Blog Assignment #4
We now have the ability to alter sound in ways that can change live sounds into whatever we would like. We can take out pitch, rhythmic, and many other kinds of errors to create a "perfect" performance. Describe how you think this ability could end up changing our profession.
Possible questions to address:
Do you think there will ever truly be "live" performance CDs that actually reflect the performance? Should we "erase" audience coughing, doors closing, etc. to make a recording more desirable? What are possible implications of creating an audition CD and "quantizing" our performance so that it is rhythmically perfect?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
All of the questions concerning the alteration of music have negative and positive aspects. How many times have you asked a musician about a concert or a recital in which they have performed,and their reply was “ I played perfectly. There was not a single thing wrong with my performance, and there is absolutely nothing that I would change to make it better.” Tiny mistakes and imperfections are what keep musicians striving to be better and better. Corrections of unwanted noise like coughs and creaky chairs are one thing, but changing the actual music is another. With the option to fall back on some good software, or a good sound engineer, there is the possibility of musicians not putting forth the effort needed for an inspiring performance, because they have an electronic ‘crutch’ to lean on. Quantizing music can also lead to music sounding more like a machine and less human. Just think of all of the advancements in the field of science that have come from ‘mistakes’. If we are constantly removing, or correcting mistakes in music before anyone gets to hear them, are we erasing part of the creative aspect of music? Music technology is a great tool for the talented musician who wants to remove a cell phone ring that has gone off in the middle of their performance, and at the same time, an accomplice in creating good music for bad musicians. It can certainly open the playing field for a plethora of people who sound great in the studio, but terrible on stage.
I think quantization and music alterations have their place and should be used with discretion. When recording a professional orchestra, I believe things that interfere with the music greatly, such as a lady sitting next to the microphone with bronchitis, should be edited. Notice I didn’t say edited out completely, but rather edited. To preserve the recording’s authenticity as a live performance, we should leave the background noise in, but perhaps make it softer or less obtrusive. This is different than changing the actual music. I don’t think we should quantize these recordings or correct out of tune pitches because it destroys the character of the piece and those things which give it style and uniqueness. Quantizing destroys the human nature of music in live performances.
In a professional recording studio, I think it is more natural to use these techniques. Especially when layering one voice over another when creating an overall effect. For example, quantizing a recording artist’s voice so he can sing backup on his own CD is not destroying the human character of the music. Or fixing one wrong pitch or rhythm on a huge orchestra soundtrack recording saves the money and time of running it over and over until it’s perfect. In these instances, the performance is not meant to be a live experience, but rather part of a cinema experience. We are not listening for the authentic musical sound, but experiencing the music as it supports what’s happening on screen.
One problem I foresee is in auditions. When I was in high school, many camps I attended over the summer required a CD or tape to be sent in with audition recorded of you playing your instrument. The audition judges would rate you based on your playing ability on those tapes. With these programs for altering music, this method of auditioning is no longer honest.
As time is continuously moving forward, we as human beings are hopefully always building on what has come before us. We build on this because we can see either mistakes or great lessons for our present and future because of something we have now that they did not, be it knowledge, power, or technology. That being said I believe it is necessary that we use the opportunity we have to perfect musical performances. Only to a certain degree however. Now I would say if mozart could remove excess clapping, coughing, and noise from a concert he would. Then again concerts were just thought of differently and the unsaid rules about performances did not exist. Personally I believe most people would a piece of music held at its best with no interruptions like coughing so I would want all of that removed.
However I am completely against altering the music and performance itself for the purpose of making the musicians sound more professional. Part of any art is the person or people behind it. If everyone can easily achieve a level of artistry by simply clicks and drags then has that not changed the art itself? A huge part of art and music is the work and sacrifice put in to make it. This is lost with this technology. Now I understand the purpose of prerecorded tracks for electronic music with live musicians. It is necessary for the live musicians. Quantizing has its place but not if altering live performances just for a CD. I could see it used for music videos, Movies, and commercials as a way to help line up action and music but really nothing else. LIve performances should be encouraged and the reality of them should always be discussed. Its only when the destruction of real music occurs after the performance that this is an issue. So basically, alter the distraction of the performance but not the performance itself.
I think the aforementioned technology has changed live recordings forever. While some may insist on keeping recordings unaltered, the main question will be how much editing will be done. I think Classical performances will be the least altered, as their is so much emphasis on performance quality, and it is still not uncommon to come across a mistake in live symphony performances. Even certain jazz faculty at DePaul (who will remain nameless) have been known to over-dub a solo in a 'live' recording.
