Conference napalm::commusic_v1

As a part time, sometimes payed, woodwind player, I sure hope we
never get to a point where there is no competitive advantage to  using
real musicians for movies.

I agree that real musicians make a piece "warmer" in the sense of each
individual line contributing all the nuances mentioned above. I also
believe that groups of musicians playing under a good conductor can
produce something that is "greater" than the individual parts. (they
do not always do that of course.)

For expample a good jazz bassist knows how to vary his attack so that
he/she leads the beat slightly to add tension or drive. Similarly each
instrumentalist knows little tricks that can materially add to the 
overall effect.

Of course it is possible to find a systhesist that knows all these tricks
and can "play" each voice of the score with them. By the time you are
through though it would take him/her just as long to produce the score
in person hours and would cost you just as much.

Although it would take as many person-hours, it might not cost nearly as 
much.  A synthesist can work at home with a multi-track recorder, getting 
everything right, then come to the studio just long enough to play the 
synthesizer into the studio's recorder, with the synthesier driven by a 
sequencer.  That can turn an 8-hour studio session into 45 minutes, with 
considerable saving in dollars.
    John Sauter

Re .2
Savings for the studio, yes. If the synthesist wants to donate his time
that is fine but not a good way to make living. The studio musicians
could theoretically shorten the studio time bill by knowing the chart
cold too. Still sounds like a wash to me.

I was thinking of the money that the synthesist must spend to rent the 
studio.  Many people are willing to spend a lot of time "at home" to avoid 
dollar expenses.  Even if it takes me twice as long at home, I don't feel 
that I have lost if I enjoy the work.  With enough talent, and some good 
luck, it is possible to make a living this way, even if you must spend many 
hours at home for each hour of recorded material.
    John Sauter

	As an ex-oboist turned composer/synthesist, I find the increasing
versatility of modern electronic music both exciting and practical.

	While gifted and dedicated performers do exist, it is sadly
not the norm. 

	Working at home with my equipment, I can take all the time in
the whole to add all the nuance I want. I can have passages played
at different speeds, change dynamics, rewrite sections on the spot,
all of which would be practically and financially unfeasible were I
using live musicians.

	Also, synthesists who write their own music will be far more
interested in getting a great performance than j-random musician
who may neither like or understand the piece.

	Of course, if I was a violinist trying to support a family,
I might not be so happy about things. But then, that's not a
musical issue, is it?

						,Karl

	I find that the advent of low cost multitracking and
	music synthesis automation has helped me realize 
	compostions without the necessity of either tutoring
	parts to other musicians or getting flack about "I want
	to play this". In other words my compostions come out 
	more to my liking. Sometimes someone elses interpretation
	of what sounds right really bugs the mother-f*cking 
	be-geebees out of me. Or my favorite "I can't do it",
	fine I know a circuit that can - see ya later.

	John

There are really two issues here:

1) Can a dedicated, well trained, talented, sysnthesist/composer
   produce a quality movie score. The answer is definitely yes.
   Maybe even cheaper. No argument.

2) Are there times when there is a competitive advantage to using
   "real" studio musicians? I claim the answer to this is also yes.
   I've written a score or two and even with non-pro's, I have been
   pleased as often as frustrated. Maybe all violinists of the
  future will need to double on synthesiser to eat regularly. I just
   don't believe synthesiser scores will replace all movie scores
   any more than television or movies replaced live theater.

I don't think the parallel is very close.  Although I agree that recorded
synthesier music will never replace live musicians on a stage, any more than
movies or TV have replaced live performers on a stage, yet it has happened
that musical instruments have become obsolete.  Your typical rock band does
not have a harpsichord, for example.  It may be that, over time, electronic
instruments will replace acoustic instruments.  This is already starting to
happen with the guitar.  I don't think musicians will have less work to do,
they will just need new skills.  I agree that a violinist may have to play a
synthesier in order to eat.  Alternatively, he may program computers to eat. 
    John Sauter

Another possibility to consider is the use of software algorithms which
mathematically generate the waveforms, which are then recorded directly 
to tape using modified multitrack digital recording technology.  Then,
you rewind the tape and play it back.

While experimental, it offers the promise of synthesizing complete
orchestral works with all the force and soulish gratification of a full-size
symphony orchestra, but at a fraction of the price.  Plus, it doesn't
sound like a synth.

This has been done at MIT, and probably other places, since the late 50s.
The problem with it is that it is very slow.  It can take hours to produce
a few seconds of music, especially if you simulate such ``realism'' features
as echos from the back wall of the hall.
    John Sauter

I find it interesting that Vangelis, of Chariots of Fire fame, got his
big hit with live musicians rather than being totally synthed, as was
most of his previous work. Well maybe the piano was a synth. It's getting
hard to tell. That's one point.

Another point is that while there is great hue and cry from working musicians
about synthetic production, this has been the case for some time as far as
technology goes. I can picture the invention of the 1st keyboards striking
fear into the king's house quartet....

Another great advantage of synths in movie and tv work is SMPTE time code
systems which allow the recording on the tape deck to synch with movie
and video frames, as well as expanding editing capabilities beyond "Ok,
play it again from measure 186, but this time give me more strings when
she kisses the hero."

Live musicianship is not doomed. As long as people are willing to pay for
the intrinsic value of having a whole buncha humans play at the same time,
live musicians will earn some money from it. Perhaps there will come a day
when kids will say "Y'mean they got 65 people to do that? Incredible!"
I feel just as bad about Dixieland Jazz and its musicians as I do about
the present fix some musicians are in (I grew up in New Orleans). I guess
I and the rest of us reading this have already made a few economic decisions
about music as a career. 

-seymour-