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

[viking]

You don't have to address me and god, and it's a shame the rest of your post doesn't show me the same reverence, but the only thing I can get from you is an innate lack of musicality.

I simply GET music more than you do.

Really???  As I asked before, what is your education?  Have you released any CD's?  Have you published essays on your enlightened views of music?  Can anyone vouch for the fact that "GET music"?

[leonidas]

I don't publish essays, I post on forums, I don't believe in charging for my wisdom, so think yourself lucky and be grateful.

[viking]

Get over yourself.

[leonidas]

Is that your ego talking? Let your legs do the walking.

[viking]

The way you scew the truth...

[pianochick93]

Purely and simple, computers cannot play with emotion
That is what people go to concerts to hear, the pianist putting emotion into his or her performance, enjoying it. Computers cannot replicate that basic feeling that you get when you play music, they cannot feel, they cannot love, they cannot hate. They just exist.

Pianists can feel, they can love, they can hate. Therefore they can transfer that emotion into the music, it will make it sound better, deeper, and just more entertaining.

Computers will never replace human emotions.

[prongated]

Chopin even said one cannot hear the subtle differences in the volumes of notes when they are played fast. So if we try to perfect in a realm that the human ear cannot even experience we are just wasting time.

Experienced listeners of music can hear emotion in playing, they can relate the sound they hear to an emotion or life experience. The inexperienced listen to accuracy of notes and perfect ideas of volume control and tempo and find all the enjoyment there, very barren imo.

Purely and simple, computers cannot play with emotion

Our understanding of music perception by audience has improved a LOT since Chopin's time. For example:

1. Our understanding of music (e.g. theory - structure,) will indeed determine what we are able to appreciate. But this doesn't necessarily restrict the enjoymont from music at a temporal level to just the 'experienced' (or those who understand more of music).
2. Empirical evidence exists for what constitutes an expressive performance: deviations from what is written in music such as tempo/rhythm and dynamics, as guided by the passage's contextual phrase/musical structures.

So in theory, if we are able to program computers to feature these performance parameters, computers can become expressive. Whether it will depict particular emotions will utterly depend on the audience's temporal perceptions - just like any other performances.

[pianogeek_cz]

The basic question:
Is music just a sum of sounds and of absence of sounds, or is there also an element that cannot be reduced to physical/numerical representations?

The wording of prongated's post also suggests several questions. I'm not sure about the answers.

Our understanding of music perception by audience has improved a LOT since Chopin's time.

Can we truly say improved?

2. Empirical evidence exists for what constitutes an expressive performance: deviations from what is written in music such as tempo/rhythm and dynamics, as guided by the passage's contextual phrase/musical structures.

Constitutes? I would be more inclined to opt for "Empirical evidence exists that the mechanically capturable aspects of an expressive performance are deviations...". I see a fallacy creeping in here: trying to define an expressive performance by one of its properties, while it cannot be said whether this is the only property.

And that, I think, may be at the core of the problem.

So in theory, if we are able to program computers to feature these performance parameters, computers can become expressive. Whether it will depict particular emotions will utterly depend on the audience's temporal perceptions - just like any other performances.

See previous comment: "...computers can be made to imitate the mechanical aspects of an expressive performance...".

I'm not saying this philosophical wandering of mine is necessarily true, but thinking about it might provide surprising answers.

[prongated]

Can we truly say improved?

Given that previously (in Chopin's time) there's next to nothing written/recorded in this area, I'd say yes ^^ remember this is from an audience's perspective, not a performer's.

I see a fallacy creeping in here: trying to define an expressive performance by one of its properties, while it cannot be said whether this is the only property.

You are right. That particular aspect was based on research as early as 1930s. Different approaches and more findings have emerged since, such as that of 'musical gestures'.

I am not a big fan of such works by musicologists as audience perception - read: I know next to nothing about them. But having had to write on this particular topic, I started relating these findings to the way I play and was surprised that it's quite similar; to delve into tonality, chord progression, structure etc. when deciding on tone, balance, dynamics, shape, and articulation of particular passages.

See previous comment: "...computers can be made to imitate the mechanical aspects of an expressive performance...".

I believe in musical instincts/intuitions in expressing music. But now I also believe that you can determine much of what makes a performance musical. And if you can do this, I don't see why it is impossible to replicate that onto computers.

Besides, we are dealing with mechanics when we play the piano ^^ at the same time, I too find it very difficult to picture how a machine (mechanics) can be expressive (very humanistic, artistic concept).

