Listen to the Orchestra …

Mr. Smith,

when I listen to your music examples, I get the impression you didn’t yet understand what is the sense of music (how at least I as a professional musician understand it). The main thing is, that music is an art that is alive (as it only appears in that moment you create it). And it lives out of the fact, that every human does it different, even the same human will create the same note only one time in his life. Every time he repeates the same note, it will sound a little bit different. That’s exactly what makes music so wonderful and exiting! It shows the steady flow of life, everything is changing every moment, that’s what life is about.

If music is played by a computer, this machine will not be able to feel joy or pride about its playing, pain or sorrow or any expression of music, and this is another point. This human energy is transported by the sound to the audience (even on a cd), that is a very important quality. The machine will produce “perfect” rhythm (which is not perfect because it’s not alive) or perfect pitch (which is also not perfect, it’s boring), it will not feel anything.

The big question is: what is your idea of perfectness? What is your personal definition about the “best possible performances” as you say? You might have your very own, very personal definition about it. But you pretend this to be universal. That’s a big mistake.

So please, everybody, use your brain, use your ears, and think about what you want to feed your soul with: synthetic or life!

Sincerely, Eva Ignatjeva

Dear all,

As the Fauxharmonic Orchestra performances are, essentially, recordings of music, I take it that Eva Ignatjeva does not like recordings of music and so does not own record or CD collections?

I hope this food for thought aids understanding.

Sincerely,
Peter D Dewar-Finch
(United Kingdom)

I don’t think Eva’s criticism of the recordings is entirely without foundation, even if she isn’t aware of the real process behind them: I know from experience you have to fight the defaults a lot to get expression out of a synthesizer, and even then for articulation you’re limited to the parameters it gives you. It does show in these performances.

That said, I’m still very impressed with what Paul’s been able to accomplish here, and the result is generally pleasing except for one issue: Paul, have you considered upgrading to a better strings synth/soundfont/gigasampler patch? The one used here is thin and obviously artificial in the mid-high range, and a better one might give you more articulation options besides.

Dear Mr. Paul Smith, I was pleased and excited listening to all samples you generously provided on this site. I love all of them. I have been listening to classical/serious music for over 50 years and think you should be proud of such a great achievement–that clear and so natural (woody!)sound of the strings!
Great music, great interpretation, great sound!

Best wishes to the you and Fauxharmonic Orchestra,

Mark Goretsky

“The music I am making is NOT played by a computer. It’s played by me.”

Really? Please elaborate on this statement. Explain to us how it is that you actually “play” these pieces… because I have a feeling that your own definition of playing an instrument differs greatly from most other people’s definition.

Well… you have explained it. I think I’m aware of how your computer works and what your role is in relation to it.

The question now is “why?” When you can simply spend more time on the “minutiae” and make the computer do EXACTLY what you want, why is it necessary to “conduct” it? Why do you feel that you have to control things spontaneously when you don’t HAVE to. That’s what live performance is all about, you cannot program people the same way you can program a computer… which is why a conductor is NEEDED for an orchestra (whether the conductor is the person up front, or his responsibilities are shared by the members of the ensemble… meaning chamber music).

Although I don’t agree that you can make the computer do EXACTLY what you want (one of the mistaken assumptions people who haven’t tried to do this often hold), there is also a big missing element in the “pre-programmed” approach. That is, the opportunity to react to sounds as they unfold in a real performance space — in real time. Until the computer can be programmed to hear and then to respond to what it hears with musical intelligence, we’ll have to do this part live, spontaneously and with complete freedom.

BTW, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the word “conduct.” That’s what I call it, but others may call it “playing” the instrument (such as it is).

One of the main reasons you have to justify your project is to give composers a chance to have a “recording” of their piece for a fee that most people can afford. Cool… actually, I think that’s GREAT, especially if it means that a composer will be taken more seriously by real orchestras. But now, again, why is a “conductor” needed for that?

The reason is very simple. The music sounds much better this way.

Lastly, no matter how far the technology goes, the concept of the Fauxharmonic Orchestra (and you know EXACTLY what I mean by that) will never even come close to replicating what a great live orchestra is capable of.

I agree that that’s true today. However, it’s just a matter of time before it will be possible to do that. Maybe not 5 years or 10. Maybe it’s 100 or 500 years. But it will happen.

