I've debated for a long time about whether to talk about today's topic. I generally like to post things that I genuinely feel are really great aspects of music, but today's topic is something that I am fascinated by, but also quite uneasy about at the same time.
The video today is a lecture from TED.com again. It involves a project in which the performance of a song is separated from its recording. Confusing? It's a new way of thinking about music and what we mean when we refer to "music" (the ontology of music is a whole area of philosophy that I won't bother going into now, but maybe another post some time...). The idea is that instead of capturing a specific recording with mics, or writing down specific notes on paper, another way (and supposedly a better way) to capture music is to digitize the actual keystrokes, how hard a piano is struck, and how far the pedals are pushed down etc. In other words, it captures all the personal choices that performers make, and turns it into digital information.
With that information, an instrument, and a computer... theoretically you can make the computer play the instrument exactly like the original artist , thereby enabling the listener to truly experience the piece as it was played.
Now the question is: are you really listening to the original artist? Or anything resembling what musicians actually do when you listen to them play live? Or is it missing something?
I am torn about this. I think it's unfair to immediately dismiss this, because we have some precedent for this in the music world. When recordings came out, people were fascinated, but also scoffed at the idea. When CD's were invented and recordings shifted from analog to digital, people also thought it lost something. Finally, when mp3's further compressed the sound, some people were uneasy as well. While all these criticisms are totally correct in their points of argument, it's also true that the majority of the public has transitioned, and it has changed the way we experience and listen to music (I realize that just because lots of people are okay with it, it doesn't make it right...but if people enjoy it, then arguably it's still doing what music is supposed to do in the first place).
That being said though, I do feel like this still fails to capture what he claims - the "spirit" of the musician. Being a musician myself, I know that playing music in front of people involves more than just the notes I play, the strength and lengths of the notes I play.. in fact, it involves more than me, my music, and my instrument. Playing in front of people involves a dialogue with the audience, much like a conversation. Depending on the mood of the crowd, my mood, the room, the mood of those I am playing with... it all changes. The people conducting this project don't seem to understand that, and it frightens me that they are thinking ahead to the point where they think they can play/compose a piece of music in place of the actual composer/player.
Either way though, an interesting thing to ponder, lots to think about. Let me know what you think!
I fully agree that this isn't a replacement for a live performance, but I think you should be comparing it against an studio recorded track. When an artist is in the studio, they don't have an audience to dialogue with, and more often than not they're not playing the whole piece anyway, they're playing bits and pieces, dubbing in small fills, overlaying bits, going back and correcting notes here and there.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the reasons that people are willing to shell out money to see an artist live, even though they already have all of their albums and most live performances aren't as "good" (read:polished) as the studio albums. Of course, there's the thrill of being in the same room as the artist, but (for me at least) a big part of it is the feeling that the music itself is more real, more "alive".
On a slight tangent, I was reading an article on Michael Jackson's influence on the music industry. One of the interesting things that this article mentioned is that, in a way, he can be blamed for the fact that most pop artists today lipsync in concert. Because he was able to perform amazingly choregraphed dance routines live on stage, and still sound almost as good as he did on the album, we came to expect that of pop stars. Most of them can't even come close (If you ever hear what most pop stars actually sound like on stage, they're puffing and panting from doing all the dancing, and missing words because they're too busy thinking about the next dance step), so they have to lip sync. Sort of a tangent, but an interesting one, and since everyone is suddenly in love with MJ again since his death, I figured I'd mention it.
Oh, I totally agree with you that it is best compared to a studio recording. Which is why I compared the idea to the advancement of digital recordings etc.
ReplyDeleteThe part that I have a problem with is that he claims that it "captures" the spirit of the musician, and that he thinks the ultimate advancement of this technology would be to write songs that artists never finished etc... and I think that's claiming way too much.
Interesting theory on MJ and lipsyncing though. I think there's probably some truth to that.