friend, and received a positive review from him, with one exception - "You must get a real drummer, I can't stand drum machines".

Now I recorded all the drum parts "live", playing them into Sonar on a midi keyboard, with only a small amount of tweaking - no quantizing. So all the dynamics and rhythmic placements were human. Also, having posted a couple of tracks off the cd in the Listening Room, I received quite a few positive comments particularly concernign the drumming.

I can only assume that because I credited JABB and Sonar in the CD liner my friend, not being acquainted with the world of sampling and DAW recording, assumed that because I used a computer, the drums must have been sequenced and his knee jerk reaction as "a musician" was to baulk against the idea of drum machines.

I'm going to lend the same CD to another musician friend but delete any reference to computers and samples on the CD liner and see if I get a different reaction.

I also get similar reactions when I produce a Finale score at rehearsal - because it is prepared on computer they assume that the computer has generated all of the arrangement/orchestration and all I had to do was print it off.

Does anyone else experience this sort of reaction from people who don't understand the role of computers as tools in music preparation?

[DDW]

I've occasionally had the same reaction to Finale scores; some people assume anything musical created WITH a computer was created BY the computer; all WE had to do was sit back with some donuts and a cup of coffee and wait for the computer to spit it out at our feet. Even after what I think is a pretty clear explanation of the process, STILL they will insist it's somehow less legitimate.

Publishers and especially composition contest rules committees are still at least somewhat resistant to accepting sampled instrument libraries as "real" instruments. They assume the old general midi standard to still be the current paradigm of music software sounds. From what I've experienced, school band composition contests in particular make it very clear: "live" recordings only.

I think, though, that this is understandable, given the relative newness of music technology. It's inherent in our nature to be at least a little fearful and distrusting of anything that's a radical departure from what was -- for literally centuries -- the norm. It will just take time for acceptance and understanding to reach full bloom in the collective consciousness of the general public, and we will eventually experience a full "paradigm shift".

[Pingu]

I experience the ignoarance you're talking about every day. My head of department is easily the world's most ignorant, and openly discourages anyone with any musical talent from taking my music tech course, telling them they're more suited to a 'proper' music course. I also have to tolerate his constant attempts at interference, based on the very few snippets he picks up from friends. I decided to use Cubase as the DAW for my course, but that nearly became Sibelius, when he overheard a friend mention that Sibelius was an industry standard. He came into school the next day convinced that I must not know what I was on about. It took me the best part of a year to persuade him that there is more than one type of music software, and that we didn't want a notation package.

On the other hand I find that sampled drums are the easiest part of a mock-up to spot, even when they're played live. I think it's probably because you're triggering the same few samples over and over. Even with all the mod-wheel shaping in the world those samples are going to become very familiar. Whereas with a pitched instrument you're going to be triggering each pitch far less frequently, possibly in round robin, and then shaping it with the wheel as well - the illusion lasts a bit longer, so long as you don't do anything too exposed.

Ironically we tend to sample the pitched instruments much more heavily, believing it will add to the realism. For instance, there is a belief that round robin is necessary with pianos. I think it's nonsense. Having heard a player piano roll which triggered the same note repeatedly, at the same velocity, I can tell you that you actually do get the machine-gun effect on a real piano. The only reason that you don't in an actual performance is that a pianist never does use exactly the same velocity twice. So 127 velocity layers would be great, but there's no need for round robin.

Whereas, with a percussion instrument, you can hit it twice with exactly the same velocity, and actually get two different sounds. So a really deep round robin seems much more necessary on the percussion, IMHO. But velocity layers are no less necessary - the colour of a cymbal changes more than any other instrument I can think of with minimal changes of dynamic.

Basically I think I'm saying your friend might genuinely have spotted the fakery, rather than simply assuming that JABB was a drum machine. Maybe you should do the same track with something like BFD, or DFHS, and tell your friend that you've replaced the drum machine with a live drummer - see if he spots it then.

[trimpe]

Publishers and especially composition contest rules committees are still at least somewhat resistant to accepting sampled instrument libraries as "real" instruments. They assume the old general midi standard to still be the current paradigm of music software sounds.
And that is one of the reasons I started my own publishing company. Sure, I may not have the international reknown of a Hal Leonard, but the company letterhead is just as nice!~|

[nikolas]

This is the very well known perception of all Greek peers: You show them something and it automatically sucks, because they have something better to offer.

I did have much joy when I played a live orchestra recording and mentioned it was samples! Oh the joy! :D (It was a bad recording actually, but never mind).

No matter what you do, no matter who you are, there always needs to be the critisism! The heavy one! In fact it is funny most of the time.

