Computers are overtaking human abilities - where does pianism go from here?

[leonidas]

Computers do not have emotion, nor do they have what we would call true imagination and creativity, but what they do have is mechanical and technical perfection.

With increasing technology, an interpretation can be inputted and all the subtleties of a performance planned, and then played back with technical perfection, even creating possibilities the human body couldn't ever achieve.

The obvious drawbacks would be the psychological pleasure from the physical connection, and the lack of possibility of spontineity in performance, although with greater technology, it could become possible for a computer to monitor and actually realise with accuracy what the internal ear imagines.

The musical argument is lame, computers can do music better.
After the invention of the car, how many people seriously prefer to run or walk miles?

They have now become sports and passtimes, and I feel pianism may go this way eventually.


There are pianists who speed up recordings..why? Because the musical details can be rendered with greater clarity if initially performed at a slower speed.

What use will the ability to play fast have?

We must divide, unburden ourselves from the weighty bulk and ascend with freedom, the freedom we have until now only dreamt of.

[counterpoint]

There will be piano concerts, where the hall is filled with computers that listen to the concert...

[leonidas]

Almost amusing, but you do bring up a key point already hinted at.

If computers are technically superior, and therefore allow for music to be expressed in a superior way, why would people still attend concerts? Why do they even do so now?

I really don't think the importance is musical, it is more the overall experience, and display, and the feeling of event.

[counterpoint]

If computers are technically superior, and therefore allow for music to be expressed in a superior way,

I don't understand the word "therefore". If music is played technically superior, that doesn't mean, that the "message" of the music will get clearer. Most of the music is not about technical perfection but about human feelings.

I don't believe, that the "subtleties of a performance" can be planned (programmed) in a computer. It's a communication between the pianist and the audience at the moment of the performance.

[leonidas]

I hate to make you sound stupid, but you made a good job of that yourself.

Music is NOT primarily communicative, and if a person thinks it is, their mindset is not the most musical.
Music is foremost sensual, but not in an obvious way, like pleasing sounds please us, it's a little more complicated than that, it is about the nature of relative pitches and rhythms spaced in time.

Emotion and communication of course can be part of the fun, but at it's core music is music, it is not just another language.

Subtleties BEYOND physical and even aural capabilities are programmable into a computer.

[counterpoint]

I hate to make you sound stupid,

I'm stupid, and I'm proud of being stupid   

[leonidas]

I don't understand the word "therefore". If music is played technically superior, that doesn't mean, that the "message" of the music will get clearer.

To clarify, I am assuming the same mind would be working on both, and that the musical intent would be identical, the technical means would however be different, one being perfect and computerised, and the other being imperfect and physical.

Taking the example of Horowitz, how would he have sounded if he had complete command of the musical computer technology of the future?

He would be able to slow himself down, work on minute details, and produce a 'COMPOSED' performance more 'perfect' than any spontanious live performance.

Why would we favour the imperfect live performance?
Perhaps for contrast, for something different, but remember that it's also possible to realise all these colours in multiple composed performances.

[counterpoint]

He would be able to slow himself down, work on minute details, and produce a 'COMPOSED' performance more 'perfect' than any spontanious live performance.

What you describe is how CDs are produced today. But the most perfect CD can't replace a real concert, even if there are much more slips and errors in the live performance.

[leonidas]

Well, in a way it's how CDs are produced, but there would be limitless technical facility, any speed and dynamic would be possible.

You just don't sound convincingly musical, the CD performance is ideally a perfect performance, completelt realising the piece how the pianist imagined it.

The live performance provides nothing musical that couldn't be captured with top sound equipment.

As I said, many of the reasons a live concert is enjoyable is anything but musical.

[gyzzzmo]

Computers cant perform music...
they work with 'yes' or 'no' (0's and 1's) and music is about timing, not 'yes' or 'no' questions.

[leonidas]

Listen to a midi or mp3 then get back to me on that.

[gyzzzmo]

Just had some dinner wich obviously helped me understanding your point , you can ignore my last reply :p

I dont think live performing will disappear (wich is your point i think). People dont go to concerts for the music alone. After all, these day's recordings and playback devices are well enough to imitate the sound of live music, and concerts are still often sold out.
Theres the atmosphere, the social aspects, the need to see the performer (to express respect?) and whatever for reason people have. Even if we would have virtual reality, people are willing to pay money. People still walk dont we?

