From: alves@calvin.usc.edu (William Alves)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Ever heard "Synths are making orchestras useless"?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 11:57:15 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: calvin.usc.edu
Keywords: synths orchestra obsolete

In article <6600@kielouta.fi> f1toyl@uta.fi (Topi Ylinen) writes:
>Nowadays, or even a few years back, many computer enthusiastics and experts
>boldly claimed in computer-related magazines (at least in Finland, they did)
>that the modern synthetizator technology is so good in producing music that
>we do not need expensive orchestras anymore.
>
>IS THAT SO?

I haven't heard anyone making these claims about classical orchestral
music; they have usually been talking about commercial (i.e. film and
TV music), where the claim is largely true. Here in LA very few projects
have anything close to a full (or even chamber) orchestra anymore, and
those that do still often use synths and samplers to "beef it up." While
I support the rights of studio musicians to demand a living wage from the
movie moguls, the union's price scale has moved virtually all full orch-
estra projects either to Europe (where an orchestra can be hired for half
the cost) or into synthesist's studios. Almost all the TV shows and com-
mercials and many of the movie scores I hear these days depend heavily
on samplers.

>I have not heard even the first synth version of *ANY* orchestral work that
>would have sounded _acceptable_. They all sound TERRIBLE. If you want to learn
>to give value to your records, listen to a synth version of the respective 
>works! 

If you're talking about people like Tomita, while I feel uncomfortable
speaking in his defence, I feel compelled to point out that he is not
trying to duplicate orchestral works, but to arrange them for electronic
timbres. I haven't heard an example yet of someone actually trying to
duplicate an existing orchestral piece with synths and samplers. I'm sure
it wouldn't sound nearly as good as the acoustic version.

However, if the piece is composed for a film score, most electronic compo-
sers know how to use their instruments idiomatically; that is, they avoid
writing passages where their timbres will sound noticeably "electronic"
(unless that's what they want). While the final product certainly doesn't
have the nuance or timbral range of an acoustic orchestra, only experts
are likely to notice when it's under dialog in a movie. Producers have 
decided that that small degree of nuance isn't worth tens of thousands of
dollars (in most cases).

>Computer music lacks committedness, vividness, immediacy and all the "ethereal
>beauties" we have learnt to respect in classical music. Notes are simply
>certain frequencies.

Despite what is written above, I must differ with you here. There is
nothing intrinsically about the computer that gives it the qualities
you describe. It is usually only the laziness of the synthesist and 
limitations of current software and hardware that result in the lack
of nuance I have described.

Certain timbres are easy to replicate. I could create a computer-generated
recording (from samples) of a marimba piece that I would challenge you
to distinguish from an acoustic recording. Where are the "ethereal beauties"
there? The violin is a much more difficult instrument to duplicate, not
because the computer lacks its "vividness" or "immediacy," but because
slurs and other articulations are difficult (or very labor-intensive) to
reproduce, because the range on onset time for vibrato often changes, be-
cause there are subtle shades of timbral difference resulting from the
changes in bowing and the placement of the bow on the string, and for other
technical reasons. Thus if what you want to do is truly duplicate the sound
of a violin and all these nuances, it usually makes more sense to simply
hire a violinist. Any lack of musicianship or interpretive depth is the
fault of the synthesist, not the computer. 

Because people have learned certain popular stereotypes about music and
mystical myths about art, the true relationships, dangers, potentials,
advantages and disadvantages of technology in the arts is often obscured.
I ask similar questions to my students sometimes and most often they 
simply parrot the idea that computers are inherently "inhuman" and thus
impart an inhuman sound to music. The early popular use of synthesizers
in science fiction movies and other stereotyping has done a lot to rein-
force this simplistic notion.

No, I don't think that the computer will reproduce a symphony orchestra
playing Beethoven, but I don't think it's anything inherent in its com-
puter-ness that prevents it.

On the other hand there are several reasons why computers are used as
compositional tools by composers: they never show up late to rehearsals,
they never restrict their repertory to dead composers, they don't require
parts copying, extra rehearsals are always available, and they don't ask
that the critics label your piece a "masterwork" before they condescend
to look at it. (1/2 :-) with apologies to those dedicated musicians who
also don't fit the above description.)

Bill Alves