As music-educators, I am unsure how this will effect our craft. Students may use technology at home to clean up recordings of their band, or may be somewhat disillusioned at discovering one of their influences uses editing and dibbing technology. However, I feel that students are more driven by experiencing an actual (not recorded) live performance. That aesthetic experience will inspire and motivate their musicianship.
In my own experience, I have discovered that one of my favorite bands had used editing technology to alter a performance. I was in 7th grade when I discovered Dave Matthews Band changed one of their songs. (There was a discrepancy between a video and CD of the same performance.) I was disappointed that they tried to cover up an awkward solo idea, but there were many other things that kept my interest in the band. My biggest influences for building musicianship are live performances I witness.
This will undoubtedly change recordings. When a piece is being recorded for production and sale we can take different parts from multiple recording sessions and put them together to get as close to a perfect performance as possible. Taking out coughs and altering wrong notes will get the recording closer to perfect. Balance and dynamics can also be altered, however if it is not done well it is easy to pick out places where it has been altered. I’ve heard recordings where the entire orchestra makes a decrescendo down to nothing, and it sticks out as being altered. I don’t think altering recordings in this way is terrible, but I think it would be wrong to market the recording as a “live” performance. If the recording is going to be sold as a live performance then I do not think they should be altered at all. Coughs and audience noise should be left in. When we erase coughs, there is also sound that we want that is getting erased too. One area where I think altering is completely wrong is on audition tapes. I have already run across this in my high school career. My director would have us do multiple takes, but he would not alter it at all. Other schools would cut and splice their auditions tapes. When we competed against them at festivals even though they technically placed higher with their audition, their performance at the festival was not as good. Auditions are supposed to be a representation of what you are able to do as a individual or ensemble, and to alter that is lying and cheating.
I have faith that the world, or technology, will never completely replace music. The music industry, like everything else, is constantly changing. I feel as if the generation of musicians before my own has been hit the hardest. There used to be many more opportunities for musicians, such as playing jingles for commercials or live in restaurants. It is sad in some aspects, however I believe that technology will push music in new and different directions. Technology has certainly made music more accessible for people. It is relatively simple to set up a basic home-recording studio, and the internet makes it simple for amateur musicians to get their music recorded and put out into the world.
Although we have the capabilities to edit "live" recordings, I have faith that we will still maintain the live aspect of recordings. Artists and musicians will undoubtedly be able to tell when a performance has been overtly edited as it will lose most everything that makes the performance beautiful and organic. Also, musicians can not survive on recordings alone, but maintain their career mostly through performances. If these performances gain the reputation of not reflecting the recording's perfection, then the artist's reputation will be hurt. I see no harm in editing out coughs or doors closing.
[I agree with Emily]
I'm not on one side of the argument, I'm about fifty-fifty. I feel that quantization and music alteration has its place. I think that if a musician is recording a "live" CD, and they believe in real "live" performances, then they should stick to their belief and agree not to alter any glitches out. However, depending on a musician's audiences, both intended, and unintended, some may look at this kind of recording as being a waste of money or ridiculous, and would be outraged that the producers didn't take those glitches out. They would be offended that they may have paid good money for a supposed "professional recording," and got an "amateur's job."
Some musicians may feel better and more secure editing things like mistakes, or certain bodily functions, out, but in my perspective, it simply allows room for mistake. If you say you're going to record a "live" CD, then you should honor your word, and accept the fact that there will be certain elements out of your control.
As far as audition CDs go, it is completely unfair (yes, I'm pulling a first grade, "that's not fair!") to rely on quantizing systems to get accepted into a school or program. It is also totally inaccurate, because if you quantize your audition music, that is what the listeners expect you to sound like "LIVE" when you get there, and it is misleading and dishonest.
It is amazing how technology can be used to fix musical mistakes, or take out external noise captured during recording. The idea that a performance can be made essentially “perfect” is astounding and scary to me. One of the beautiful things about music is the humanity expressed through different styles and personalities that are never perfect. If abused, editing software can erase these nuances that make live performance recordings so great. Performance is not mechanical and should not be reduced, or perfectly sanded over so that becomes so. This is not to say that editing technology does not have a purpose or shouldn’t be used. I think that the key is moderation, and remembering that what may sound best is necessarily “perfect.”
I also think that the issue of altering recording, especially when it is an in studio recording, has a lot to do with the attitude of the performer. Software should not become a crutch for musicians, allowing a lower level of performance because “it can be fixed later.” Along the lines of what was discussed, the level of editing can depend on the type of sound the performer is aiming for. If the goal is to have a clean as a recording as possible, then audience sounds can be eliminates, beats can be lined up, pitches perfected. I just hope that there are people who wish to keep the performance nuances that make each show unique.