Gyzzzmo

[leonidas]

Good points, and I never said it would disappear, but would serve a different purpose.

Another problem though, is that people listen at home to 'perfect' recordings,  performances impossible to recreate physically in a live situation, so all excitement can be lost if people aren't aware that there are no limits with recordings, and there *are* limits in physical live performance, and when we are aware of what the limits are, we can get back to realising how impressive live feats can really be.

In terms of pure music, the point I'm making is that computers are the way forward, and pianism will survive but in the same way running survives when cars trains planes and boats exist.

[gyzzzmo]

Maybe there are no limits in recording, and things can be super fast. But is that something people want? If you see other types of 'music', like trance, house (whatever its called), its not super fast either (above human possible performance). Maybe because people just dont like to hear that.

[leonidas]

It's not just about speed in a musical sense.

Speed in a technical sense, in playing the piano physically, is about having the physical control to excecute any series of notes with any dynamic , tempo, and articulation.

While playing, alot of this can be imperfect because of the limitations of the speed of the fingers.

Consider playing a sequence of notes from a difficult etude at a very slow tempo, everything can be exacted and realised with almost no limitations.

Now try playing it relatively fast and you have way less control.

With a computer, one could input the data slowly and in detail, and could be played back at tempo and sound incredible.

Musical sacrifices are made in even moderate tempo pieces by many professional pieces, they are human!
They may have god's greatest ideas in their head, but they still have a mortal body.

[gyzzzmo]

Maybe our mind doesnt accept that 'over the top' amount of external information cause our body isnt telling it how to get used to it. We can focus on only 1 or 2 things at the time, wich means that all the extra's a computer can provide us is useless and not wanted.

[leonidas]

No, the issue is not mental limitation but physical limitation.

If we can imagine something and yet not do it, there is a problem.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings

Sorry couldn't stay out of this one. 

Comme, you just never give up do you? To oversimplify and condense your writing, you get the following message: "Human performances of music are inferior to computer generated performances due solely to the fact that computers can play the music at a faster pace."

You have been trying to inculcate this statement for as long as you have been connected to this and other forums. Give it up! What you wrote was moronic. Instead of writing a big reply to this I am just going to offer you something that you can probably use...

Go get a MIDI file, speed it up as much as you want, and get the f___ out.

(Of course the "f___" was for dramatic effect only)

PS. No, computers don't overtake human abilities because as you mentioned, computers can't impose creativity and imagination, which clearly are human abilities.

[leonidas]

Reread the entire topic, then get back to me.

The computer performances would basically come out sounding the way the pianist wishes they could play it.

Don't tell me there are pieces you love that you haven't dreamt of playing better.

You know how you want to play them, but you may never be able to.

This barrier will no longer be there, the computer could do it for you, you simply have to input your interpretation.

[debussy symbolism]

Reread the entire topic, then get back to me.

The computer performances would basically come out sounding the way the pianist wishes they could play it.

Don't tell me there are pieces you love that you haven't dreamt of playing better.

You know how you want to play them, but you may never be able to.

This barrier will no longer be there, the computer could do it for you, you simply have to input your interpretation.

First of all, lets clear up some minor details...

The computer does not know how a person wishes to interpret a piece. Period. I know that this basic responce isn't going to satisfy you, so I will explicate it further. An "interpetation" is basically an array of dynamics, tempi, and other techincal details. Yes, those can be put into a computer, although I really don't see anyone doing that because it is just simply boring and painstaking, not to mention that ALL of the minor details would have to be programmed. Does this sound good if you plan to program an hour-long work? If it wasn't for the technical barriers of playing the instrument, I really don't see WHY a person would spend the energy "faking" the interpretation.

Fine there is the thought that a computer can play a work faster than a human can. Should you happen to input your own "interpretation" to the computer, then you are just creating a better version of a MIDI file we already have. It simply has more dynamics, more fake subtlety. It isn't a real thing. Period. If you are satisfied with promoting sophistry then go ahead, but you will become very bored with the process because YOU aren't really playing the music.

You don't know me. You don't know what I can play. I am sure that you may be not satisfied with your technique and wish to improve. Do you really think computers will solve your problems?

