Double Bass Next Phase of Music

[easyj]

You can look at the history of music and see a cycle of innovation and complexity. When people are focused on innovation - whether that be in technology, genre, or theory - the the ensembles get smaller and the orchestrations get simpler. People need to hear new things in a simplified way to grasp on to it and develop an ear for it. Once people are familiar with the new things, they desire greater complexity so the ensembles get bigger and textures get richer, with full classical orchestration being a maximally complex format. Then some innovation occurs, and things get stripped down again, rinse, repeat. When you hear about artists who were "ahead of their time," they were usually just a little off of this cycle in one way or another - either making new things too complex too quickly for people to catch on to, or making some fundamental innovation when people weren't interested in it.

All that to say, I'm not surprised people desire bigger textures and rich orchestration right now, because the last 30 years has been all about innovation in technology and genre, stripped-down textures, and simplification. It's well about time for people to start focusing on building all these new things up into more complex and challenging forms.

Many years ago, I listened to a radio interview, with people from the recording industry speaking about cycles in popular music. They said that we go through periods when there are many very creative artists around who are writing new kinds of songs and setting new trends. When these trends "set in" there are many other artists that copy the styles and its a bit of an upswing for the industry, but they reach a period of stagnation. They mentioned that during these periods of stagnation, music listeners look for other things and tend to gravitate more toward dance music, with that becoming more popular. People always need something to dance to. The industry then needs some fresh innovators to create the new wave of pop music that will capture people's interest. I guess this made sense to me. One thing I took from it is that music industry folks recognize cycles and they have some ideas of what causes them and what it takes to break them. I'm not sure how much of this still applies, but it is what I heard.

 

[damonsmith]

It isn't about the original quality, it is about the end listening devices. A compressed stream through a phone speaker has no chance at fidelity - even bluetooth is going to take a cut of fidelity out of it. Pop music is made understanding that is how it is going to be played back. So, it is the "loudness wars" you are talking about. dae
Things still made for a hi-res file played from a CD or device out of a stereo sound better than ever. Still, the causal listener has not had a proper stereo in years.

I disagree in that I think the recording quality of music right now is universally extremely high, by any standard. The technology has just gotten so good in the past 20 years, you literally gotta be trying to make a bad recording. The biggest modern degradation - which I think is a true curse and abomination - is the "loudness wars" and massive compression of everything. The main thing recordings lack now is dynamics, because everything is mixed for earbuds and car stereos. Everything being one consistent volume makes sense in headphones, cars, and even at a dance club - but now everything is like that, all recordings, all live music. That genuinely makes new pop music exhausting to listen to for long periods of time, and I think we are all losing our ear for dynamics, and our kids maybe won't develop any appreciation for it at all.

 

[Don Kasper]

it is about the end listening devices.

Weak Premise.
The device's "proper" or, realistic/hi fidelity has never been an impediment to the listener's enjoyment. Most listeners (99%?) don't listen for "proper" realistic/hi fidelity, they just "listen". History has proven that.
See 1930 Philco radio below.
See Edison wax cylinders, etc.
Say goodnight Gracie.
IMFO, of course.

 

[40Hz]

Zappa made music with a synclavier, some sort of programmable musical do-hickey that could be used to create music without musicians

For the record, the Synclavier wasn’t a programmable do-hickey that let you create music without musicians. It was, for its time, a revolutionary polyphonic sampling synthesizer. A super organ if you will. And it required a high degree of musicianship and technical knowledge to use it to its full potential. Just like any other musical instrument when you get right down to it. Hardly something that allowed you to eliminate musicians.

 

[damonsmith]

It certainly is not - but the music is mixed and mastered to be heard from poor sources. I was at an outdoor event and the music over the speakers was alternating between 80s hits and present day. The 80s music just sounded full and huge, the new stuff tinny and brittle heard back to back.
Whether or not the listener enjoys it or not is less the point than the fact that the music is optimized for poor listening set ups.

Weak Premise.
The device's "proper" or, realistic/hi fidelity has never been an impediment to the listener's enjoyment. Most listeners (99%?) don't listen for "proper" realistic/hi fidelity, they just "listen". History has proven that.
See 1930 Philco radio below.
See Edison wax cylinders, etc.
Say goodnight Gracie.
IMFO, of course.

 

[bassGtar]

For the record, the Synclavier wasn’t a programmable do-hickey that let you create music without musicians. It was, for its time, a revolutionary polyphonic sampling synthesizer. A super organ if you will. And it required a high degree of musicianship and technical knowledge to use it to its full potential. Just like any other musical instrument when you get right down to it. Hardly something that allowed you to eliminate musicians.

