Do you consider music made with computers and synthesizers to be on the same creative level as music made with so called "real instruments"?

Computers and synths can be creative as acoustic instruments but I will take acoustic music over digitized sounds.

I like both. I don’t consider either to be “less” music or less creative, no.

It’s not the instrument that is creative. It’s the person. It doesn’t matter what instrument a musician uses, if they are creative, they get more interesting sounds out of the instrument than if they are not creative.

All the rest is preference. It takes different skill sets to play any instrument, electronic or acoustical. If you’re good at your instrument, you’ll make it play better.

I know musicians who are great on either type of instrument. They play on their own and they play together. There really is no difference in terms of respect I have for them. It’s always the music that’s important, and that’s dependent on taste as much as any objective standard for good music.

@Cruiser Nice link. Morse has some impressive chops.

Perhaps it’s just a phase, but I’m currently preferring digitized sounds over acoustics, especially when they come together like this and you can barely tell they’re programmed. Except for the drums that is. You’d need 3 hands to play that.

@wundayatta True. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the producers/composers that write parts for every instrument in a song. Is that easier/cheating because of computers and electronics or is it merely a part of the creative process?

@dverhey
I’m not sure what you’re asking about. It should be clear that I am all in favor of tools that help us do things more efficiently. I have a composer friend who composes using the computer and the piano. She moves back and forth between each. If she had to write out every part by hand…. well, I can’t imagine it.

Like I already said. The creative process is in the person, not the machine. Having more machines that can do more stuff doesn’t make anyone any more creative. It just gives them more tools to work with.

All good in my opinion.

I don’t think it is the same if it doesn’t come from a traditional instrument. Especially if all you need is a laptop. It has no soul.
But then I also refuse to buy a kindle, or a nook or read any sort of novel on the computer. I like the smell of books, the realness of it all.
Which is strange, because I’m quite young, I grew up with the internet, and iPods, etc.

As someone who has been in several bands and done my own electronica side projects before, I can say that writing electronic music is often just as difficult, if not more so than writing music traditionally.

I think that electronic music to be just as valid as regular music. Each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses, and their own examples of good and bad compositions.

I judge music based on how pleasant I find the sound, not how the sound was made. Some electronic artists don’t even use traditional music making programs.

This is a video on youtube by a guy who makes music by cutting together sounds and music from a movie. Often, he uses only those sounds available in a movie. He is so good that Pixar has actually taken a number of his “remixes” of their movies and endorsed them on their channel.

Is his music less so because of this? I don’t think so.

Creativity is just that. The medium in which you use to create is preference. I will admit that electronic / synthesized types of music are much easier to create than picking up a guitar or trombone, but being the guitarist I am, I know how long it took to get good at playing my instrument. I’ve had some electronic programs before and have made a complete House styled mix in a couple of days. This doesn’t mean it’s not as creative because it took dramatically less effort to do, but it’s far less impressive.

I like some music with synthesizers and computers, although I HATE music where the singer’s voice has been altered to make it sound good, when in reality the “singer” sounds like total shite.

No kind of instrument is creative. My son majored in film scoring and composition. He’s a talented composer. He has some great software and a very fine synthesizer/keyboard. He also plays violin, viola and cello; and has thise laying around. But till he picks one of thies assets up and does something with it, none of them make any music at all. In his hands, they can all produce incredibly beautiful sounds, or disturbing sounds, or exciting souds. The composer and the musician are the makers of music.

I’m going to have to disagree with my friend @ETpro on this one. This is of course just my humble opinion, but I liken what he said to painting, and even writing – that is, art.

Words just lay around, as does paint. Until you do something with them. Can you compare a Shakespearean sonnet to something www.randompoembot.com would come up with? Don’t click, I made it up – but you know what I mean. Can you compare a Monet to the stylings of a robot with a brush programmed to paint?

Don’t get me wrong – since the 70’s – there have been some great things done with electronics, Jean Luc Ponty and Jean Michel Jarre come to mind, as does Herbie Hancock – a forerunner (perhaps godfather) of rap and hiphop.