[gyzzzmo]

No, the issue is not mental limitation but physical limitation.

If we can imagine something and yet not do it, there is a problem.

I gues you missed my point in that reply. Midi can never dominate if the mind cant comprehend that infinite complexity. For example, we can make extremely complex and fast pieces for orchestra, but nobody likes it. So there's no sense or use in using that infinite potential of a midi.

[leonidas]

Computers are ever advancing.

With the notes already in place, inputting an actual interpretation - altering pedalling, dynamics, tempi, articulation etc. is no more a painstaking process than it would be in physical pianism.

Do you ever think you will have the technical abilities of a Hamelin?

Assuming you will never reach that level of technical ability, you could simply record a piece at a slower tempo and speed it up using digital technology.

Is this fake? No, no more fake than the skill it takes to drive an F1 car.

[leonidas]

I gues you missed my point in that reply. Midi can never dominate if the mind cant comprehend that infinite complexity. For example, we can make extremely complex and fast pieces for orchestra, but nobody likes it. So there's no sense or use in using that infinite potential of a midi.

No, I saw your point, and the fact is that the pace of a piece of music is the basic pulse.

Of course this goes into a blur if it goes beyond a certain speed, and this is where the piano is often different to an orchestra, consider Liszt's TE12, the piece is basically slow, but has very fast shimmering motions.

Of course you could spend a lifetime working on the ability to improve facility, but why do it when a computer can always do it faster, more accurately, and with allround greater perfection?

[gyzzzmo]

I gues Leonidas spends too much of his brains in making 'perfect' and intelligent looking sentences instead of actually thinking things through

[leonidas]

My advocacy of this so-called 'Rise of the Machines' may be accounted for by the fact that I, myself, am a machine.

[gyzzzmo]

exactly, a type who prefers telling instead of discussing :p

[debussy symbolism]

Computers are ever advancing.

With the notes already in place, inputting an actual interpretation - altering pedalling, dynamics, tempi, articulation etc. is no more a painstaking process than it would be in physical pianism.

The technology to input "interpretation" is already there, and I don't really see how it can improve.

Here is where you are wrong. Interpretation doesn't only consist of dynamics and tempi of course, it consists of multitude ofther nuances. An example of this is coloring. Of course coloring in technical terms is the ability to assess different nuances to different structures. For example you would not play two consecutive chords with the same dynamic level. You would have to know how to alter each sound of each chord in a MIDI sequencer. After that you would have to input rubato, voicing, and other facets of playing in literally each note. This will take hours just to adjust a couple of innocent chords, and by the time you are done with the entire piece, I highly doubt that you would be satisfied with the results, therefore you would change the previous entrances. This is all done naturally and efficiently by the creative process. When you play, and I tell this from experience, everything comes out naturally, because I already "know" how things are going to be. I can tell you that I wouldn't be able to painstakingly "fake" it on a MIDI file simply because I would not be a part of the process. This is parallel to composing chorales. When I compose a chorale I always have to play it to myself before new ideas come. Just think how hard it would be to not have to rely on intuition. It would be impossible. Sorry to drift away on a tangent line, but my point is that no matter how hard you try, you can't force interpretation on something.

[debussy symbolism]

Of course you could spend a lifetime working on the ability to improve facility, but why do it when a computer can always do it faster, more accurately, and with allround greater perfection?

As I said, go listen to MIDIs.

[leonidas]

I do listen to MIDIs.

They offer up an interpretation which is physically impossible for many people to do physically, and I often prefer them.

There's no rubato cheating, absolutely nothing in the way of pure musical glory shining through!

About the technology, it is ever-improving, and it will get easier.

The point remains, why not record a piece at a slow tempo, add in all the subtleties you can, and then play it back at tempo...it would sound better than your regular playing at tempo.

[debussy symbolism]

I do listen to MIDIs.

They offer up an interpretation which is physically impossible for many people to do physically, and I often prefer them.

There's no rubato cheating, absolutely nothing in the way of pure musical glory shining through!

About the technology, it is ever-improving, and it will get easier.

The point remains, why not record a piece at a slow tempo, add in all the subtleties you can, and then play it back at tempo...it would sound better than your regular playing at tempo.