[leonidas]

Purely and simple, computers cannot play with emotion
That is what people go to concerts to hear, the pianist putting emotion into his or her performance, enjoying it. Computers cannot replicate that basic feeling that you get when you play music, they cannot feel, they cannot love, they cannot hate. They just exist.

Pianists can feel, they can love, they can hate. Therefore they can transfer that emotion into the music, it will make it sound better, deeper, and just more entertaining.

Computers will never replace human emotions.

Would you say you can't get emotion from an mp3?

mp3 technology isn't as far away as you'd think from MIDI technology.

We are assuming that, just as people play the piano, people will create an interpretation with a computer.

The same 'emotion' will go into it as goes into a well thought out interpretation traditionally played.

[prongated]

mp3 technology isn't as far away as you'd think from MIDI technology.

What?! and ditto the piano and glockenspiel?!

[gyzzzmo]

leonidas, you're treating music far too technical. People dont only listen music purely because it sounds nice, theres alot of psychology involved. We also listen to certain music because we for example respect the maker for his accomplishments, his succes, his looks (whatever), his popularity and identification with him (because he plays stuff like we want to).
People will NEVER have that with midi/mp3 whatever, because its caused by just a machine. And thats why it will never beat a human performer.
So before you start defending that  'question' of 'will midi take over?', think about why people actually like to listen to music.

gyzzzmo

[leonidas]

No, I am treating music MUSICALLY.

Yes I'm aware of all those other factors, but they aren't musical factors.

[gyzzzmo]

You cant put it treat it as you do, because its people who judge the music and its people who decide if something can be overtaken, wich is the statement of this topic.

[pianochick93]

Would you say you can't get emotion from an mp3?

mp3 technology isn't as far away as you'd think from MIDI technology.

1. Yes
2. Listen to a piece that has been transcribed into midi, good. Now listen to that same piece on mp3. Now listen to it in performance (not a recording of the performance, an actual performance, even if it is not perfect)

Which one do you enjoy listening to more???

As gyzzzmo said, people don't just listen to the music because it sounds nice, we listen to it to appreciate the effort it took to learn it. The effort taken to learn and the effort taken to transcribe the piece into midi and a mile apart.

Also I can say, on the matter of actually playing music, that i get the feeling of emotion flowing out through my fingers, into the keys, and into the sound. I know very few people who feel that same emotion flow through their fingers, through the mouse or keyboard of a computer, and onto the screen...

[bob3.1415926]

Hi there, I've only just joined this forum, so maybe I should show restraint, but instead I'm going to jump straight into this argument.

I think this argument is just a difference of opinion. I know that with a really good digital piano, you can get a great pianist to play a piece on it, and the piano will be able to save the performance as a midi with all the nuances the pianist put into it (rounded off due to the discretisation of parameters in the digital realm). However this required the great pianist. And also, there are things a computer can do that a person can't, such as performing any piece flawlessly at any speed. However I personally (understanding that not everyone will agree) have very little interest in hearing a piece played at a speed so far above the given metronome marking that it is unrecognisable.

If you think people would come to a concert hall to listen a computer play baroque/classical/romantic era music, or much of the twentieth century repertoire then you are mistaken. They'd stay at home and do it (similarly I'd have concert pianists come play in my front room if only they would). This can lead you into an Asimov style bleak tech. future, which you buy into if you want, but I'm an optimist.

That said, there is merit in writing music for machines which is unplayable by people. This isn't that new. In the early twentieth century player-pianos were the 'cool' thing for composers to write for and some of the results were quite interesting. Stravinksky's Les Noces (a sung ballet for 4 pianos, percussion and choir) originally had a player piano in place of the four pianos, until Stravinsky decided it was just a fad. Nancarrow wrote some wonderful crazy pieces for player piano, that no pianist could contemplate playing, but still make for interesting listening. Lots of contemporary composers use electronic sound effects and pre-recorded noises as part of their compositions.
That said the popular classical is likely to always be baroque/classical/romantic (before they pushed harmony v far) and for the piano music of these eras, I have always been able to find recordings by human pianists which blow me away.
Accepting that this is a point of psychology, I always favour pianists where I can hear things about them as a person in their playing. Yes I suppose it is possible that you could set up a tweaked midi file, tell me it was a person, and dupe me into thinking I know something about them, but as soon as I found it was a midi, this illusion would be shattered, and I wouldn't really want to hear it again.
So in answer to your question, where does pianism go from here? It keeps progressing as it aways has, as although you (leonidas) may be happy to listen to midi files instead of pianists, you can tell by the responses to this thread, that you are in a minority here.