I meant to say that it allowed you (musician) to create music without (hiring other) musicians. I’m not that familiar with the device, so I chose language that was non-technical. Unfortunately “do-hickey” is a way to refer to something when you don’t know or have forgotten the correct name; so saying “the Synclavier is a do-hickey” is thus none-sense, and I appreciate the correction. And for the other errors. Zappa was able to record songs without sharing performance credits with other musicians, similar to the earlier pop-star-video shared in the thread. That was my point. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[40Hz]

I meant to say that it allowed you (musician) to create music without (hiring other) musicians. I’m not that familiar with the device, so I chose language that was non-technical. Unfortunately “do-hickey” is a way to refer to something when you don’t know or have forgotten the correct name; so saying “the Synclavier is a do-hickey” is thus none-sense, and I appreciate the correction. And for the other errors. Zappa was able to record songs without sharing performance credits with other musicians, similar to the earlier pop-star-video shared in the thread. That was my point. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Nothing wrong with ‘do-hickey.’ I use that word and ‘gadget’ all the time myself. Forgive my unfortunate lapse into petty punditry on that point.

I agree that synth technology has allowed some musicians to simulate to a greater or lesser extent the sound of an instrument that would otherwise have required the hired services of an additional musician. Usually the differences in technique and aesthetics is the giveaway however. For example, having the sound and timbre of a French horn isn’t by itself enough to pass as the real deal. At least to the more discerning listener or a musician. So I think we’re both on the same page with that. But “close enough” all too often is close enough for film scores or backing tracks (i.e. “where the money is”) that sampling technologies have emerged to address those concerns. Especially where time and monetary restrictions apply.

However, you could also make the argument that something as widely accepted as amplification or sound reinforcement has also resulted in less musicians being hired since a small string section - or just one bass - will serve to provide the needed sonic footprint rather than a full string section - or three or more basses. I suspect Wagner and Tchaikovsky would have been all for it if today’s technologies were available back in their day.

There is a company by the name of Spitfire Audio that is doings some amazing (some might argue frightening) things with digitally multi-sampling real acoustic instruments in such a way they could be creditably performed either using a DAW or live with a keyboard with sufficient fidelity to pass muster with almost anyone. But again, the skill is in the hands of the musician, not the software or related technologies. So I tend to see all these do-hickeys and gadgets as opportunities rather than threats to music. To me, the real threat are those who believe that talent and musicianship are something that can be bought and loaded on a laptop.

I’m a big believer in authenticity when it comes to live acoustic music. Especially Renaissance, Baroque, and Early Classical music. Preferably using period correct technique, tunings and instruments. But I’m also open to new interpretations and stylistic performances. I see the music I enjoy as a living thing rather than something that needs to be curated and kept in a museum. Insistence on “authenticity,” like everything else in music, can be carried too far. Often by someone whose main motivation is nothing more than a desire to protect their own imagined sinecure.

But that’s me. Continually overthinking everything. Apologies if I sounded critical earlier. That wasn’t my intent.

 

[bassGtar]

But again, the skill is in the hands of the musician, not the software or related technologies. So I tend to see all these do-hickeys and gadgets as opportunities rather than threats to music. To me, the real threat are those who believe that talent and musicianship are something that can be bought and loaded on a laptop.

Apologies if I sounded critical earlier. That wasn’t my intent.

No apology needed. You have a much better appreciation of the technology that I was only referring to in a sloppy, casual way to make a point. I totally agree with the quoted section above. Cheers!

 

[easyj]

I meant to say that it allowed you (musician) to create music without (hiring other) musicians. I’m not that familiar with the device, so I chose language that was non-technical. Unfortunately “do-hickey” is a way to refer to something when you don’t know or have forgotten the correct name; so saying “the Synclavier is a do-hickey” is thus none-sense, and I appreciate the correction. And for the other errors. Zappa was able to record songs without sharing performance credits with other musicians, similar to the earlier pop-star-video shared in the thread. That was my point. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I'm trying to help out here with some information. I'm not 100% sure exactly what Fran Zappa did with a Synclavier. It looks like he used a Synclavier II. Just to classify what a Synclavier II was: it was a FM synthesizer/sampler. To put this in some kind of context today, a teenager with a computer has a much higher level of VST synth and sampling capability than a Synclavier. They also have access to large sample libraries. While a virtual instrument could be "played" with a MIDI keyboard, it wouldn't need to be. One could just program the notes in a DAW, which is what I would do.

40Hz, you kind of suggested that it does not authentically reproduce a real instrument. It doesn't. To elaborate on what you said, many people could easily be fooled into thinking a track was recorded with a real orchestra, but the person creating the track is limited to the set of samples they have on hand. They lose the expressiveness of many instruments. A trumpet played quietly does not have the same sound as a trumpet played loudly. The initial attack can be changed by the musician. You cannot easily recreate those dynamics with samples, but you can fool people, as long as you keep everything in the right context.