I mean you turn 30 (my own example, since I'm 30), you go to someone who simply plays the piano and show him a score. He goes how he would actually cut the whole first half and start from the fast movement(!):wow: I tell him that I want him to play, not to change my piece to 1/2... Then I get an American one who is glad and I'm glad and we are working fine together! :D

[bmdaustin]

From what I've experienced, school band composition contests in particular make it very clear: "live" recordings only.

I think, though, that this is understandable, given the relative newness of music technology. It's inherent in our nature to be at least a little fearful and distrusting of anything that's a radical departure from what was -- for literally centuries -- the norm. It will just take time for acceptance and understanding to reach full bloom in the collective consciousness of the general public, and we will eventually experience a full "paradigm shift".

The reason I've been given for requiring "real" instruments, particularly from publishers, is that they are aware that computers can "play" passages that live people can't, particularly if those people are still in middle or high school. They dont' want to accept a piece for publication, go to all the trouble of putting it onthe market, only to find that it doesn't sell a single copy because the parts aren't within the abilities of the intended players. I suspect that will be the case for some time to come, regardless of how good we make our submissions sound with computers - that's not the point.

[bmdaustin]

In response to the OP, jazz drums are REALLY difficult to get truly authentic. There's just too much subtlety involved - I know, who would ever think of putting the words drums and subtlety in the same sentence :). A good jazz drummer is known for his "feel" and flexibility, how he interacts with the rest of the band. It's the lack of this interaction that leads knowledgeable listeners to notice what the drummer's NOT doing, instead of what he is doing. Ons of the things that confounds me the most is that the better live bass players rarely play "bass parts" as I know them, and live drummers never play "drum patterns". They actually make music in response to the rest of the ensemble. I don't know what they're thinking ~|

[Tom_Davis]

Probably the most negative comment I received was a friend that after listening to several of my band projects said, "Well, it sounds great - I didn't realize computers could write that sort of thing. Do you have anything you've written yourself?"

[lunker]

"Well, it sounds great - I didn't realize computers could write that sort of thing. Do you have anything you've written yourself?"
How frustrating!

For what it's worth, I once "wrote" a music file without using a computer. As I recall, the piece started like this:

01101010100101001010010101010111010101010101001011 01010000001... ;)

[jeremy.saenz]

WHAT!!!! you mean nobody has ever used this button???
http://www.orangewebsolutions.com/kontakt.jpg

[Felixissimo]

WHAT!!!! you mean nobody has ever used this button???
http://www.orangewebsolutions.com/kontakt.jpg

LOL!!! )(~

[DDW]

The reason I've been given for requiring "real" instruments, particularly from publishers, is that they are aware that computers can "play" passages that live people can't, particularly if those people are still in middle or high school. They dont' want to accept a piece for publication, go to all the trouble of putting it onthe market, only to find that it doesn't sell a single copy because the parts aren't within the abilities of the intended players. I suspect that will be the case for some time to come, regardless of how good we make our submissions sound with computers - that's not the point.

That's true, Paul -- I definitely agree (I've heard some computer band pieces where the trumpet player didn't breathe for about thirty measures!). However, it's also the reason reputable publishers have a staff of editors; regardless of the sound source of the submitted recording, there are bound to be some idiomatic considerations that lead the editors to -- well, edit! That's their job. Usually, just a quick perusal of the score will alert a capabale editor of any substantial playability problems. I still think there's just a general stigma attached to using sampled libraries (the only avenue many of us have available), and also possibly a bit of an aura of elitism in play when it comes to some of the more established publishing companies. I think that will slowly change, though, as libraries like GPO and CMB become more commonplace with widespread use among worthy composers.

[Larry G. Alexander]

How frustrating!

For what it's worth, I once "wrote" a music file without using a computer. As I recall, the piece started like this:

01101010100101001010010101010111010101010101001011 01010000001... ;)

That is beautiful. Love the brass AND the string sections. What is its name? :)

Larry

[trimpe]

I still think there's just a general stigma attached to using sampled libraries (the only avenue many of us have available), and also possibly a bit of an aura of elitism in play when it comes to some of the more established publishing companies.
I'm very fortunate in that I have a number of bands that I write for at varying levels, anywhere from weak high school to Big Ten university. One of the ways that I have found to get around this issue is to offer them the piece for sight reading. Especially near the end of a school year or semester, you'll find that a lot of high school directors will be quite open to this. They tend to have less on their plate and the time to do it. You get to hear a live performance, and if it works out, who knows. They might be interested in programming it somewhere down the line. If nothing else, this is a quick way to at least get a basic recording out of it. Might not be ideal, but it is better than nothing.