I think this concept depends entirely on what the intent of that music is. The last example addressed involving quantizing an audition CD I would honestly consider as cheating. This would be the same if you walked into an audition room and tried playing a recording as this does not give an accurate representation of how you perform live. This live element ultimately is what I think is the most emotional aspect of music. I believe universally we can agree live performances have much more energy than recorded ones. This I believe is because of the human element and how we "feed" of eachother's energies. In regards to the recording, this human element can also shine through in subtle, and usually subconsiously so, ways. However, if the recording is meant to demonstrate a particular point which can in someway help evolve a performer's ability to express their own human element, then altering a CD would be a viable option. Other than this I would advise against this method. Nothing would be more disheartening to me as a musician than to hear that my favorite ensemble alters their music to the perfection you hear and cannot actually play their instruments as effectively as portrayed on their CD.
Having the ability to manipulate errors on live performances can greatly change our profession, if we let it. If we incorporate all the technology into live performances, we will loose a lot of authentic talent as well as natural human aesthetic values.
I do think that sometimes the use of this technology is appropriate. The best example I can think of is a CSO recording. It is common knowledge that they are one of the best orchestras in the world. It is also evident they each and every one of the musicians has worked tremendously hard to achieve the level of talent they currently have. It almost makes sense to me to take full advantage of editing the recordings to 'erase' the audience coughing and/or doors closing. This way the attention can be given to the musicians and it would limit the distractions caused by audience noise.
On the other hand, I think it's also important to keep the recordings as real as possible. I especially appreciate the applause at the end of performances.
Now this is a tricky subject. With the innovation of the various audio technologies, listening to music is getting better every day. But, as you are implying, this could indeed alter the profession of music performance forever.
As musicians (and undergrads), we thrive off of live performances. This is where we make our money and get our sound out to the public. But now with the dawn of sound alteration technology, it seems that the desire to see a performer live isn't as great as the one to hear the recording. Even if the live performance was stellar, it still wouldn't be as good as the altered recorded version. However, I do not think that live performances will ever go out of style completely, because you can never replace the atmosphere of a performance with a 'corrected' recording. Listening to music, no matter how 'perfect' it is, isn't the same as seeing and feeling the expressiveness of the performance live. On that same token, performers must make sure that they don't use this software as a crutch and think they can get away with not practicing. Sure, you can send in tapes to schools or companies that are altered and sound fantastic, but one can imagine the surprise when they hear a live performance that is far under that level.
On a side note, I also think the age of sound altering is slowly killing the popular music genre, especially to people with higher than average musical knowledge. My musical tastes are vast, and I'll listen to anything from musicals to rap to classic rock as long as the performer is talented and fun to listen to. Now, however, any talentless Joe with the right connections can spew his disgusting musical 'talent' onto a recording, and have it quantized, auto-tuned and touched up so much that the non-musical public eats it right up. This leaves the real musicians who really practice and really have talent left behind, at least in the monetary world.
While sound altering technology can benefit music and musicians in a myriad of ways, we have to be careful and use it sparingly, so that the essence of music, especially live music, is maintained.
The fact that music performances can be altered to sound perfect can definitely change our careers, especially performers. I feel that, as whole, altered recordings of live performances could have negative effects on not only the performer, but the profession altogether. Being taken seriously as a musician could and would become harder if software is being used to alter live recordings.
No matter how good the technology, a recorded vs. live performance comparison will always have minor differences. There is nothing like actually experiencing a musical performance first hand, recordings cannot replace that. In my opinion, alterations of live performances, should they happen, should not affect what the musician played. If someone coughed, sneezed, or someone's phone rang during a performance, i'd be perfectly okay with it being erased off the recording. What I would have a problem with is if the musician's performance as far as rhythm, timbre, pitch, etc. are altered, the recording itself loses credibility as a live performance and so does the musician.
I think that both sides of this question can be answered successfully. However I believe that live music should have as little alteration as possible. To me the charm of live music lies in its unpredictability. Recordings of the same songs can be entirely different, there is a reason that the Dave Matthew's Band has recorded the song "Crash" live several times. Each recording offers something different and unique. In many cases the outside noises can actually enhance the musical experience and editing them out would be an insult to the music.
I think that altering or quantizing music is especially inappropriate when making audition tapes. Not only is the auditioner lying to the panel, but they are also setting themselves up for failure if they are accepted but cannot really perform the music. I think that altering the recording is unethical and unacceptable.