I won't argue with you any more because you are entitled to your own beliefs and if what you propagate suits you, the go for it-nothing wrong with that.

I personally think that MIDIs are an insult to the music if they are used for something other than getting the contour of the music in your head.

No, MIDIs do not offer anything other than speed and clarity.

Yes, that is called recording editing. All performances get emendations upon recordings. Recording a piece at a slow tempo, fixing it afterwards, and then speeding it up just shows that you can't play the piece. Of course it is highly personal, I personally wouldn't want to edit my own playing and then pass it off as my own effort.

[leonidas]

All the musical effort would be your own, though.

What value is there in playing fast when it isn't needed? Just speed it up.

MIDIs are a great saviour to true music.

You are unaware of the true essence of music and pianism.

[gyzzzmo]

And leonidas mistake in thinking is also this:
There may be great potential in all that midi stuff, but the succes of something depends on whether people will like extra's it offers. And i dont think it will offer any extra's. Good musicians already play stuff fast enough and 'perfect' enough.

[debussy symbolism]

All the musical effort would be your own, though.

What value is there in playing fast when it isn't needed? Just speed it up.

MIDIs are a great saviour to true music.

You are unaware of the true essence of music and pianism.

Alright are got to be kidding me. At first it seemed like an intelligent topic, but you, as usual, deracinate it of all meaning.

If I got to edit out all of my mistakes on my recordings, and then speed it up, it would not be my own effort. It would be tampering.

MIDIs are saviors to bland notes only. There is no real music behind them, and even with the proper alterations they will still be bad no matter what. They will never be "real."

Please don't question my awareness of anything before you get to know me. You will find that I am not anything but aware. Ironically, I do recall seeing other members rain down that statement on you in other threads.

[leonidas]

And leonidas mistake in thinking is also this:
There may be great potential in all that midi stuff, but the succes of something depends on whether people will like extra's it offers. And i dont think it will offer any extra's. Good musicians already play stuff fast enough and 'perfect' enough.

Oh, of course this can be true, I just think the technology can be great for people to realise their dream interpretations without having to slave over working on technique all their life, when it is most likely that they may never achieve what they want.

Even the greatest technical pianists have limits, and they could do without them too...observe Hamelin's galop for player piano.

[debussy symbolism]

Relying on technology to eliminate all of the work involved just shows how much you aren't capable of.

[leonidas]

Alright are got to be kidding me. At first it seemed like an intelligent topic, but you, as usual, deracinate it of all meaning.

If I got to edit out all of my mistakes on my recordings, and then speed it up, it would not be my own effort. It would be tampering.

MIDIs are saviors to bland notes only. There is no real music behind them, and even with the proper alterations they will still be bad no matter what. They will never be "real."

Please don't question my awareness of anything before you get to know me. You will find that I am not anything but aware. Ironically, I do recall seeing other members rain down that statement on you in other threads.

Tampering? effort?

NO it would be all your musical effort, the only effort you would be removing would be technical, and that is only the means to the musical end, silly.

MIDIs are programmed with many parameters, if played back on a truly astounding sample, they can be more subtle than a 'real' pianist's performance.

[leonidas]

Relying on technology to eliminate all of the work involved just shows how much you aren't capable of.

It eliminates the technical work.

Clearly you don't have much of an imagination if you can't imagine something beyond your physical powers.

[debussy symbolism]

Tampering? effort?

NO it would be all your musical effort, the only effort you would be removing would be technical, and that is only the means to the musical end, silly.

MIDIs are programmed with many parameters, if played back on a truly astounding sample, they can be more subtle than a 'real' pianist's performance.

Technical speed and perfection is just as important as the musical effort. It is the musical effort. With technical precision the musical ideas flow more freely. You just don't seem to get that.

Well if you find a MIDI that is better than an actual performance let me know.

It eliminates the technical work.

Clearly you don't have much of an imagination if you can't imagine something beyond your physical powers.

Comme please stop spamming.

[debussy symbolism]

MIDIs can not do anything. So stop posting nonesense.

[leonidas]

There are many MIDIs I know of that are superior to actual performances, particularly in some Alkan where the breakneck pace is not humanly possible, and because of the technical inadequecies the musical validity of the performance is compromised.

Stop being so infantile.

