Computer Generated Music Composition

[ProEtContra]

With today's virtual instruments, audio editing programs...there's no limit...
But what's about Composing music, how to create new song/melody/theme...? Composing music with computers is almost norm? Pro Et Contra?

Today's "composing music" is - almost - manipulation by combining and mixing with already exiting loops and patterns.
But, what's about the melody, tune...???
It's not too simple, so, why shouldn't we accept the help of IT?
Probably, you'll be surprised by the amount of software that you will find: Apple Computer's GarageBand software, Classical Music Composer, Easy Music Composer, FlexiMusic Composer, Fractal Music Composer, Jump, Magix Music Maker, Virtual Music Composer,... Yes, all these programs compose new music. And really important notice:
they doesn't require any special knowledge or/and skills of composition. Just click a couple of buttons and listen to the music, new songs. And it belongs to you!...

 

[ProEtContra]

Computer Generated Music

It wasn’t a long time ago, with the appearance of computers...
"...computers will never defeat humans in the game of chess..."
"...Robert Moog: a dangerous anarchist out to destroy music as we know it..."
There's no area of art, science... that hasn't been compared in this or any other similar way.
Now, try to imagine musicians today who had never used the computer or chess analysis without comp assistance or...

So what is my point here you ask?

A couple of days ago, I have started in this, as well as in some other popular and well visited forums, a new thread titled "Computer Generated Music Composition". The topic for general discussion was a question "Pro Et Contra" on subject: programs for virtual composing / virtual music composers.

Too often the feedback is the same as in the sentences above mentioned... or none as you can see...

So, do we have to wait again for several more years before we admit to ourselves that computers have become an inevitable and helpful tool while composing music. Whether we like it or not, it is reality.
The human touch will never be replaced, but that does not neccessarily mean that it can not be pushed and helped by IT. IT can do it also!

Probably you'll say now: He's one of them (developer, author...). Yes, I'm one of them. But, I have never mentioned any fact which would point to it. So, it is not an advertising. I'm just curious about this topic...

 

[dir]

pardon me for i can't understand a single word yo

it's like spam mail but with more ellipsis

 

[alshit]

I guess this is something that only computer musicians would understand and feel for...

Virtual instruments are cool, you can even get them for free and they sound good, but they could never replace the feel that the real instruments have.They are just a simulation of the real instrument and they require learning curve too. I have to disagree that these programs doesn't requires any musical knowledge and skills.For example Native Instrument's Reaktor 5, I bet most people don't even know how to make a sound out of it.

I guess even though times have change but real musicianship is still the main requirement for making music.

 

[luke-chen]

Hi Pro, I think you might find more like-minded peeps at the electro-music.com forum...

Oops...I see you have already posted there...nice

 

[digihub00]

no value at all

IT and computers had killed the music business

 

[Cheez]

It's pretty obvious that we cannot get away from computers as tools. Saying there's "no limit" is also an understandment. Computers are getting more and more powerful, but it can never replace real players.

I believe we've discussed a similar topic like this in the past, but it's good to bring it up again.

Pros:
1. Powerful computers = lots of possibilities. RAM getting cheaper, CPU getting faster. Multi-core processing etc. We can do things we cannot imagine just a few years ago.

2. Fast development. Just less than 10 years ago, sampling technology is just about starting to move from hardware into software. 2001, I got my first software sampler - Gigasampler (version 1), the first ever disk streaming software. Revolutionary at that time. Today, almost every sampler you find does disk streaming with GBs of samples. The first version of Gigasampler I got was only 64 note polyphony. Today we are talking about unlimited polyphony, limited only by the power of the computer. Also, today we are talking about hybird sampler/modelling synths, no longer pure samplers. Pure sampling technology is old stuff today - and getting boring.

For other softsynths (non-sampler based), it's interesting how we are moving backwards to emulate the old analog synths more and more. Ground-breaking new sounds are there, but not revolutionary. It takes a few people like Eric Persing from Spectrasonics to come up with exciting stuff like the much anticipated Omnisphere. But many out there are just...another softsynth.

3. Ease of use. It doesn't take an expert to figure out how to use the software out there. That doesn't necessary mean the person will make good music - skill is still involved whether you like it or not. It also takes less time to write music with the appropriate tools.

4. Accessibility. A few aspects here. (a) Easy access to sounds otherwise inaccessble without coughing up $$$. Eg: 10 years ago, when I write an orchestral piece, there's no way to realise it short of getting real performers. If I write for a full orchestra, it's not going to be easy or cheap to employ all the players in an orchestra. Hardware has limitations - polyphony, realism etc. Now, a full orchestra sits in my hard-drive - or should I say a few orchestras. (b) Easy access to sounds via internet. In the past, you'll find almost zero developer offering downloadable versions of their products. Now, we see more and more offering downloads.

Cons:
1. Replacing the real deal. Yes, it will fool the average listener. But not everyone. No matter how realistic samples are, you can tell it's not the real deal. A violin is a violin. You can get close, but it will never beat a real player. No matter how great softsynths are, analog purist will tell you it doesn't beat the hardware analog. There's something in the hard-wiring of the hardware analog gears that gives their characteristic sound.