 

[damonsmith]

Also, in all earlier stages the music was recorded to played back as best as it could be. Most of us don't mind a lesser quality of something we've experienced in a more optimum setting. I am happy to have an ipod & ear buds on a plane or listen to CDs in the car. There is still the option to hear them on a good stereo.
It is a huge difference to make the music sound like it is coming out of an iphone speaker in all playback situations.
Having the options for incredible fidelity and undermining them for these lofi situations is something we have never seen before.

Weak Premise.
The device's "proper" or, realistic/hi fidelity has never been an impediment to the listener's enjoyment. Most listeners (99%?) don't listen for "proper" realistic/hi fidelity, they just "listen". History has proven that.
See 1930 Philco radio below.
See Edison wax cylinders, etc.
Say goodnight Gracie.
IMFO, of course.

 

[Bruce Calin]

From a slightly different perspective, I have had the opportunity in the last several years to play with some excellent young musicians, male and female, who give me hope for the future. I appreciate very much that they are willing to let the "old guy" play with them and keep me somewhat current as well as keeping some of the older traditions alive. I have learned a lot of newer music I never would have been much aware of on my own and the level of commitment to music and performance makes me both hopeful and optimistic that they can have meaningful careers, whatever forms those may take. Plus, it's fun to be around young people with so much energy and talent. I used to say only partly in jest that live music is no longer a growth industry. I hope for their sake this isn't true. It would be a huge loss.

 

[40Hz]

40Hz, you kind of suggested that it does not authentically reproduce a real instrument. It doesn't. To elaborate on what you said, many people could easily be fooled into thinking a track was recorded with a real orchestra, but the person creating the track is limited to the set of samples they have on hand. They lose the expressiveness of many instruments. A trumpet played quietly does not have the same sound as a trumpet played loudly. The initial attack can be changed by the musician. You cannot easily recreate those dynamics with samples, but you can fool people, as long as you keep everything in the right context.

True on all points. However, the current trend in sample libraries is to capture the actual attack, legato, etc. of the instrument being sampled rather than try to reproduce it electronically from a static digital sample.

Spitfire Audio who I mentioned earlier is doing a lot of that. The various legatos can then be brought in under the performer’s control with either a mod wheel, velocity sensing keyboard, or programmed in directly and/or edited via MIDI in a DAW. For example:



Of course it still behooves you to keep within the actual range of the instrument and be knowledgeable about its playing techniques if you want to sound as close as current technology permits to the real instrument.

I think it’s gotten pretty close sound-wise even if you can still catch it out sometimes if you listen very closely. But they put so much post processing on recordings of acoustic instruments these days that the difference has largely become moot IMO. On recordings, I mistake real instruments for samples and vice-versa more often than I’d care to admit sometimes.

 

[easyj]

True on all points. However, the current trend in sample libraries is to capture the actual attack, legato, etc. of the instrument being sampled rather than try to reproduce it electronically from a static digital sample.

Spitfire Audio who I mentioned earlier is doing a lot of that. The various legatos can then be brought in under the performer’s control with either a mod wheel, velocity sensing keyboard, or programmed in directly and/or edited via MIDI in a DAW. For example:



Of course it still behooves you to keep within the actual range of the instrument and be knowledgeable about its playing techniques if you want to sound as close as current technology permits to the real instrument.

I think it’s gotten pretty close sound-wise even if you can still catch it out sometimes if you listen very closely. But they put so much post processing on recordings of acoustic instruments these days that the difference has largely become moot IMO. On recordings, I mistake real instruments for samples and vice-versa more often than I’d care to admit sometimes.

I listen to a great deal of orchestral and big band music with many different acoustic instruments. Those strings sound synthetic to me. I would be fooled if he kept it very simple in the demo, but he didn't. He kept taking it to the point where you can hear the problems. He could absolutely use the strings sparingly, keep things simple, bury them in a mix, and stay within a box so that it I could not discern. I would also start to notice that box, the more the strings were used. All that being said, string sampling technology is better than ever today. With clever use of samples, and using them to their full potential:

 

[Carl Hillman]

I'm trying to help out here with some information. I'm not 100% sure exactly what Fran Zappa did with a Synclavier. It looks like he used a Synclavier II. Just to classify what a Synclavier II was: it was a FM synthesizer/sampler. To put this in some kind of context today, a teenager with a computer has a much higher level of VST synth and sampling capability than a Synclavier. They also have access to large sample libraries. While a virtual instrument could be "played" with a MIDI keyboard, it wouldn't need to be. One could just program the notes in a DAW, which is what I would do.