Rob

P.S. Future posts won't be this wordy, it was my first post so I got stage fright or something, and wrote a brief novel.

[leonidas]

Welcome to the forum. 

To clarify my opinions on this matter at the moment -

I proposed this topic in a bold way, but there was a reason I did it without restraint was to see how far it could go without compromise.

Now for the compromise - I recognise that most of the best pianists in this world have technical abilities to do the vast majority of things they would like to do.

There would indeed be no point in going to see a computer do a live performance, but considering recorded media, I stick to my beliefs that-

1 - On a purely musical level, a human interpretation performed with a computer can be as convincing as a 'real' pianist's .

2 - This technology can allow musicians with far from perfect physical techniques to realise their interpretive dreams.

3 - This technology can be used to perform some valid and incredible interpretations that simply wouldn't be physically possible to perform on a piano.


Live performance will always have it's place as the event it is, but the recorded media aspect? I'm not so sure.

[leonidas]

Which one do you enjoy listening to more???

As gyzzzmo said, people don't just listen to the music because it sounds nice, we listen to it to appreciate the effort it took to learn it. The effort taken to learn and the effort taken to transcribe the piece into midi and a mile apart.

Also I can say, on the matter of actually playing music, that i get the feeling of emotion flowing out through my fingers, into the keys, and into the sound. I know very few people who feel that same emotion flow through their fingers, through the mouse or keyboard of a computer, and onto the screen...

You contradict yourself here.

My enjoyment of the music would not depend on how the sounds are produced, it would depend on the actual sounds produced..

Yes, there is a physical joy in connecting to music in that way, but it's the audience who decides what's popular and what isn't.

People don't just listen to music because it sounds nice?

I am aware of the myriad of reasons someone would choose to listen to music, all the extramusical reasons, they are by their nature anti-musical and have nothing to do with music.

Emotion is secondary to the basic sensual pleasure of music.

If all a person enjoys about music is the emotion they get from it, they are not a particularly musical person.

It's interesting to compare savants though, who tend to perform music with a real joy, but don't produce music with anything resembling what we would call emotional depth.

Evidently our emotionality informs our musicality and vice-versa, but if it's music that we are concentrating on, music comes first.

[timothy42b]

Is driving with power steering okay? 

Is using the pedal to help you connect two notes okay?

Some of you have focused too much on speed or error free playing.  I think that technology has the potential to remove impediments to musicality and improve a human's performance.

We have barely scratched the surface of this.

One way, and one we tend to regret, is the ability to digitally edit a performance and remove errors, correct timing, etc.  It seems like cheating - performance has to be in real time, right?  Well, no.  Other artists (painters, sculptors, authors) are allowed to hone and polish their creations until they are happy with them before presenting to the audience.

Another way is to use digital methods to preprogram effects we couldn't otherwise do, or we could only do with such effort it would interfere with our desire to produce music.  Perhaps my fingers can't stretch to play a chord that my brain insists needs to be in the piece - no problem, program it so hitting one key plays that chord.  Preprogram runs in any key at any speed you want and insert them when needed for musical reasons.  Can you play Forte with the left hand finger 5, pp with finger 3, and mp with 1?  Sure you can, with the computer. 

Once we abandon the "it must be difficult to be music" mind set there is no end to what we can come up with. 

[prongated]

Is driving with power steering okay? 

Not in a Lotus! [shudders]

[leahcim]

Another way is to use digital methods to preprogram effects we couldn't otherwise do, or we could only do with such effort it would interfere with our desire to produce music.  Perhaps my fingers can't stretch to play a chord that my brain insists needs to be in the piece - no problem, program it so hitting one key plays that chord.  Preprogram runs in any key at any speed you want and insert them when needed for musical reasons.  Can you play Forte with the left hand finger 5, pp with finger 3, and mp with 1?  Sure you can, with the computer. 

Once we abandon the "it must be difficult to be music" mind set there is no end to what we can come up with. 

Sure, you can do that, but I think many learning to play the piano and performing on the piano are striving to play the piece in the same way a climber climbs, and in spite of the fact that "you could fly over Everest in a helicopter, you see the same scenery and rally drivers have motors so why not sprinters?"

If you openly "cheat" then fair enough I guess, but I think most recordings that cheated in that fashion would be less than open about it....proving the point. It's like autotune plugins in pop I guess.

