Conference napalm::commusic_v1

Perhaps the musician quoted was referring to the ability to manipulate (as in
post-process) digital-based music at will. Granted, digital recording of
acoustic instruments now allows this as well, but not (currently) as an inherent
part of the process, as sequencing of synthesized sounds does. Given the
current state of technology, if you hear a mesmerizing *acoustic* riff, there's
not much chance it was pasted together electronically.

This is a blatant SWAG, mind you- I don't know what the individual in question
actually meant, so it's really my own interpretation. I'd say that at the
moment it's a valid point of view, though it's doubtful if it will remain so for
long, as digital recording and editing becomes more widespread as well as more
sophisticated. A good analogy would be the digital editing of graphic images-
now pictures *do* lie, regularly and with impunity, and thus one more vestige of
innocence is lost. Sigh. Such is the way of the world...

Cheers,
	Bob

	Heck, my new pieces weren't even written down on paper first, they
	weren't even written first, they weren't even by me; my computer
	composed them.  How deceptive!  I love it when AlgoRhythms can do
	that namby-pamby pop new-age melodyless junk in a way that can
	deceive listeners into thinking it's a Windham-hiller, if only for
	a matter of seconds.

	For commusic 9, I submitted an excerpt from one of my orchestra
	pieces; my setup wasn't dishonest enough I had to borrow someone
	else's.  But when I was honest, a cruddy little community
	orchestra tried to sight-read it with half the instruments missing;
	now I can hear all the parts the way I wrote them just as though
	as orchestra were playing, although there is no orchstra.  Hurray for
	masquerade!  Three Cheers for mimicry and dishonesty!

	Acoustic never meant anything to me except for my piano recitals;
	I never had access to good orchestras except twice, and then they
	only sight-read my pieces once mistakes galore.
	Acoustic virtually never existed for me, after leaving college
	where I had some chamber music performances.

	TOm

	Sounds like the same old whine that happened when synthesizers
	first appeared, when samplers first appeared, when digital
	recording first appeared, when electric guitars first appeared,
	etc. ad nauseum. Not knowing the full quote I couldn't comment
	further, but usually the whining is directed at the tools and
	technology... Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Not everyone
	needs to agree with everyone else.

	I was at a party once upon a time, playing my Polysix on a living
	room floor, with a guy on a Japanese flute (can't spell it, but
	it phonemed as bee-wah), and a guy with an acoustic guitar. We had
	taken a break from jamming and some random woman wandered in and
	saw the Polysix and made some derogatory comment to the effect that
	synthesizers "didn't make music, they just made noise" or somesuch
	junk. We did have a civil conversation about it, and when two 
	acoustic players and an electronic player (me) sat down and did
	what would in this decade be considered a space jam, she shut up
	enough to listen, and later we talked about it (she was educated
	by it). Basically it still seems to be *what* you do with any 
	piece of technology that defines the end product, although many
	quasi-sentient people haven't figured out that technology doesn't
	do this all by itself. As the accessability of electronic synthesis
	and digital technology enters its third decade, you'd think that
	people would get used to it by now. I still run into "purists" who
	pontificate about how the Highland pipes are soooo much better than
	any synthesizer (and play along with a Yamaha organ - that was last
	week, and I almost choked on my beer when I heard that).

	whatever. I'll shut up now.

	/pjh

	

    It seems to me this a more a process related thing, almost Puritanical
    in concept.  I.e., it ain't "honest" if it didn't require more work or
    a unique skill that the "ordinary person" isn't willing to invest or
    doesn't have.  Were this not the case, there'd be nothing to distinguish
    the artist from the hoi polloi.
    
    Of course, we can argue about the time investment or skills required to
    step time sequence long complex pieces, or to edit samples or digitized
    performances, but that's not the point.  But we should recognize that
    skills that are considered valuable or useful do tend to change over
    time.
    
    I.e., If it isn't expensive, it must not be valuable.  I think this
    kind of elitist perspective is what's really going on here.  This
    guy is saying, "real", "honest" music can only be made by me and people
    like me, because we've paid our dues at the official clubhouse.  And
    who'd want to belong to a club that "anybody" could join?
    
    Now, I'll be the first to admit that there's a strong correlation
    between traditional expertise acquired the traditional ways, but a
    correlation only indicates the possibility of a causal relationship,
    it doesn't guarantee it.  If the results have the desired properties,
    does it matter how they were achieved?  Please, don't take this to
    mean I believe the ends always justify the means; all I'm saying is
    that there are often many legitimate means to the same end.  I'm always
    wary of any assertion that there is one and only one true path to
    excellence.
    
    len.
    

Gee, guys, what's the fuss? The original quote sounded to me simply like someone
wanted to make sure folks realized whatever "chops" were involved were
authentic- though that's just my reading of what's already third-hand info. I
didn' take it to be a slam in any way against non-acoustic music, just one
person's preference for his or her own work.

If an artist is concerned about the perception of his/her *performance* as
being pure of artificial enhancements, that seems a valid point of view. I can
at least respect it, whether or not I share the concern (presumed on my part)
of the quotee.