In any orchestra, there are as many personalities involved in a performance as there are instruments on stage. That is why every orchestra sounds different, not only with different conductors, but on their own. What audiences understand when they see an orchestra is the connection that the orchestra members have with each other, and with a conductor. A GREAT performance will have all of that. A performance of you dancing to a computer could NEVER have that, no matter how good the computer sounds, or how much you can control what the computer does. Which is why your idea that you can provide a more stimulating performance than a real orchestra (or just stimulating performances more often) doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think audiences understand that connection. I think many of them watch the conductor whose dancing signals to them how and what to listen to. Certainly, for example, not all the cues a conductor makes are “needed” by the orchestra. They’re often used to tell listeners “listen to those instruments I’m pointing to now.” I remember watching John Williams rehearse the BSO at Tanglewood. He moved very little, but when the concert came around, he was jumping all about like there was no tomorrow! (Frankly, I think the orchestra was insulted.) But perhaps I should let the audience members speak for themselves.

A viola cannot play itself. A human has to master it for its capabilities to be heard. A computer can play itself, all you have to do is program it. What you are doing is creating for yourself an outlet for performing, not playing music. It’s not the same, it’s not even close.

As I said, there is an essential element to musical performance that can’t be programmed. I think you also are saying that, although it appears to be a different essential element. I’m trying to re-introduce that element into the process of creating music with digital instruments. It’s very simple. Distinguishing between “performing” and “playing music” doesn’t really make sense to me. Think of driving a car. Before automatic transmissions you had to shift the gears yourself. Now, you don’t have to do that. A computer controls that. But we still call this activity “driving.” Likewise, although the computer can take on some of the mechanical tasks associated with sound production, it still needs to be “driven.” Or “played” … or “performed.” Whatever you want to call it. — PHS

Mr. Tito Munoz, I believe you are objecting to the mere idea of sound synthesis (or sample playback, whatever) as opposed to live, competent, professional musicians. You may be biased as the Assistant Conductor of the Cleveland Orchestra. Of COURSE, if all amateur composers and arrangers could afford the latter option, we would choose it by default!

But let’s think pragmatic. Frankly, if I really needed to have a large, complex score played out, but 1) had no money to pay for an actual pro orchestra, 2) could not be bothered with pulling strings for a civic orchestra (of dubious talent and work ethic) to play the same piece, 3) had neither the software nor hardware to play this music myself, 4) had no time to figure out all the subtleties of shaping sequences, filtering attacks and decays etc. etc., Fauxharmonics would look to me more and more like the ideal compromise. And I do know from personal experience that you cannot simply dump a score to a computer and expect a lifelike or semi-musical performance. I totally understand why a computerized audio environment needs a “conductor” to give the score shape and life.

Fauxharmonic is carving its own place in the arts industry, and it does not IMHO involve preempting live concerts. It suits a composer’s niche perfectly, and may also find a place with student concertos in a hybrid of live/pre-sequenced accompaniments. I think it is irresponsible to try and denigrate it or minimize its significance…

Addendum to previous comment (may integrate if necessary and practical):

To simplify my take on Fauxharmonic: don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it.

This is the dare: take any piece already massaged by PHS, but do your own raw dump of score from Sibelius/Finale/Sonar/whatever. Then see if you can achieve similar results. Nothing like an A-B comparison, Mr. Munoz, to help you understand why a computer CANNOT play itself and still needs the human element to launch a score off the page.

“I don’t think audiences understand that connection.”

No, they do… but you don’t.

Paul, you contradict everything you’ve argued with me by stating publicly your belief that an audience does not understand the psychological connection that musicians have with each other, and with their audience. You can muster up as many silly analogies that you possibly can to try and support your reasons for your project, but in the end, you’ve negated them all by making that statement. You’ve proven my point… that you are not a musician and that your project is a total sham.

I was trying to say that audiences really don’t know about any ephemeral “connections” among the players on the stage. The music either works for them or doesn’t. But, I’ve violated my self-imposed restriction on ever claiming to know what others (especially undifferentiated groups called audiences) actually think or know. And look where it’s gotten me. My entire life’s work is now conclusively proven to be a sham. Damn!