I think that there are positive and negative effects to altering recordings using devices like Audacity. I think that it takes a huge part out of human capability. When you have the power to alter anything in music such as how fast it goes, or to change notes, I think that leaves very little for true musicianship. It also takes out the true excitment of a real performance when it is edited. Professional performers and non professionals all make mistakes. This is should not be covered up all the time. That is where the adernaline of a live performance comes from. The coughs and the sneezes, can be taken out, but I think the true being live and a reality is what makes it a performance.
On the other hand, digital recordings or sound recordings that are made on a computer, I think that using programs like audacity could be a positive thing. But, I think this takes away from musicians because that leaves less space for us to provide instrumentation. Now when you listen to a recording you can hardly tell if it is real musicians or an edited audio file. But, I would not want to see the world go off on the deep in of editing all music in order to make it great.
This ability tarnishes the organic, natural, beautiful side of music and turns it into a "product" of a production process. I think that some of the best and most recognizable moments in live performance are the ones that could only occur under live circumstances, such as coughs and other background noise.
I do not see any positive side to using this software to enhance the "quality" of music performed at live music events. I think what really sets real musicians apart from fake ones is their ability to perform their music naturally if the circumstances require it. The final question really just points out the worst possible usage for this software. Auditions are held to assess how well the musician at hand performs under a high stress scenario. Any altering to this taints the aspect of a stressful scenario, and instead turns it into an important "project."
The concerns that are brought up by the ability to alter sounds are unique to the future of our profession. I think there should always be a need to have students listen to actual live recordings to hear that not everything is a as perfect as what is produced in a studio setting with multiple chances to correct any mistakes. This demonstrates to students that nothing is perfect and even professional musicians make mistakes. Also hearing live recordings of themselves on a regular basis is a great teaching tool because it helps them to listen critically to the way the actually sound and not what they hear around them in the ensemble setting. This allows them to hear the imperfections and causes them to work harder to fix the problems that they hear. listening to CDs and recordings that are perfect only is nice and gives the students something to strive towards as a goal but there needs to be some realistic listening they do as well. In creating concerts CD's for my students I always have thought what could I do to master the recording to make things sound more balanced and rich since our school concerts are in performed in less than adequate acoustical settings. However I think it would do them an injustice for me to mess with the final product if they really want to get better and hear their concert for the way it really is. In the audition world the ability to quantize and make things rhythmically perfect takes away from the style of pieces and sells the individuals listening to the audition CD an unrealistic idea of the persons abilities and scholarships and other money that could go to someone more deserving will go to someone who could doctor their recording better and might not be truly deserving to be receiving such scholarships, or awards, or playing jobs.
The ability to alter sound recordings has already changed and will continue to change the music profession. The ability to listen to a recording of any type of music in the comfort of your home created a huge shift in the music world by creating a way for more people to hear more music, but also creating a way to market music other than live performance.
I think that musicians are by nature drawn to “perfect” performances because that is what we all strive for, so I think that the likelihood of musicians choosing to market themselves with truly “live” performance CDs that actually reflect their performance may happen in lesser known or low budget organizations, but not so much at the top level. I believe that if the technology is available, musicians will use it.
I actually like it when recordings keep coughing, doors closing, etc. It makes me feel like I am actually at the concert in the sense that the audience is a performer at live performances and how the audience responds to any live performance effects how I respond.
It only makes sense that audition recordings should be off limits for any and all kinds of editing. I realize that certain factors, like recording space and equipment, will always have an effect audition recordings. Truly altering or “quantizing” recorded material however, is like stretching the truth or exaggerating to make your story more interesting. You may include some facts, but what the listener comes away with is a much different impression than your original intent.
The ability to alter sound has increased standards for performance in music by providing an unreal or ‘sweetened’ version of music for listening pleasure and study. This increase in standards has helped musicians grow by raising the bar. I believe that this will continue to happen with further developments in sound development software.
Although it is breathtaking to consider all the sound alterations that are available to us, I wonder if it isn't taking away from the authentic beauty of a live performance. When I hear recordings on the radio of live performance,I dont mind a random cough in the background or imperfect sound balance. I think the essence of live music is to capture all the excitement,the anticipation,the enjoyment in its most germane form.
As for preparing audition CD's, the quality fo the performance would be dependent on the engineer who edited the music,not on the impeccable virtuostic skills that the musician has painstakingly acquired over the years. Music schools would have to require live auditions,and such audition cd's would be obsolete.
So, I don't think you can truly have live performance cd's that relfect the performance accurately. Maybe this would encourage more concert attendance!
Post a Comment