Quite a stir over an anonymous quote. Can you tell it's Monday?

Bob

    
    Keith Jarrett (sp?) was known to have the attitude expressed by the
    'musician' mentioned in .0. I used to think he was a snob by the way
    he would insinuate how he was so above using a systhesizer. I believe
    at one point he used that honesty argument stuff. Kinda reminds of 
    'organic' food.
    
    

dishonest music is anything I don't like...

honest music is everything I like/make...

:-)

sounds like more granola_bs to me...

dbii

    I hope you don't feel I was confusing the message with the messenger.
    
    Be that as it may, the choice of the word "dishonest" seems to imply a
    certain amount of value judging.   If the original source of this
    sentiment did indeed merely want his performance to be perceived as
    pure of "artifcial" (interesting choice of word, that) "enhancements"
    (another interesting choice), was it necessary (or appropriate) to call
    some other class of music "dishonest"?  Does this music misrepresent
    itself in some way?  Do producers of this music universally misprepresent
    their roles in its genesis?  I have no problem with someone wanting to get
    duly and legitimately credited for their virtuosity (indeed, I'd
    probably be among the first to admit to envying such virtuosity), but
    to imply that other forms of virtuosity don't deserve similar credit
    or that their results are somehow less legitimate seems a bit priggish
    to me.
    
    Oddly enough, I doubt you'll ever hear a "music machinist" make any
    remarks that might be construed as similarly derogating manual/acoustic
    music.
    
    len.
    

    Since it is always a good idea to list references, the article that got
    me going was a review of Acton guitarist George Murray from the August
    3 Minuteman Chronicle.  From the review:
    
    	Acoustic music pleases Murray's ear most often these days.
    	"After all the synthesized music that was so popular for 
    	awhile, I like acoustic music's search for honesty and 
    	integrity."
    
    	Murray thinks about acoustic instruments in Jungian terms,
    	as though they were musical "archetypes."
    
    	"As long as there has been metal and wood and creative
    	people, there have been acoustic instruments," he says.
    
    
    Steve

    DISHONEST???
      Since the beggining of music when the caveman dropped a rock on his
    mates head and enjoyed the scream (History of the World Pt1) we have
    used new technology for the creation and enjoyment of music.
    
    	I personally think that using  a whiz bang piece of electronic
    equipment be it an electronic tuner or a computer sequencer to help
    you create or play better music than what you would be capable of
    as just an "acoustic player" is certainly not dishonest.
    
    	Dishonest would be say Lip synching during a live show and passing
    it off as a live performance.  I used to bash around on just and
    acoustic guitar for ages trying to imagine work out the bass and 
    drum parts etc etc and since I got my multi track and D20 and etc
    have found that I turn out better music (I think) and it cuts down
    band rehersal and recording time immensly.
    
      But one thing to remember is how good were these dudes who created 
    fabulous music when all they had was a pen and paper and one instrument
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    					I'll get down off my soapbox now!!!
          P.K.

re -6

I think Jarrett's position is a little more complex. He eschewed the use of
electronic keyboards because he felt that the techniques he had developed on
acoustic piano wouldn't give him the same degree of control when translated to
electronic keyboards. Given that he developed this attitude in the early 70s,
his argument, in terms of the technology available then, was probably quite 
sound. It must be added that he was able to swallow his principles, albeit only
temporarily, when invited to play with Miles Davis, with whom he played mostly
electronic keyboards.


Chris

    There's no question but that new instruments require new techniques,
    and may not be compatible with existing technique.  I have no problem
    with someone saying "hey, I've made a substantial investment in
    learning how to exploit this medium, and I want to continue to do so
    rather than start all over again".  Note that there's no judgement of
    relative merit in such a statement.  (BTW, I don't think Jarrett's
    statement was one of principle as much as it was one of honest
    practicality.)
    
    Regarding the relative merit of wood and metal vs semiconductors, and
    vibrating air vs. vibrating electrons, well, I guess we just don't
    call it "technology" when it's old enough.  It becomes "craftsmanship".
    Ironically, you can already hear old fart synthesists bemoaning the
    passing of the "good old days" when synths were built with real analog
    components, not these newfangled computer things.   
    
    Seriously, the instruments this guy reveres represent the culmination
    of a particular form of technology.  If freedom from artifice is the
    measure of the honesty of a sound, then he should sing a cappella.
    *ALL* musical instruments are artifacts, and *ALL* musical instruments
    represent the use of technology to "enhance" our ability to produce
    sound.
    
    len.
    
    

    A musician friend of mine, with a real 6' grand, good mics and a TASCAM
    644, recently sold the grand and the mics and purchased a KX88 , a
    reverb and a Kurzweil module with grand piano sounds.. why ?  Because 
    the recordings she made acoustically couldn't match the recordings from 
    the Kurzweil.  You think my setup made any impression on her ? ;-)
    
    In other news, I have friends who are sailors, like on boats with
    sails.  There's a real antipathy between those who drive wooden boats
    and those who drive (seriously) "bleach bottles".
    
    karl

  >	"As long as there has been metal and wood and creative
  >  	people, there have been acoustic instruments," he says.
  