It's self evident that you can create / arrange music without needing, or even being capable to be able to play it. You don't need a computer to do that. Nor do you need to consider the idea "cheating" or less than performance.

It's called composition and is I believe considered far higher than performance - although that perhaps is blurred today because of recording technology allowing the recordings of pianists to gain a wider audience and live on after their death. But, for someone like Beethoven, it's the reason he is huge and most pianists, even ones that play his works well, aren't - because he wrote his music down on paper.

With a computer you can do the same, but you're going to get measured by a different ruler - and recomposing, say, Chopin is not going to be high on that scale. Similarly, the midi rendition of your symphony isn't going to be heralded for its performance.

[pianochick93]

And that's why I write my music down. I prefer to sit at the piano and hear how it actually sounds rather than having a computer play it back to me.

[dan101]

In my experience, midi instruments have come a long way. Sampled sounds are terrific and playing can be slowed down or increased in tempo at the click of a button. However, no matter how much "feeling" you program into a computer, it always seems to fall short emotionally. Live and acoustic performances are superior on so many levels.

[leonidas]

In my experience, midi instruments have come a long way. Sampled sounds are terrific and playing can be slowed down or increased in tempo at the click of a button. However, no matter how much "feeling" you program into a computer, it always seems to fall short emotionally. Live and acoustic performances are superior on so many levels.

Can you think of a reason? It sound psychlogical to me.

[Ruro]

Can you think of a reason? It sound psychological to me.

If it *is* actually Psychological, which is preventing him/her from enjoying a computerised recording, despite it's accuracy regarding a performers desired Style of Performance and Execution - would the solution be to remove the Human Psyche? (Whatever that means, or involves exactly) As it sounds like it's getting in the way of admiring Technical & Musical perfection, or whatever it is exactly you are referring too (Whole/Partial Computerised Interpretations of Music, programmed perfectly by the Performer, to sum briefly?)

I'm usually terrible at Debates, so I may regret posting this XD But it's such an intriguing thread.

As I believe someone has stated, the user "Term" I believe discussed it, so I'll be brief, that's it's about a Virtual Simulation of a Piano in a Hall using Giant Super Computers to calculate the Sound. Calculations so refined down to the Atoms in the real life Air, vibrating sounds ever so variably which each nanosecond passing, to all the extremely slight nuances in each String Vibration of each note. So basically, to go a big extreme, a Star Trek Holodeck with a Hologram performing. Which quite frankly, if it existed, and you were plonked in the said Holodeck Simulation of a Musical Hall, you wouldn't know, presumably, what was real and was what fake, as it's... perfect O_o

Perfect Simulation, backed so powerfully by such accurate blazing computers, it equals that of what is possible in Real Life physical situations. And as Term mentioned, the Algorithms and so forth would be SO extensively computated, it would be a Fake Human Being. Which then brings me to what someone else stated, as soon as you discover it's a fake simulation of Sound and Performance of a piece, it would be less exciting or whatever.

Which brings me to the Psychological factors I guess, where our Pysche's, I presume, keep us from losing ourselves in Virtual Reality XD Or something, oh lawd, I'll post this anyway, heh, just ignore me if this is blabber.

Anyway, Midi's can be useful, but I would never replace Vasary's performance of the Rach3 with any perfectly programmed interpretation of the same piece, again - Psychological I guess?

[daejiny]

leonidas, you seem to worship computers without taking into account the facts. Now I don't even need to deal with subjectives here, such as interpretations, etc.

Here's just ONE of my many factual arguments. Are you unaware that when you record and play back music, you lose certain over/undertones? Computers and technology IS VERY advanced, I'll grant you that. But have you seen a consumer computer pass the "true color" mark (16 million + colors), when real life has a theoretic infinite number of colors? Is real life limited by pixels? In the same way, technology is not up to the point where you can reproduce sound exactly.

And if you tell me that we'll get to that point, then we might as well start killing ourselves and making way for the computers, and there's 6.5 billion of us here, so we better get started, no?

Luckily though, life and facts always seem to bar the way, so that won't happen for a long time until everyone's sense of hearing and mind is dulled to the point where nobody cares.

[kony]

for some reason, many people here don't seem to appreciate a computer's abilities, or assume for whatever reason that MIDI is the only way to go.

there is no human dimension that cannot be recreated using a computer.

i believe there is already a violin playing machine (which plays a real violin) that is as good as any, if not better, than any violinist alive.

the same can be made for pianos with probably more ease.

even environment-specifics can be programmed to affect a playing.