I’m not sure why it’s so important for you to be able to “win” an argument by “proving” I’m not a musician (although I’m conservatory-trained and employed making music). Or that my “project is a sham.” Perhaps you should come and hear the Fauxharmonic in concert for yourself this fall at Bargemusic in Brooklyn (a venue not generally known for putting on sham acts). — PHS

People who rebel today against digital enhancements of music should remember what happened to those who rebelled against digital photography that eventually triumphed. No doubt the same outcome will be with music. And here is only one reason/example for this.
Yesterday I was listening on the radio for the orchestrated version of Beethoven’s Quartet #14. Every element - the orchestral arrangement, conducting, and the Orchestra itself - were famous on their own. But result was mediocre. Enlarged group from four instrumentalists to some 20 or more added very unpleasant noise to the music. This wouldn’t happen with digitized music–it would remain clear and enjoyable. Namely such absence of noise allowed me to guess correctly the “digitized” Beethoven. And I wish I could control the acoustical performance of my stereo.

To Alvin Cheung: If you read my post above, I stated that I support the idea that a composer should be promoted, and that if there is technology to facilitate that (which is not something new, ie. synthesizers and digital engraving) we should all support that… responsibly.

Firstly, I have no reason to dump a score into Finale to try and mimic what Mr. Smith does. That actually has nothing to do with anything discussed thus far. He also “dumps” the score into a computer program, just a computer program that’s just a little more powerful than your average Finale or Sibelius. So I believe wholeheartedly that he can use his software to make something sound better than what Finale or Sibelius is able to produce. But that’s not the point.

My criticism of Mr. Smith is of his belief that a computer needs to be “played.” It actually does not. A computer must be programmed. Whatever Mr. Smith creates with his technology will all be his doing, programmed by him. The way the computer program reacts to his motions will be programmed by him. In essence, he is creating a video game for himself, and promoting that as a means of musical expression comparable (or even better than) an orchestra made up of human beings. That’s his position, and is his main motivation for this project.

Otherwise, what’s the point? He can simply spend more time further programming his computer with his software to get his complete artistic vision for a piece exactly the way he wants it. There is absolutely no need for a conductor, whereas live musicians need to be led. An orchestra of 100 people needs someone in front to guide them. A smaller group can divide those responsibilities among its members. In the end, human communication is absolutely needed. It is a vital part of the music making process, and great composers compose with this in mind. There is proof in the scores themselves.

There will always be a level of expression in Mr. Smith’s work. He’s very passionate about it and has his own feelings of what it should be… but he is the creator of this technology and he is promoting it as if it is comparable to the real thing. By doing that, he is also stating that he has the knowledge and musical understanding that those wonderful inspiring musicians have, the musicians that some of us look up to, aspire to understand and learn from. That is the pretense in his position, and why I take strong offense to it.

He refers to his conservatory training as a way to refute my criticism of his musicianship. While it is an accomplishment to graduate from any college (I never did), a conservatory degree is not a measure one’s musicianship. I shouldn’t have to explain why. But to further illustrate his pretense: he mentions that he will be performing with his orchestra at a very prestigious venue in New York City called Bargemusic. He mentions that it is “a venue not generally known for putting on sham acts,” which is very true. What he won’t mention is that he was not invited by Bargemusic to perform. He simply rented the space just as anyone in the world is able to do at almost any venue. There are many other things about this choice of venue that I can speculate on, but I’ll leave that to your imagination, as he left it to ours.

To Mark Goretsky: You didn’t like Bernstein/Vienna/Beethoven. That’s fine. I think it’s some of the greatest string playing this world has ever heard, but you hear it as noise and enjoyable. Again, that’s your opinion, and that’s totally fine. But to use that to rationalize your film versus digital example is extremely questionable. The “film” in our case is human expression and communication. You are saying that comparing film and digital photography is the same as comparing humans to robots. That is quite alarming.

So one final question… do you eventually see your role in your “music making process” as dispensable as well, or rather, replaced by an intelligent computer? (in this case I equate them) If we follow your line of thinking as to what a digital orchestra might eventually be capable of, then a digital conductor should also be within reach as well, right?

The Baltimore Chamber Orchestra was invited? Either way, you weren’t, so performing there isn’t something that impresses me or should impress anyone else in my opinion. I am curious how you would actually fit a “chamber orchestra” into a space like Bargemusic, but I won’t speculate.

I also won’t speculate on the reason for the performance. You are promoting a young composer, I think that’s wonderful, and he will have his piece played by a live orchestra, also wonderful. You know the part that I find questionable, so I won’t beat a dead horse.

I’m impressed by what these guys were able to accomplish. I was a teacher at Sibelius-Akatemia, in Helsinki. There was a studio that used to make the music for the guys that wrote music for orchestra. It was just tto have an idea of how it would sound. What I hear is amazing.