Metal! How could you make an instrument out of metal? Instruments
should be made out of materials found naturally, like wood, leather
and gut... 

"As long as there has been new material and creative 
people, there have been new-material instruments," I say.

Dave

    There exist metal clarinets and violins.  I don't know how they
    sound.
    
    I heard a pice on NPR last week about a guy making graphite violins
    for sale in countries where it is either very dry (like the mideast)
    or very humid (like Brazil) where a wooden violin of any quality
    would warp out of shape.
    

This is an interesting topic, since I was just thinking about this 
earlier this week. ;^)


I think they're are two issues involved here:  "Music"  and "Performance".
In my mind there is no such thing as dishonest music, since whatever you
need to use to create what you want is ok. If that means a synth or 
a computer, so be it. 

However, they're is such a thing as "dishonest" (maybe a bad term)
performance. This relates, of course to sequencing. Before anyone 
hammers me for being anti-sequencing, let me explain. I'm not
saying that sequencing is bad, but with the ability to use a sequencer
to record bar by bar etc. makes it nearly impossible to tell if the
performer's skill is in playing music or using the sequencer.

To illustrate:

I was at a friends house the other day to work on a song I've written. He's
going to play some (SQ-1 based) organ and piano on the track. Now I've
heard my friend's home recordings and was always impressed with 
the quality of the keyboard parts, naturally I assumed (uh oh.. ;^)) that
he actually played those parts live. Then we started working on the 
parts for my song. Boy did the light come on! I clearly recall how on
one passage, he slowed the tempo down because he could't play the part
at tempo. No big deal really, I mean I don't care how he makes his
music. It was just very enlightening. 

The above is a clear example of "Dishonest" performance. Does it 
diminish the music result? Of course not, my friend still makes 
great music. But the technology can make someone appear to 
have much more talent than they really do. 

BTW, "Dishonest" is really a bad word for this. It has too many ugly 
connotations.

-T

I think .16 is on the right "track," so to speak.

From the original somewhat vague reference, it sounded like the musician whose
remark started this furor didn't mean to slam nonacoustic instruments; from the
later, precise quote, I'm really sorry to say it looks like he did. Poor
misguided soul...

Still and all, I think the resulting discussion has become distinct from that
remark. I believe the division of the overall function of "making music" into
distinct roles helps the appreciation of each on its own merits. I wouldn't
even think of passing a judgement on which is more "important" than others.

Some examples of musical talents I can appreciate:

- Simply conceiving of music, not even being able to share it
- The process of notating (or in any way communicating) a musical composition
- Arranging a composition to be played by one or more instruments
- Performing a composition, or part of a composition in concert with
  other performers (as in "chops," implying "real time")
- Creating programs or devices which generate musical forms
- Devising new instruments (including synth patches) or new ways
  to control them (such as Buchla's Thunder)

I'm sure there are more.

It's worth noting that musicians have historically rushed to embrace any new
instrument which expanded their creativity and expressiveness; witness the
demise of the harpsichord in favor of the fortepiano, or the recorder in favor
of the flute. Personally, I would guess that many of the "old masters" would
relish the wondrous range of "instruments" available via electronic SGUs, but
bemoan the lack of expressiveness provided by the relatively crude realtime
control over them compared to, say, a violin or a saxaphone. Hopefully we'll
see significant evolution in these instruments over our lifetimes.

This has been an interesting discussion; seems to have struck sensitive points
with a lot of folks.

Cheers,
	Bob

	re. 16:
	think
	"synthetic virtuoso"
	Tom

    Y'all remember Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?  I was reminded of
    this last night by former-Deccie, former Commusic participant Dave
    Foster.  Anyway, Bill and Ted brought back, who was it, Beethoven?
    They took him to the mall.  He discovered synthesizers.  He went wild.
    I think this was a pretty realistic emulation of what would have
    happened if some of the "great" composers had access to today's
    technology.  So much for the traditionalists who, in my mind, figure
    that the only good composer is a dead composer ...
    
    Steve

Nit alert ;-)

>Personally, I would guess that many of the "old masters" would
>relish the wondrous range of "instruments" available via electronic SGUs, but
>bemoan the lack of expressiveness provided by the relatively crude realtime
>control over them compared to, say, a violin or a saxaphone.

The saxaphone is a "new" instrument compared to "old masters".
I agree that old masters would be impressed with it though.

----
 I read the comments after a Keyboard magazine readers soundpage
 contest. The judges were very impressed with the keyboard work on
 one recording and compared it to [insert some famous pianist here].
 But then they dropped the musicisan from contention because he  
 sequenced it and I guess admitting that he couldn't play the parts live.
 I don't know whether they stated the rules up front or not, but it
 became clear they were looking for "best new keyboard player" and not
 necessarily best recording by a new keyboard player. 

 For a magazine that is filled with ads and info about the electronic 
 side of keyboard playing, they definitely took a shot at the 
 "dishonesty" of sequencing. I suspect that the Milli Vannili lip
 synching "scandal" affected their stance on this too. 

