One of my classical music groups on Facebook is having a fascinating discussion on the future of classical music. Well, ok, both fascinating and frustrating, because we seem to keep going around in circles and extrapolating people's responses.
It started out with someone asking where classical music is headed, composition-wise. The OP (original poster) talked about the break down in conventions composition-wise in the twentieth century--structure, tonality, key signatures, etc. --and raised a somewhat contentious question--whether there are any more rules to "break" and room for innovation.
As you can imagine, this didn't go too far, since this isn't a terribly productive way to think about composing. As someone pointed out, if the point of a composition is to be reactionary, the result is likely to be uninteresting.
Then someone posed an interesting hypothetical. Suppose technology advances to the point of having computers or machines that are able to play instruments at a level exceeding human mastery. Composers could input their scores into a computer and produce the perfect orchestra sound to play their music.
Combine this with the recent trend of orchestras where people barely make living wages and more and more are getting cut due to budget difficulties.
Will this result in a time when performers become obsolete? Moreover, is a perfect performance engineered by computers preferable to one done by humans?
Only two people seem to take the extreme stance that a) this is an inevitable trend and some day, instrumentalists might not be needed, and b)if indeed, technology advances this far, then a computer-generated performance (assuming it can produce the levels of expression that we imbue in our performances) will be preferable to a live (human) performance.
Most of us find this--removing the human element out of music--unfathomable, but there are varying degrees of opinions from "Music is just sound waves. Some day, it will be possible to recreate the perfect musical experience via machine by punching in a few parameters--tempo, pitch, timbre, etc." to "No freaking way. Never."
I, for one, am on the "No freaking way" end of the spectrum. It's plausible that technology might develop to a point where a computer-generated orchestral sound sounds better than any live (human) orchestra, since one could program out any mistakes or squeaks, etc. However, even if one could program nuances and expression into this machine-generated music, I can't imagine preferring that over a live performance by live humans.
Music, if I were to reduce it down to a neat formula, is sound plus the expression. Expression can mean the feeling one puts into their music-making. It can mean the interaction between musicians, as in a quartet, or the interaction between conductor and instrumentalists. It can mean holding that rest fermata just a tad bit longer, if the musicians decide that the extra millisecond of a pause will make the room thick with tension. It is the way a musician interprets the music.
Without that human element, music would just be sound.
Some posters (accomplished musicians, I add!) thought that one day having computers do the instrumental mastery part for them would be a good thing (". . .eventually, performers won't be needed, if the same expressiveness can be achieved by fiddling with the parameters of a computer program. . . . It would free people from the annoying task of having to master instrumental technique").
Granted, this poster is in the minority, and tends towards extremes, but I find this notion of instrument mastery as an "annoying task" a bit puzzling and troubling. It sounds like for this person, learning and mastering his instrument (if such a thing is actually possible) provided zero added-value. I would hope that someone who spends endless hours mastering an instrument would find it rewarding at least sometimes.
Though if enough people felt that "mastering instrumental technique=bothersome task", then perhaps performers may some day become obsolete.
Though I seriously doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'll give my two cents, for what it's worth.
It's an interesting thing: computer-realized music. It seems limitless, as long as the software and hardware, and AI for that matter, adapts at the same rate it is currently doing.
But a question that has always bothered me (and forgive my over-simplification/scientific background): what is the impetus for music, in any culture? To me, it seems more appropriate that music is a social binder (a group-think mechanism), as opposed to an art. I'm not saying that music can't be an art, but that it isn't necessarily intrinsically an art.
Thus, synthetic fabrications, i.e., computer music, don't "take advantage" of the archaeological viewpoint, "popularity," to its utmost potential. It's not a bad thing, though. And this is where advanced culture collides with biological adaptations: music is both an art and a social-binder.
And I am of the particular belief that music can serve both functions equally well (classical/art music is a different entity from pop music, and perhaps modernism/classic is different). So chew on that. nicely.
You make an interesting point about music as social glue. But do you include classical music in this category of music as well? B/c I think you might potentially be talking about different kinds of music--some kind of music (e.g. "classical") can be art, while other kinds can be entertainment, and then there are other kinds used in rituals (and this can be anything from church pieces or singing the national anthem, etc.) where the main purpose is social as you mentioned.
The discussion was more focused towards classical music and performances, which I agree is not nec. intrinsically an art-- but which, over time, we have conditioned ourselves to listen to in highly contrived situations--i.e. you go, get dolled up (well not so much in this area), sit at a concert hall, suppress any urges to cough, fidget, etc. and sit absolutely still and don't breathe for 60 min-2 hours, for the duration of the performance. So if the definition of art is something sophisticated, I think the whole classical music concert-going experience reinforces this classical music=art notion. I mean, to take an example, but in what other genre of music are there timed moments where you are "expected" to clap (maybe "timed is too rigid, but heaven forbid you clap in between movements. Half of your section will turn around and give you dirty looks.)? In most other music genres, the audiences are allowed to be much more spontaneous and expressive. In jazz, you can clap after a soloist has done her solo, if you are moved to do so. At rock concerts, the audience members bond with each other. In these other genres, I can see the social binding aspect. But less so w/ classical music.
I think it was more one of these doomsday type prognostications specific to classical music, and not nec. all kinds of music. I'm a skeptic of the whole classical music doomsday theory myself, but it does sometimes seem like classical music doesn't resonate with as many people as in those days when Bernstein used to have a radio program.
I'm not sure if this made any coherent sense, b/c for some reason I'm dead tired (yes I know! A bad time to be writing or responding!). . ..
Thanks for dropping by!
Post a Comment