2. Live playing. While I can probably fool 90% of the people with, say the Prominy LPC so they think I'm playing a real Les Paul, on the stage, people would rather see a real guitarist. Stage presence...

My conclusion - it is a tool. An execellent tool. Indispensable even. But it will never ever take away the real player.

 

[dirtchamber700]

no value at all

IT and computers had killed the music business

please explain.

 

[digihub00]

please explain.

music downloads and mp3 killed the music stores

music software and virtual instruments killed the business

etc

 

[dir]

well that's one way to look at it

 

[gutturalpiss]

music was never meant for business anyway so who cares, ja?

 

[digihub00]

music was never meant for business anyway so who cares, ja?

oh yeah? no business? no competition, no progress?

 

[gutturalpiss]

Certainly. If music were born out of greed for wealth, fame and the sort, things would've turned out differently. There was no competition or progress in the equation to start out with. People made music because it felt good. People entertained because it felt good. Most of the time there was no compensation, but it didn't matter, because it felt good.

 

[persentio]

I guess this is something that only computer musicians would understand and feel for...

Virtual instruments are cool, you can even get them for free and they sound good, but they could never replace the feel that the real instruments have.They are just a simulation of the real instrument and they require learning curve too. I have to disagree that these programs doesn't requires any musical knowledge and skills.For example Native Instrument's Reaktor 5, I bet most people don't even know how to make a sound out of it.

I guess even though times have change but real musicianship is still the main requirement for making music.

Not true.

Take a look at Eastwest softwares and the astoundingly authentic sounding demos using just their virtual instruments. Especially Ministry of Rock. It empowers people without the playing experience to create great mock ups or even whole commercial pieces using any instrument sampled.

 

[widdly]

music downloads and mp3 killed the music stores

music software and virtual instruments killed the business

oh yeah? no business? no competition, no progress?

hah?

Isn't an online music store a buisness?

Isn't a music software company a buisness?

Isn't competition and progress what caused online music stores to replace bricks and mortar music stores?

Isn't competition and progress what caused virtual instruments to replace hardware instruments?

 

[Cheez]

Virtual instruments can sound pretty real. I use them in all my music. East West is good, not the best. But alshit is not wrong in saying there's a learning curve. These are still tools. Tools need to be honed to get the best out of it. Without applying proper technique and having understanding of the instrument, it will still sound mediocre. On the other hand, a bad sounding sample in the hands of an expert orchestrator will sound incredibly real. Sequencing is an art - requires technique. So is music arrangment and composition. It's not just press record button and record. It's much more than that.

I've heard people who use EW and VSL products etc - top notch and expensive, and still come up with music that sounds like a PC. I've also heard some who uses unknown samples that are really old, and you have a hard time telling if it was real. The difference is in technique. When sequencing drums, for example, I must think like a drummer (ie 2 hands and 2 feet, not 10 fingers). Demos on sample sites are all done by pros. Many people complain that after purchase, they can't get the same results. That's not surprising.

 

[widdly]

+1 for what cheez said.

Check out this page for some tunes using samples from four objects: “CB Candle Light Holder”, “Box with Matches”, “Mexican Coke” and a regular “Waterbottle”

Music from a random image

It's all about talent.

 

[pf]

Wow widdly...that blogger's amazing!

Very difficult for computers to take over human in music fully. Coz they can't do live like this http://YouTube - Love and Laughter Part 1 - Hiromi and YouTube - Love and Laughter Part 2 - Martin Valihora
I enjoy music. But I also enjoy watching people enjoying themselves in music. The chemistry involved is just awesome.

 

[gutturalpiss]

When you come to think about it, both camps are masters of their trades in their own rights. In the end, if the music is good, the music is good. I mean, you don't have to purposely try to "figure out" if it's "real or not".

If someone can make a sampled drum track sound really acoustic, it's because he has a good foundation on dynamics and probably an equivalent period of experience with acoustic drumming.

 

[Cheez]

There are 3 types of samples. The loop based - which an entire phrase of a real instrument/group of instruments are being sampled (rather recorded) in a way it can be looped continually. This requires little skills in sequencing - mainly cut and paste work. The second is phrase-based - of which a phrase is sampled but not necessarily able to be looped (ie a "riff" is being recorded).

The other is multisamples - an instrument is sampled note by note. The work here rest on the person who sequence. Without sufficient understanding of the instrument and skill in sequencing, the instrument will not sound real and the music mediocre. For example, somebody can easily take up a violin multisample and sequence a fast track playing alternate tremelo of C and F. But if he knows how a violin work, he will know that playing that is going to be a feat. He needs basic understanding of the positions of the fingers on the violin, the limitations, the note range of the violin etc. Same with all other instruments.

So for drums, while a loop based track is already completed work, a multisample drum needs lots of work. The person sequencing needs to play note for note in real time. That's when it becomes tricky. I can play complex drum tracks with 10 fingers flying all over the place, but a drummer only has 2 hands and 2 feet. I need to think like a drummer, even though I'm playing fast. Without some understanding of drums (and trying it out myself), I'll write something that to a drummers ears, sound wierd. I've heard a number of songs over the radio that's obviously done by people who doesn't know drums - hi-hat continuing being striked robotically while the snare, toms and everything are going all over the place. A drummer needs 3-4 hands to accomplish that!