 Dave

Re .20:

SET DISCUSSION/PAUSE_FOR_NIT

Well, depending on what you mean by "old," the saxophone is in a gray area. I
can't recall its precise "birthdate," but it did have some classical music
composed specifically for it before it dropped out of sight as an orchestral
intrument. Post-Bach? Yes. Post-Rachmaninoff? No.

SET DISCUSSION/RESUME

    I can't resist throwing in my two cents worth...
    
    If I understand it correctly, Wendy Carlos did "Beauty and the Beast"
    entirely by computer. This notion of "dishonesty" could be extended to
    the use of instruments too: the sounds on this album were computed,
    there was no honest synthesizer making the sounds. The liner notes said
    that this album is purely DDD, no microphones were used. The first time
    it becomes sound is in your living room speakers. 
    
    It all comes down to philosophy. If you put a computer and speakers
    wailing away in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, is there
    any music? I guess I'd have to say that the listener is an important
    part of what constitutes the musical experience... so if no one hears
    it, then there is no music. (But I'd say there would be sound in any
    case!)
    
    What if there is no composer? Is that honest music?
    What if the listener is an expert system programmed to critique music?
    Is that an honest listener? What if you leave it in the forest
    listening to the computer wailing away, but no one is there? Is there
    music? I once had a cat that recognized and enjoyed Steely Dan
    (honest!) - what if she were there in the forest? Would there be music?
    
    To answer any of these questions, we need to define our terms. All I
    know is that I have no idea what music is anymore. But I might
    recognize when I hear it. ;^)

    I guess if you're looking for a good keyboardist, that's one thing.  If
    you're looking for good music, that's another.  Can't very well give a
    "best keyboardist" award to a sequencer.  But, I detect an undertone
    that tries to set up artificial barriers to the biz for folks that
    haven't "paid their dues".
    
    I ran into this at BYU one semester that I was there.  I wanted to take
    some music theory classes.  But, I was forced to take the one class
    reserved for non-music majors because one was not allowed to enroll in
    music theory classes otherwise.  The class was a waste of time.  No
    hard-hitting theory.  Nothing that I didn't already know.  And, a
    teacher that graded everyone on "improvement" rather than on the
    quality of the work.
    
    My wife, who got her degree in music performance (violin), sometimes
    whinces about what I do with synths.  She likes what I do as far as how
    it sounds.  But, she resents the fact that it's easy, or at least that
    I make it look easy, for me to get full ensemble sound.  There is no
    way to fault the sound.  If it sounds too "perfect" or too "mechanical"
    I can change that by varying the tempo, shifting a part by clocks,
    adding real-time variance in velocity, pitch or vibrato ... anything
    that can be done with "real" instruments.
    
    I agree about the earlier note separating performance from the sound.
    I can't perform.  I can only make good music and make no claims about
    being a musician.  I can't even call myself a "composer" because I
    don't fit the criteria that I have read some put on this.  "They" say
    that before you can call yourself a "composer" you have to write a new
    tune every day, you have to WRITE, you have to follow the standard
    chord progressions and on and on.
    
    Truth of the matter is, I don't know what I am as far as the niche that
    people will want me in.  But, whatever I am, good music comes out that
    people want to listen to.  "Artist" won't do as a title.  All the other
    "artists" will find some reason why I don't fit in their group. 
    Perhaps I am best described as the one thing that scares the willies
    out of "real" musicians, composers and other artists.  I am a musical
    innovator.  And, that is the type of person that you can't compete with
    on a creative level if you are not yourself creative.  You can only
    compete by burning bridges, locking out and eschewing.  I can't be
    controlled until they can fit me into a niche.  Until that happens,
    I'll create music for the reason that Ned Roren (sp?) gives; because
    nobody makes the music I want to hear.
    
    Steve

    The ironic part of all this is, the same people who worry about the
    "honesty" of their acoustic music are playing it on instruments that
    probably contributed to the destruction of the rain forests, global
    warming, etc. That leads me to the discussion of whether it's more
    destructive to animals to wear leather shoes, or to wear plastic shoes
    that required more energy to make and therefore resulted in more
    jungles getting destroyed. Or are you interested in debating the merits
    of cloth diapers versus disposables?
    
    Here's my real opinion: all instruments were created by and for wimps
    with musical ambitions and lousy voices. If you really want to be
    "honest", sing your heart out. Otherwise, you're a hopeless technocrat
    as far as I'm concerned, and I won't trust you farther than I can throw
    your amplifier.
    
    - Ram (a notorious wimp with musical ambitions)

    I notice that I put up some artificial lines, myself.  I've
    enthusiastically welcomed MIDI and learning orchestration with
    multitimbral SGU's, etc.  I happily use a fancy sequencer program, 
    but rarely quantize parts, excepting some percussion sometimes.  I 
    refuse to learn my sequencer's step-time entry features.  I pride 
    myself on playing everything in real time.  Pretty odd demarcation
    of 'authentic' performance vs 'inauthentic' (machine-assisted?)
    performance and recording.  However I note that I recently composed 
    a piece that I really can't play in real time.. I can play it slower and
    more poorly than I hear it in my head.  The conflict means I haven't
    yet recorded it, even into the computer...
    