But I’ll take a symphony orchestra, or even an a capella group, or trio of violin piano and bass over a concert of one – someone with a synth. It just isn’t the same, to me.

@zen The thing is computer generated music that is even a bit creative and interesting to humans isn’t created by randomizer programs. Someone with a deep understanding of both music theory and computer technology writes it.

I agree with @ETpro – its the musician’s talent, knowledge and perseverance that matter- Both computer music and real instrument music have the same music theory behind them and person who knows music can use both as good as he is! Now, whether one prefers computer music software or real instruments or a combination of both is a personal choice!
Basically, this is a system comprising the musician and his tools- and the interface to those tools- what kind of tools and interfaces work the best has to be decided by the musician.
Good music is good music!

They’re potential equals, but electronic music tends to be less creative because it’s so easy to use the same rhythms and music and more difficult to put yourself as an artist into it. With true instruments, there’s a much more defined connection to the artist, and so the artist can express himself more. Electronic instruments, on the other hand, are programmed by an artist, and so the improvised feeling is lacking. This either means that electronic music is fantastic because of the effort put into it, or the complete opposite because it wants to be a dance song. Certain groups and artists make it work extremely well. Herbie Hancock saw its potential and gave it a shot, now the world has “Chameleon”. Using electronic effects to enhance real instruments made great use of the same concept. It depends on how much effort is put into it, like anything. The Gorillaz are a great band, and they’re largely electronic, it works because Damon Albarn is talented and dedicated. It shows, that’s possibly why it takes five years for them to release a new album. I prefer acoustic instruments, but there is great computer made music out there once you get past the Top 40 list.

This question reminds me of a Star Trek TNG episode (don’t remember what it was called), where Data plays a masterpiece of music on violin. Cpt. Picard had issue with it because, although perfect, it lacked “soul”. Data, being an android, had a hard time finding this soul.

I prefer music with actual instruments than electronic ones. But, I do believe there are some great electronic pieces out there. It depends on how much effort was put into the piece. As with any type of instrument, how much soul eminates from a piece is very dependent on how much soul was put into it.

As I was typing this .. @ddude1116 explained it well :)

I really liked @ddude1116 ‘s answer – I think it complemented what I was trying to say.

@zen Electronic or synthesized music is NOT analogous to, ”robot with a brush programmed to paint”. A human being still has to take sounds and turn it into music. Electronic tools simply make the task easier. This is no different than any number of musical inventions throughout history.

@ddude1116 With true instruments

There are no such things as “true” instruments. Sound is sound. Pressure waves are created in air by means of a vibrating mechanical device. Whether that device is a string or a speaker makes NO difference. This is not a matter of opinion, it’s simply fact.

Electronic instruments, on the other hand, are programmed by an artist, and so the improvised feeling is lacking. This either means that electronic music is fantastic because of the effort put into it, or the complete opposite because it wants to be a dance song

Electronic instruments can be played just the same as acoustic instruments can be played. “Programming” music is no different than writing a score. As for the “effort”, what does that have to do with the fundamental difference (i.e., the difference that does not exist) between electronic music and acoustic music?

@PluckyDog This question reminds me of a Star Trek TNG episode (don’t remember what it was called), where Data plays a masterpiece of music on violin. Cpt. Picard had issue with it because, although perfect, it lacked “soul”. Data, being an android, had a hard time finding this soul.

This is a phenomenon in the musical world I like to call, “bullshit”. It is when one imparts intangible qualities to music that do not exist. I remember that episode. Picard had telltale symptoms of bullshit. Now of course, it could have been very possible that Data’s composition did lack a certain something, physically speaking, that we would consider “soul”, and that would probably be something like, dynamic and tempo variation. However, it is more likely (in a real life situation), that Picard was suffering from computer bias. If Data were a biological organism, Picard’s opinion would surely be different.