40Hz, you kind of suggested that it does not authentically reproduce a real instrument. It doesn't. To elaborate on what you said, many people could easily be fooled into thinking a track was recorded with a real orchestra, but the person creating the track is limited to the set of samples they have on hand. They lose the expressiveness of many instruments. A trumpet played quietly does not have the same sound as a trumpet played loudly. The initial attack can be changed by the musician. You cannot easily recreate those dynamics with samples, but you can fool people, as long as you keep everything in the right context.

I think Zappa was not only attracted to the Synclavier's synthetic recreations of standard orchestral sounds, but to its very flexible ability to precisely sequence odd rhythmic groupings. (You had to learn a little programming code to make it work, though.)

Apropos of nothing, I was listening to those first couple of Zappa Synclavier albums and I had the opportunity to mess around with one (in 1986?) and, using stock sounds, sequenced this little ditty and added live EB and drums in a studio later.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Steven Ayres]

I think anyone looking for the 'next big thing' is setting up for confusion and disappointment. The arts landscape of the future is fundamentally different from what we've lived through, in that it will be far more diverse and granular as people choose what they like without much reference to gatekeepers, tastemakers or any kind of group. Live music is becoming what live television became, an experience that you don't attend, but rather consume a la carte through your preferred device. People will act as audiences of one, generally avoiding crowd events as passe and inevitably not-enough-for-me and not-on-my-schedule. Those who want or need group reinforcement can get all they like in even the darkest, tiniest silo anytime through social media.

If there's any kind of trend I've been able to detect among younger people it's toward a vague sense of authenticity — not the real thing, necessarily, but the thing that's real enough to provide an 'authentic' experience. I believe this is the end result of the relentless commodification of music over the past century, and it's essentially reactionary rather than a positive reassessment.

What we use to create art-sound has been changing constantly since the application of electricity, and digital platforms offer the kind of broad, easy access that we last saw play in the desktop-publishing revolution, where suddenly everyone could be a bad typographer and worse writer but feel fulfilled in making it all by themselves. For that segment AI will be a natural go-to, and we'll see increasing blurring of the very concept of creativity.

But the underlying question for members here is how we can navigate these changes and continue plying our trade. The upside is that if there's a niche for every listener, there are at least two for every creator. Take ownership of your craft, commit to making art that you love and learn how to make it accessible to the world. And you should probably hold on to your day job.

 

[rickwolff]

......

And you should probably hold on to your day job.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[GlenParks]

1.) Music before it got called Art was incredibly repetitive AND incredibly free, to my knowledge some still is. Because it was used for community purposes and to bring people into a different state, together.

2.) Maybe we shouldn't have ever recorded music... But here we are.

IMFO

To the OP's general return to classical vs. AI music as the future...

Which future would you rather imagine?

 

[40Hz]

Those strings sound synthetic to me. I would be fooled if he kept it very simple in the demo, but he didn't. He kept taking it to the point where you can hear the problems.

They did to me too. Those samples would definitely work better if used more subtly and in a mix. His playing on that demo is also a little…er…yeah. Far too much delay/reverb on the samples. And his technique, such as it is, is what an old music teacher of mine used to refer to as: shmalzato. I’d be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was done in such an exaggerated manner to better highlight what the samples contained.

A friend of mine who is an orchestral composer found sample libraries useful when he’s testing out a score or submitting a demo. He can easily imagine what his piece would sound like with an orchestra. But the average producer, or whomever they’re calling the person who signs off on the checks these days, might not. So using samples on scratch tracks, or for an early draft approval, has become a handy tool for him to use when dealing with the less trained.

Tools are what we make them. My favorite use for MIDI keyboard is to get a rough draft score which I can later edit to make into an actual score. Sure beats entering the notes manually one by one when using notation software.

 

[garrett2]

Go onto Resident Advisor and you will see just how incredibly innovative some of the music that is listened to by enormous amounts of people is. Or SoundCloud. Then look at the Billboard top ten in 1967. We are living at a time of unprecedented musical diversity, creativity, and access. I feel lucky.

 

[easyj]

My favorite use for MIDI keyboard is to get a rough draft score which I can later edit to make into an actual score. Sure beats entering the notes manually one by one when using notation software.

Off topic, but....I lost my old, cheap MIDI keyboard in a move. Lately, I've just been entering notes in the DAW with the mouse. I can build a case for it, for me. Sometimes, I feel that it results in less "fooling around" playing sounds with the keyboard and more of a deliberate thinking of a good musical idea and writing it in the DAW. Sometimes. I still want to pick up another one, though. Any recommendations?