   <<< Note 2694.23 by RICKS::SHERMAN "ECADSR::SHERMAN 225-5487, 223-3326" >>>
>I can't even call myself a "composer" because I don't fit the criteria... 
    
    YES, YOU CAN, AND YOU SHOULD.
    
    karl

    Okay, Karl, you twisted my arm ...  I'm a composer.  Ah, I feel better.
    But, what's Tom?  We gonna let Keyboard award this year's best composer
    award to his PC?  :o
    
    Steve

    I believe there's a long standing tradition to call the likes of us
    "dilettants".
    
    len.
     

    
    	I can just imagine the lunatic glow in Bach's eyes grow brilliant
    once he's figured out that by programming a sequencer, he can get
    another trillion notes per-measure in his scores.  He was regarded
    as an excentric A%&Hole by his peers for composing music too hard to
    play.
    
    	I think dishonest music is stuff you willingly steal from someone
    else and call your own. Distinct from willing stealing "bits" of
    someone elses material, stirring it up, and calling it your own. The
    term for that IS composing.
    
    	Taking the sequenced approach back a few years - when George Martin
    did the keyboard thing for the Beatles "In My Life", he recorded it at
    half-speed because he could not play it well at the speed of the
    finished product. Was that dishonest?  Is every little edit you punch
    in, either on tape or sequence, a crime against art?
    
    	What the hell does any of this crap have to do with creating, with
    musical weapon of choice, somethin that get's you off in some fashion
    or another!  Heck, i believe MUSAK arraingers take pride, and enjoy 
    what they do, even if we don't!  I have no twing of concience when i
    think "Geez, this stuff sucks!". I can't single out anyone fairly for
    stealing a bit from here or there, cause everyone does it, and always
    has, be it Mozart to Zappa.  Hell, the blues would be against the law!
    
    	About the only way i could appropriately use the term honest, would
    be as an adjective to my opinion - ie; honestly, that was good, or
    honestly, that stunk! Any other context seems to be just breaking-wind!
    
    Honest Bob
    

    Hey, I like it!  Steve Sherman: Composer Dilettante
    
    Steve

    I don't know why people place so much emphasis on how the music
    was created - and no, that's not an excuse for using sequencers
    because while I do use sequencers, I use them no differently than
    I would use a tape recorder.  I basically use them as "MIDI recorders"
    in that I play every note, don't "edit".  The only sequencer capability
    I use that isn't available via tape is to quantize drum parts.
    
    My sole evaluation of a piece is how it strikes me.  Knowing how it
    was done, or who did it, doesn't matter much.
    
    For example, Eddie Van Halen is sorta known as a bit of a "cheat"
    in that he uses various tricks to make something sound harder than
    it is.  For example, "Cathedral" was done with a DDL playing most
    of the notes, and the authentic sounding flamenco guitar in the intro
    to "Little Guitars" was NOT done with flamenco staccato (it was done
    by picking the staccato notes and hammering the other notes with the
    right hand).
    
    My feeling is "so what"?  It sounds cool!
    
    Another example: I used to be a big fan of Keith Emerson and his style
    of music.  I became aware of a so-called "ELP Rip-off" band called
    Triumvirate.  I bought all their albums and love them.  I think
    whether or not the "rip-off" title is deserved is debatable, but even
    if it's not, I just look at those albums as "bonus" ELP albums.  If
    there were a DOZEN bands doing ELP music that was as GOOD as ELP, I'd
    buy all their albums!  The more ELP-type music I can get my hands on,
    the better.

 I find it interesting the way people are explaining how they use sequencers,
 as if it is OK to use some features of a sequencer and still be "honest"
 while not using others because it feels like cheating. I don't find
 it that easy to categorize which use is honest and which isn't.
 For example, my sequencer can create real time sounds or effects that are 
 built into the patches or architecture of some synths (midi delay, 
 glissando, trills, appeggiation). Is it more honest if they are part 
 of the "instrument" rather than the sequencer?  ;-)  I have a mandolin 
 patch on the VFX that plays a note for each key press and another for 
 each key release. Is that cheating?  What if I programmed the sequencer 
 to do the same thing?

 I don't mean to criticize anyone, because we all set up standards and goals
 for ourseleves.  I do wonder if kids learning music today on full MIDI rigs
 will bother with what could be considered neurotic needs to keep the music
 honest. We have constantly evolving views about what is OK to do
 and what isn't. After all, from an electronic point of view reverb is
 just as fake as Casio one-note chords. I suspect many (self included)
 look down upon the Casio one note chord approach, but never question the
 virtuosity of a good accordian player (one note chords). Nearly everyone
 seems to think reverb is a good thing...

 Dave

Discussions are interesting, fer sure. Exchanging different perspectives on an
issue yields food for thought and is refreshingly un-boring.

I find it depressing, though, to see so many opinions expressed here which seem
*closed* to different perspectives and defensive about their own.