This issue I have goes back to when I was learning to play the piano. In piano fingering techniques, you have to strike the keys and retreat from the key in a certain way, with what I have just now impromptu named, a certain “contour”. This, too, is bullshit. Why? Because it is physically impossible to impart said “contour” on the keys due to the way the hammer mechanism works. The ONLY thing you can control when hitting a key on a piano is the instantaneous velocity at which the hammer strikes the string. That’s it. And after the string has been struck, there is absolutely nothing more you can do to affect the sound of the note, contrary to what many people believe. Good piano players are people who can find the best balance of instantaneous hammer velocities from note to note, and to suggest anything more than that is illogical, because it is physically impossible.

Thus, going back to the original question, to think that electronic music is in any way different than acoustic music flies in the face of simply physics and logic. They aren’t different. Period.

I am not Picard.

@ddude1116 How do you feel about Damon Albarn’s Gorillaz album he made in two weeks on an iPad, though? I like Gorillaz, but I’ve never really thought they were anything exemplary from the production standpoint.

What they are excellent at, however is incorporating sequencing and computer based instruments into their live performance, something I find big electronic artists like Deadmau5 or Rusko fail to do.

I like synthesizers and electronic music. It’s the creativity of the composer, and not the instrument, that matters. But I hate auto-tuned vocals. That to me is pretending to sing.

@chocolatechip I was just saying that the question reminded me of that episode. That is all.

To make my statement clearer: Electronic sounds, to me, are different than electronic instrument sounds. I prefer the real instrument as opposed to the electronic version of it. I have no issue with electronic sounds ..just the ones that are copies of other actual instruments (ex: push this button for the sound of a trumpet). I am not saying electronic music is not music. I merely stated my preference.

Real instruments are different than the manufactured electronic sounds of them. You could have 100 violins tuned the same ..but they all won’t sound exactly the same when playing one note. The type of wood, strings, bow, and even age all make a difference in the sound. That goes with many acoustic instruments. An electonic version of an acoustic guitar piece doesn’t have what you would hear from someone playing the actual instrument. The sound of sliding fingers, fingers hitting the frets and strings as they thump around for notes. And, depending on the musician, the way they strum or pick.
As for pianos…there is a huge difference in key stroke sound. Lightly tapping a key versus heavily holding it down for a moment has a completely different effect. Same tone, yes. Same feeling of the tone, no.

I don’t care about technically it’s this or that. My preferences are what they are. As long as humans are creative emotional beings ..we will view certain pieces of music as having soul. Technically, the tones may be similar but the feel of them relies on the listener.
Again, I’m not saying electronic music is less creative than the rest. Music is as creative as the performer/creator makes it – this goes with any music. I said that in my original statement.

@ddude1116 Excellent points. I guess my own response is from watching my son literally sweat bullets and obsess about totally electronic compositions. There are so many elements one can tweak to get sounds that approximate what a talented musician can get from an organic instrument.

@PluckyDog

I’m not saying your preferences are wrong – unless they are based on an opinion which happens to be false, in which case, your preferences would be wrong. Of course I have no issue with people preferring one style of music over another. Mainly though, my issue is with people thinking that acoustic instruments are “true” or “real” instruments, and the following arguments based on that thought. Electronic instruments are just as true as acoustic instruments.

Now for the case of electronic instruments reproducing the sound of acoustic instruments (which I was not referring to because it was not even brought up nor implied in the previous responses), that is an entirely different case. You’re correct, it is not possible to perfectly reproduce the sound of an acoustic instrument digitally, though for some instruments like a piano, one can get close enough that you physically cannot distinguish the difference.

As for pianos…there is a huge difference in key stroke sound. Lightly tapping a key versus heavily holding it down for a moment has a completely different effect. Same tone, yes. Same feeling of the tone, no.

This is entirely different to what I was talking about in terms of fingering technique. Lightly tapping a key will sound different than holding down, of course, because when you let go of the key, a damper is moved against the string, stopping the sound. I guess I forgot to mention the SECOND thing that is possible to control on a piano, and that is duration of sound.

@chocolatechip When I said I prefer music with actual instruments than electronic ones. I actually meant that I prefer actual instruments than the electronic reproductions of those instruments. I apologize for not stating it clearly or properly.

@dverhey I think it sounds like a cool idea. I’ve yet to get it, though, which I should totally do…