Technical effort is NOT musical effort, all the musical effort you have ever made is within your brain.

It comes out via your body, and the whole point of this discussion is that the human body has technical limits, computers do not.

[debussy symbolism]

There are many MIDIs I know of that are superior to actual performances, particularly in some Alkan where the breakneck pace is not humanly possible, and because of the technical inadequecies the musical validity of the performance is compromised.

Stop being so infantile.

Technical effort is NOT musical effort, all the musical effort you have ever made is within your brain.

It comes out via your body, and the whole point of this discussion is that the human body has technical limits, computers do not.

Clearly all form of discourse is impossible. If you wish to pursue your beliefs, then I am all for it. I have no reason to tell you what is and what is not "wrong." You don't seem to get my point and even if you do, I wouldn't want to repeat it since you can just read what I wrote.

Oh yes, technical effort is dependant on the brain just as musical effort is.

[leonidas]

I understand your words perfectly, but I cannot understand how you can fail to recognise the basic parameters involved in piano performance and just how accurately they can be recreated using computer technology.

All digital recordings are using computer technology! A digital sound sample, arranged to play in a certain sequence.

The only difference would be that your imagination would dictate the sequence.

[leonidas]

Oh yes, technical effort is dependant on the brain just as musical effort is.

Obviously, and the computer is better at technical effort, so it leaves the brain to occupy itself purely with music.

[debussy symbolism]

I understand your words perfectly, but I cannot understand how you can fail to recognise the basic parameters involved in piano performance and just how accurately they can be recreated using computer technology.

All digital recordings are using computer technology! A digital sound sample, arranged to play in a certain sequence.

The only difference would be that your imagination would dictate the sequence.

40 something posts and we have not moved an inch. Lets start from the beginning. Yes, computer technology can recreate a performance, and that is essential to the recording industry, naturally. However, computer technology can never create a performance. The process would be too burdensome, as you would have to recreate the multitude shades of dynamics, coloring, voicing, tempi, rubato, legato and other facets of playing. This process is very artificial and very time eroding. It just isn't practical.

[debussy symbolism]

Obviously, and the computer is better at technical effort, so it leaves the brain to occupy itself purely with music.

Well if you got such a defective brain then go for it. After a while you will get to know that you would become bored of the process of spending endless hours incoding "interpretation" to a MIDI file.

[leonidas]

I am obviously not talking about existing technology, I am speaking of proposed advanced technology.

To shorten the pathway from the imagination to reality.

[debussy symbolism]

I am obviously not talking about existing technology, I am speaking of proposed advanced technology.

To shorten the pathway from the imagination to reality.

Because computers dont have the so called "imagination" and creativity, no matter how fast they become, they will never be able to know what an interpretation is. Therefore, the speed at which you incode an interpetation will not vary, as you will have to start out from scratch each time. It doesn't follow a formula, hence you will resort to setting up the parameters from zero each time. No computer can speed that up. Having more access to different parameters is another thing of course, but I am sure that that can be achieved even now.

[gyzzzmo]

Like debussy, im not going to repeat myself. You seem to be too much in the state of 'the possibilities of technology is infinite'. Infinite? quite. Will it be used? No. People arent interested.

Most cars can go 220 Km/hour. People dont drive faster then 120 though...

[debussy symbolism]

Most cars can go 220 Km/hour. People dont drive faster then 120 though...

Excellent analogy.

Don't take me wrong, I do also have a passion for the speed as well. However there are somethings that MIDIs just can't do and that is better a performance, except for the minor details. Speed of course is extremely important, but it need not be the dominating factor in music, a concept that Opus(Leonidas here) doesn't seem to get.

[leonidas]

Because computers dont have the so called "imagination" and creativity, no matter how fast they become, they will never be able to know what an interpretation is. Therefore, the speed at which you incode an interpetation will not vary, as you will have to start out from scratch each time. It doesn't follow a formula, hence you will resort to setting up the parameters from zero each time. No computer can speed that up. Having more access to different parameters is another thing of course, but I am sure that that can be achieved even now.

The basic parameters of music are encoded in any MIDI.

All the notes are there, they have only to be manipulated into an imaginative interpretation.

Basically, with technology, it should become easy to have the exact timings and dynamics you want.

It's basically true that from a mechnical standpoint, computers understand music!