Yes, the end product is the "main thing," but why  is it wrong for different
individuals to have their own personal goals in creating that product? Using
any and all tools at hand to produce the absolute best music you can is a great
goal, but producing beautiful music with minimal tools is an equally valid
approach, IMHO.

I recall my first guitar, a $15 Kay (used- new, it was a whopping $25!). It
had terrible action, and not-so-great sound. However, a friend of my brother's
who happened to be quite good picked it up and made it sing. "Doing more with
less" can be an interesting musical challenge, and doing that doesn't need to be
seen as a criticism of the equally valid (and apparently more popular) approach
of using whatever tools you think will help you reach your personal music-making
goals.

Personally, I think everyone should stay true to their own "vision," *whatever*
it is; no license required, all applicants accepted, regardless of race, creed,
color, religion, OR "Political Correctness."

I hope this reply doesn't offend *too* many people. I just happen to have an
*extremely* strong attachment to being weird in my own particular way, and
preserving the rights of others to do the same.

Cheers,
	Bob

                     <<< Note 2694.31 by TERSE::ROBINSON >>>
              -< Look what happens when I press this single key! >-


> I find it interesting the way people are explaining how they use sequencers,
> as if it is OK to use some features of a sequencer and still be "honest"
> while not using others because it feels like cheating. 
    
    Well, that's true, and I was essentially mocking my own attitude in my
    last reply in this topic.. as if some of the features are 'okay' to use
    and others are 'not okay'.. but it is clear that I've drawn some lines
    there, mostly because I'm a player, not a programmer, and like Dave
    Blickstein, I use my sequencer as an editable tape recorder.
    
    karl

    re .31, .32 - I agree wholeheartedly; people can choose whatever means
    they care to to achieve their ends.  What I object to is someone
    asserting that their way is better, or produces more honest music,
    or that some other way is illegitimate or fraudulent.  I can't
    condone misrepresentation of any form, but if someone is (dis)honest
    about their use of tools and technology, then their music is just as
    (dis)honest.  Ans everyone's free to say "I prefer to ..." or "I like
    ... better than ...".  But people ought to be a little bit more careful
    about things like "this is better than that".
    
    len.
    

    If you want an experience in snobbery, let your kids play with your
    most exensive synth.  You know, the one that practically plays itself.
    What happens is "noise", you smirk.  Sure, it sounds cool as the tikes
    play with interesting (to them) variations in pitch, timbre, velocity,
    chord "structure" and aftertouch.  But, anybody can do that ...
    
    There's the catch.  What if those very same sounds were coming out of a
    Brian Eno or John Cage production.  Suddenly it becomes "art".  You
    take it fro granted that because it comes from an "artist" it must be
    "art", by definition.  Seems that "honest" music is maybe music that in
    some way or another can't be done by "just anybody".  So, we all
    apparently try to find some reason why the music we make is somehow
    unique to us.
    
    Where is my uniqueness?  I sequence, step-time and quantize the heck
    out of my stuff.  Perhaps, that's one area where I'm unique.  I tend to
    go over every note, every event to make sure it's exactly what I want.
    I think of it as akin to "sculpting" versus "performing".  I check to
    see if what I have matches what's in my head.  And, that's the other
    area where I'm unique.  Most of my compositions are done away from the
    keyboards in my head.  I only rarely will compose at the keyboard.
    
    To each his or her own.  
    
    Steve

    
I find it interesting the way people are explaining how they use sequencers,
> as if it is OK to use some features of a sequencer and still be "honest"
> while not using others because it feels like cheating. 
    
    This doesn't really apply to what I said even though I think it
    was my note that provided the catalyst for you writing this.
    
    I mentioned how I use the sequencer to establish credibility:
    
    I.E. To summarize what I said, "I think it's FINE to use non-natural
    sequencer features to create music and I'm NOT saying that to justify
    my own work because I happen not to use it in my work."
    
    That I don't use those features is only a reflection of how I'm used
    to doing things, not a predisoposition AGAINST those features.
    
    Oh heck... this is the kind of thing that's hard to articulate in
    written words.  If you don't understand what I just said, don't worry.
    I'm not sure I would either... ;-)
    

	When I was about 17, I improvised with a friend of mine  you've
	heard without knowing it in movies and TV, because he's in the 
	union in LA on clarinet now; he pointed out to me that I seemed to
	be even more virtuosic improvising than when, say, sight-reading
	(which is what I did the most, write my music at a desk then	
	sight-read it to hear it, and also sight-read a lot of other classical
	music).
	It's then that I realized that it is far far easier to sound
	virtuosic improvising than playing from a score, certainly
	sight-reading; this is even true of pros.  The velocity
	scales up as you look at the keyboard and don't worry about the
	particular note hit in the middle of a blues scale; the large
	chords become surer because  you can see everything and have no
	score to check; there is more confidence because there is no
	fear of contradicting a score, so you more straight ahead.
	
	Keyboard viruosity should be evaluated with a variety of
	challenges; sight-reading, improvisation, studied pieces for
	velocity, and even some cheap etudes, memorized.  But touch
	control is more critical than velocity most of the time.