[sosmus]

To make a short story very long, I will begin by saying that the gist of this entire thread is fascinating yet frustrating to one of my ilk. I also openly admit to a deep rooted bias that it is not possible to be a "complete" musician without the abilty to read, write and perform music.
We're "debating" the old 'man vs. machine' topic that began probably when man found he could beat on a log better with a stick than with his bare fist.

I learned to read music in elementary school, Bloomington, IL, ca. 1936. By the time I was in the 3rd grade, we knew key signatures and were singing in parts. By HS I had given up oboe to learn trombone because dance bands didn't use oboes. I became interested in arranging at 14 and by 16 was writing dance band arrts. for the local groups. I grew up using a pencil, music paper and LOTS of erasers. It was a big deal learning how to copy parts with ink.

My first introduction to computers was in 1998. I started with a MacSE, 9" screen, 1 MB and the very first FINALE 1. Trying to learn how to use a computer and FINALE at the same time just about did me in, but I persevered.

I have always used the computer as an advanced extension of my pencil, but I have never let the computer use me. My only purpose in using the computer has been for organization, clarity, playback for proofreading, archiving, etc. but I discovered very early that I cannot write any faster with my Mac than I can by hand. What I can do somewhat faster and better is print out parts, edit and as mentioned earlier, archive.
Coming from a background of playing in any ensemble that used trombones, I know what a score and parts should look like. Have you ever tried extracting the parts and just left it up to the computer to formulate those parts. AARRGGHH!!! As for breathing and phrase markings, does anyone know how to spell "pagination?"

It never entered my mind to try to fool people with 'sampled' sounds as I only make mp3s and CDs as demos or for rehearsals. I have no idea how a sequencer works. I do not know what a Sonar 6 even looks like. I think it is terrific that we all ARE different and use different methods and approaches. A colleague of mine used to say "wouldn't the world be a boring place if we all loved Beethoven?"

My point: What is the issue anyway? It seems we all have our individual aims and goals. While I am frustrated trying to learn all of this new gadgetry (and to get it to work properly), it does not deter me from being a "meat & potatoes" arranger and I will continue to enjoy, even more, writing for live players.

sos

[Richard N.]

Excellent replies - this is very interesting.

The my original point was the perception that people have of computers in music.

A straightforward comment along the lines of "I don't think much of the drumming on that track" I can take understand and try to address. My problem was that the listener saw that I had used a computer, then figured that using a computer meant I had used a drum machine, and then applied the logic that using a drum machine is bad and therefore he didn't like the drum part.

I have no chip on my shoulder about being criticised - I could easily pull apart any section of the recordings and point out bad intonation, balance, and bad piano, bass and drum playing - and I have never tried to pass off samples as "the real thing" but then what is "the real thing" when live and studio musicians use electronic keyboards, and electronic drum kits anyway??

[rolifer]

ROFL!!! )(~ )(~ )(~

I always use that button, but it doesn't seem to work on my version.

I assume I have to pay more to get it to work.

Ron


WHAT!!!! you mean nobody has ever used this button???
http://www.orangewebsolutions.com/kontakt.jpg

[rolifer]

As a substitute teacher, I always bring along a copy of some of my works and either play them for the students or I seek out the music teracher and give them a copy and ask for comments.

I have had a few music teachers ask me where do I get an orchestra to play my music, (these are usually Elementary school teachers).

Once I explain that I use a computer, I get the same response as many here. I didn't know that computers could compose music. UGH!!!

My mother is convinced that I whistle a tune near the computer and the computer orchestrates my little tune.

[jmc]

I'm convinced that most people just think that music appears magically, and they have absolutely no concept of how it comes to be.

Just explain that it's like using a word processor to realize a book. You still have to create the plot, characters, motivation etc. It's not as if the computer wrote the book. And then having a realistic voice read the document back. It's not like the human inflection you'd ordinarily get, but it's enough to get the idea.

Yeah, it's just like that... only different.

Wow, it IS like dancing about architecture, whadda ya know?

[DDW]

Couldn't afford the CAM ("create a masterpiece") version of K2....

http://www.dannywilliamsmusic.com/kjoke2.jpg

[rolifer]

Danny

That is the default button, right?

At least on my computer it is!!

lol

Ron

[vivmarsh]

Originally Posted by jmc
Just explain that it's like using a word processor to realize a book. You still have to create the plot, characters, motivation etc. It's not as if the computer wrote the book. And then having a realistic voice read the document back. It's not like the human inflection you'd ordinarily get, but it's enough to get the idea.

The trouble is, no-one ever reads a book and then says, "I really hate the font you've used: it makes the whole thing crap."
The worse your samples are, and the less skill you have at manipulating them, the thicker your skin must be. People don't seem able to imagine with their ears.
Who was it who said, "Fools and children should never see things before they're fini....