[timothy42b]

Live and acoustic performances are superior on so many levels.

But, most of what you listen to is not live, and you don't complain.

Being realistic, most of all our listening is to CDs.  They may be CDs OF live performances on fine acoustic pianos, but that sound is captured, digitized, recorded, mastered, edited, purchased, and your digital CD player (<$40!) recreates it. 

Digitized, and digitally recreated. 

Yet many claim a digital piano, or a computer, could never sound real. 

[daejiny]

I don't disagree with the above two posters, but you are both arguing on subjective levels. Can you find a suitable response to the fact that computer aren't "that" technologically advanced to recreate life to the last single detail?

[timothy42b]

I don't disagree with the above two posters, but you are both arguing on subjective levels. Can you find a suitable response to the fact that computer aren't "that" technologically advanced to recreate life to the last single detail?

Sure.

A.  You can't tell a CD from live in most acoustic environments. 
B.  Most of the great musicians of the past coped with acoustic instruments much less refined than anything available today, including digitals. 

To the last single detail, of course not.  But to the last detectable detail, sure. 

[bob3.1415926]

A.  You can't tell a CD from live in most acoustic environments. 
B.  Most of the great musicians of the past coped with acoustic instruments much less refined than anything available today, including digitals. 

Statement A may be true for you, and I know it is true for many people (apparently 60-odd% of people can't tell the difference between an 128kbps mp3 and a cd  ) but it is not true for me. I am an audiophile. I have both a cd player and a turntable. The turntable is better although often slightly fuzzy. The cd player is dry. You never feel like it's happening in your room when listening to cds. I can't wait to move into SACD or DVD-audio, because they're supposed to be a lot better, but there's several other things I want to buy first.

I won't claim to be an expert on musical instrument history, but I think B is a little out too. Stradivarius was making violins in the 17th century! Even Steinway have barely altered their model D in 100 years. Pianos have had single piece cast iron frames since 1825. With the exception of Fazioli's 4th pedal (which is present on v few recordings) there hasn't been any major piano revelations since the 19th century (unless you count Kawai's new actions or something like that, but use of Kawai pianos is not widespread) To claim that these instruments aren't refined is a damnation of our current instruments!

[leonidas]

Yeah, alot of people can't tell the difference between average mp3s and cds, who was used in that survey? Average folk or music listeners?

I always liked the fact I could tell the difference, feeling the superiority of having better eachs, but it can be quite annoying.
Years ago a friend sold me some cds of downloaded mp3s, he promised cd quality, evidently it savagely raped our friendship.

[bob3.1415926]

It was done by hi-fi choice magazine, but I assume it's just normal folk. Among keen music listeners it must be higher (mustn't it? the differences are glaring!)

I think brass instruments are the most poorly captured on cd (this gets much worse on mp3) they must have a v complex soundwave, because the difference between live and recorded sound is much more stark.

But I think most people can surely tell the difference between an actual piano and a cd. If I put the cd on at just the right volume, and you walked past, you surely wouldn't think hmmm is that someone playing or is that a cd. (Would you?)
Even though it's hard to put your finger on the exact differences, the two sounds are unmistakably different.

[danny elfboy]

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.

That's the problem. Perfection is disgusting. Perfection is boring. Perfection is lifeless. Perfection is creepy. Perfection is understimulating.

There is also a very good theory by Masahiro Mori about this phenomena which he calls "the uncanny valley". Worth exploring.

I think that nowadays, when we need way less austeriry and sternness and have a craving for way more humanity, cummunitarianism, creativity, except for the few die-hard in their ivory tower, no one is moved by a perfectly executed piece of music while they're more likely to be moved by something full of passion, pathos and human in its imperfection.

Pianists that play like robots just give me not the slightest emotion and I find more thrilling to stare a blank wall for 10 hours than listening to their performances.

[bob3.1415926]

more likely to be moved by something full of passion, pathos and human in its imperfection.

This is me  When listening to a great recording (with mistakes - in my opinion these do exost) I actually enjoy the mistakes. It's reminds that me that what I'm hearing is real.
I also find it v inspiring, as it makes these piano heroes seem more real, I realise that they are just people like the rest of us, and if they can do it, then I should keep trying to do the same!

[lostinidlewonder]

A computer will play only as well as the programmer tells it to... thus a computer can never play a piece well unless a human tells it how to do it... it cannot make musical decisions itself nor can  it explain how to play a piece. A person can play the same piece many ways and make it sound right every time. Until robots can think for themselves they will never surpass humans in creative ability, they are a slave to the programmer and what they have been told to do.