	So virtuousity is difficult to compare or evaluate, although it
	probably seems on the surface to be one of the simpler technical 
	musical values.
	Tom

 Unfortunately, both Karl and Dave B. felt as though I didn't understand
 or was criticizing them about using and not using features of sequencers.

   >    Well, that's true, and I was essentially mocking my own attitude in my
   > last reply in this topic.. as if some of the features are 'okay' to use
   > and others are 'not okay'.. but it is clear that I've drawn some lines
   > there, mostly because I'm a player, not a programmer, and like Dave
   > Blickstein, I use my sequencer as an editable tape recorder.
    
    
   >   This doesn't really apply to what I said even though I think it
   >   was my note that provided the catalyst for you writing this.
 
  I really wasn't trying to criticize as much as to point it out as
  something we all do.  And we each change what we consider to be
  OK according to rules or values that are always changing. When
  I said "interesting" I meant interesting as a sociological study 
  rather than interesting as weird or inconsistant, or somehow wrong.

  Interesting topic.

  Dave

    Sequencers know WHEN to make a sound, but not HOW to make it. I think
    there is room to expand the discussion to samplers: Create music using
    stolen sounds.
    
    Ueli

    Re: .6, .11
    
    Keith Jarrett has stated he wasn't interested in electronic keyboards
    but wanted to work with Miles, so he bit the bullet.  In fact,
    listening to albums like "Live/Evil" and "Live at Fillmore", Jarrett
    was the prime noisemaker in that band, playing a Farfisa organ through
    a ring modulator and other fun toys.  His experience was sufficient to
    conclude that for *him* it was a dead end.
    
    His primary complaint was that expression was hindered by the
    electronics. He has also mentioned that the mechanics of the piano are
    also a hindrance to expression but something he has learned to live
    with.
    
    So I can accept his position based on the fact that he did spend time
    playing electronic instruments and decided he didn't like them. 
    There's room for both in this world.
    
    							Brian

    If the finished product is enjoyable to listen to who cares how it was
    made?
    

Some do, some don't- and both are right! (Gee, what a great life...)

re: .42
    
    > If the finished product is enjoyable to listen to who cares how it was
    > made?
    
    Tell that to the legions of former Milli Vanilli fans.

    Re:44
    Yeah, I agree with you. I feel really sorry for the folks that
    actually performed on the Millie Vanilli album, thay didn't get
    recognition before or after the fiasco. Ain't it funny though
    how fickle the masses musical taste can be?
    
    Errol

We're getting to the crucial point, here. We're actually talking about two
distinct types of musical "honesty" (and "dishonesty").

One type of honesty concerns the way a musician feels about using advanced
technology to create music, and the way his/her audience feels about the music,
knowing the means by which it was created.

The other type of honesty concerns owning up to how a piece of music was
created, and not attempting to take human credit for something that wasn't
achieved by human effort. That is, there is nothing wrong with creating a
dynmatite sequence provided you don't attempt to pass it off as something that
you played real time.


Chris

    re: .46 (and .47)
    
    I don't think that's the "crucial point".
    
    I think the crucial point is whether or not it MATTERs how the music
    was created.
    
    I wouldn't throw out my MV albums because of this revelation if I liked
    the music (and by the way, to some extent I do).
    
    I didn't throw out my Wagner recordings when it came out that he was
    a big-time anti-semite.
    
    	db - who tries to go only by his ears

>    I didn't throw out my Wagner recordings when it came out that he was
>    a big-time anti-semite.

  Exactly.  This reminds me of watching the Beatles Compleat last week, when
  John Lennon was (mis)quoted saying something about the "Beatles meaning more
  than Jesus to kids these days" and then places like Alabama held rallies to
  burn and destroy all Beatles records/paraphanelia!  How ridiculous, I mean
  the music was great until one of the artists said something really stupid?!
  (sorry if this is slightly different flavor than orig note)

-TR

Re last few:

I think the point .46 was making is that the discussion in this note really
involves two separate topics: "honesty" as it relates to misrepresentation
(a la MV), and as used to describe self-imposed limitations on *how* one
produces music (a la intentional lack of reliance on electronic tools). It seems
to be the latter which provokes the greater controversy.

db has raised another issue entirely (IMHO), which is the separation of the
individual from the music produced- e.g., you can love the sound of Milli
Vanilli, Madonna, Cat Stevens, or anyone, without any implied corresponding
respect for the individuals involved in producing the music. (Of course, many
*do* connect these two as a matter of principle, in order to not reward folks
they think of as "less than wonderful" by buying their stuff...)

Pretty neat note, BTW.

Cheers,
	Bob

>   I think the crucial point is whether or not it MATTERs how the music
>    was created.
  
 I agree that this is the crucial, or, at least, the most interesting point.
 The Milli Vanilli issue seems related but is much easier to dispense
 as dishonest. If they had been involved in creating the music in some way
 or had been up front about being performers of other's music (something
 like Bette Midler, or Linda Ronstadt) then there would be fewer crys of
 fraud. As I understand it they "can't sing but can dance just as good
 as we want" (obscure quote :-} Archie Bell and the Drells). 