[danny elfboy]

Until robots can think for themselves

Only that this will never happen, except in Asimov books

[escort]

Sorry to bring back an old thread, but I found this link to be interesting, and relevant to the topic at hand.  Most of the information I'm speaking of is in the last four paragraphs.  I'm not sure how reliable the source is, coming from the artist section of Pianosociety, but I still found it interesting. 

https://pianosociety.com/cms/index.php?section=1636

"Teppei Yamada-Scriba, Professor at Meiji University, painter, inventor of a loudspeaker system for audio equipment protected by several international patents, poet-scholar, holistic thinker and pianist who does not play the piano. He was born in Tokyo in 1946.
After having written a number of critical essays, including “An Attempt to Reconstruct Friedrich Hölderlin’s Poetics”, “Heinrich Hölty’s Lyrics Without Disposition”, “The Hidden Sun in Klopstock’s Two Odes”, and others, he was nominated Professor of German Literature at Meiji University, where he now teaches Comparative Poetry and Art History. His research field explores China, Korea and Japan from the 8th to the 13th centuries, and also European art history.
He is now preparing two books: a comprehensive East-West history, and a collaborative work with Italian poet Steven Grieco, on Japanese, Korean and Chinese poetry.
He is also a re-discoverer of the Italian Baroque Classicist painter Francesco Cozza, and a collector of this artist’s works.
Recently he turned his attention to Southeast Asian art history. Yet, he is still an admirer of the European artists: Donatello, Giorgione, Mattia Preti.

At age 4 he had to stop learning violin because of a family disaster caused by the American Occupation Army in Japan. At that time he already appreciated European classical music coming to him over a radio which had originally been installed in a German submarine. The unforgettable pieces at that time were for him César Franck’s “Psyche” and his D-flat Symphony, conducted by Walter Goehr. Both pieces still linger in his memory. Other recordings which deeply impressed him as a student include Liszt’s “Dante” Symphony conducted by George Sebastian (it is perhaps not a coincidence that these two conductors were both strongly anti-Nazi ). And later, several recordings by Mitropoulos, Freitas Branco, and the earliest grammophone recording of pianist Laurel Pugno in 1904.
Although he had all along been appreciating musical interpretations, especially of works by Liszt, not all piano recordings satisfied him, with the exception of a few pieces performed by Walter Rummel and Edith Farnadi. When he finally realized and was disappointed by the callousness of Walter Gieseking, whom he had adored since his youth, he decided to play the pieces himself, using a sequencer and synthesizer without keyboard. In 2006 he purchased a fully computer-controlled Yamaha CF3 grand piano.
One must here emphasize that programmed piano performance, as Prof Yamada understands it, means absolute freedom controlled only by the performer’s imagination. It is as difficult as driving a spaceship manually. It takes incomparably more time than playing with the hands. In the beginning, in order to complete one piece lasting 5 minutes it took more than 1,500 hours.
While the most important point with conventional pianists is to perfect the piano technique, in the case of the programmer pianist the question is how to realize in concrete form the concept in his imagination.
In order to devote himself full-time to his artistic activity, Prof Yamada is planning to retire in advance from Meiji University. His performance can be seen as a new arch added to the bridge connecting the virtual and real worlds, a connection which was already attempted by the Heian poets of 13th century Japan. As a pianist Teppei Yamada-Scriba has neither a musical career behind him, nor any formal training in music. What he expresses is purely based on his own autodidactic experience of this art."

[rick masters]

What you all tend to forget is that the piano is a machine.  Whatever human expression involved has to be produced using this mechanical device.  Limitations are imposed based upon the machine's particular capabilities.  A programmer can be considered a musician, just with a different medium; and the particular interpretation, played with perfection, may be preserved forever. 

[ranjit]

I wonder if this is fundamentally any different from EDM artists who produce tracks but don't perform them live. They are presenting a creation much like you would present a painting of yours at an art gallery. There is nothing fundamentally new about this imo -- Glenn Gould, for example, did all sorts of splicing with his recordings to make them sound the way he wanted them to.

However, I will say that the immediacy of live performance is what really draws people to it, including the performers. Pretty much all great pianists talk about how the energy of the people in the hall makes the experience subtly different every time. Suppose you had the Gettysburg address in your hand -- it's not the words inherently which leave a mark, but the context and the delivery, and the thought and understanding of the target audience which went into writing it, which combine to make it powerful and memorable.