 I think there is room in the MTV world for "performers of other's music" 
 when that means not singing like Midler or Ronstadt (sp?) but lip syncing 
 and dancing or adding visual appeal very well. Rumor has it that Mondonna
 and Paula Abdul, for example, are only one step away from this. They do 
 sing for recordings, but don't (true?) sing live. And we all know how
 easy it is to cheat in a recording studio. Hmm... I guess I've come full
 circle. This _is_ related to the "how the music was created"  Oh well.
 

 Dave
 

What he said...

With regard to "dishonest" musicians, and the listener's response to their music.

If you like Milli Vanilli's music (I don't, by the way), there are practical
considerations to do with their honesty, or lack of same, about how their music
was produced. Someone, somewhere is producing a performance that is pleasing to
you, and they aren't getting credit for it. This damages their career at the
expense of "cheats" who don't deserve the credit they are getting.

Fortunately, listening to Cat Stevens made me want to throw up long before I
knew what a prat he was.


Chris

    >Someone, somewhere is producing a performance that is pleasing to you,
    >and they aren't getting credit for it. This damages their career at the
    >expense of "cheats" who don't deserve the credit they are getting.
    
    In the case of Milli Vanilli, no one was being cheated out of credit.
    
    The people who wrote and performed the music had agreed to not being
    credited.  They made a decision, and I suspect that DOING the MV
    projects helped their careers more than NOT doing it would have.
    
    If someone offered me the chance to write and record (anonymously) for
    Bruce Springsteen for major bucks, I'd do it, and I suspect it would
    be damn good for my career.
    
    Besides, I think being credited on a MV might actually be MORE DAMAGING
    to my career and going anonymous!!!   ;-)
    
    	db

    Dave,
    
    I don't think all the people who participated in the Millie Vanilli
    recordings knew up front that they were not going to get credit for
    their contribution.  When the whole thing broke, there was this one guy
    who did some vocal on a track, said he had been telling  people that
    those guys were phoney (MV) and that it was his voice, but nobody
    believed him.
    
    Actually he said he was led to believe that he was doing a demo or
    something like that and that's all he got paid for.  The producer
    said that he did not owe him or anyone else who performed any
    more money because they were paid an agreed sum to do a specific
    job and that was that.
    
    For the business point of view and the live performing point of view
    dishonesty abounds, but the actual music and performance of the music
    in the recording studio is as valid as anything else on tape.
    
    JMHO.
    
    Errol
    

    re :-1
    
    Nothing about what they were told and what actually happens really
    sounds to me like anyone was "cheated" out of something.
    
    The way session stuff works is that you come in, you do your parts,
    they pay you, and then you leave.
    
    You have no continuing rights to anything (royalties, credit, etc.).

Re .55:

I have to respectfully disagree with db as to the "normalcy" of paying session
men a going rate, but using their contribution as the *mainstay* of some very
big-bucks songs. (Presuming that *is* what happened, which so far hasn't been
stated with absolute certainty...) Although it might be quite legal technically,
I think there's clearly a double dose of deception (not to mention an alarming
amount of alliteration!) in such an arrangement.

An (imperfect, I know) analogy might be a model who was paid for what he/she
thought was a Bradlee's circular job, and then saw him/herself on the cover of
an international fashion magazine.

I have to confess, I've never even *heard* MV (i.e., their alter egos) to my
knowledge. Realing that a lot of folks liked the music, though, I do hope the
people who actually made it happen achieve as much follow-on business as the
"dancing mutes" apparently have- that would be their real payback, IMHO.

Gee- maybe they could do a video and hire MV to do the leg shots...the new art
of "foot synching" would be born...

Bob

    Yes but we're talking about dishonesty here. Being dishonest does not
    necessarily mean breaking the law,  but sometimes just not being
    straight with people. Session players accept that they will often not
    be credited for their work, but if their work is to be passed off as
    somebody else's then this should be made clear to them, for ethical
    reasons if not legal ones. They can then decide if they want the
    session or not.
    
    Telling the session players that they were playing on demo's and then
    releasing the stuff credited to someone else is dishonest, at least by
    my standards.
    
    Tony

	I'll bet the girls in the Robert Palmer Video's ('Simply
	Irrisistable' and 'Addicted to Love') didn't really play on the
	album. I'll bet is suit isn't even from Italy (probably from
	K-Mart). What is the world coming to?

							Jens

  I was helping my mother with some things in the kitchen this morning when
  Geraldo came on, wouldn't you know it, they had the real Milli Vanilli on.
  (along with body doubles, also disenchanting - most of the "good" shots of
  Julia Robert's body in Pretty Woman weren't her!  Likewise for Kim Bassinger.
  Looks like the "dishonesty" is in every media)

  I didn't catch all of it, my mother was talking at the time.  (Has anyone
  found a polite way to say "shut up! ma!, just for a minute" yet?)

  Anyways, one of the points made by one of the real Milli Vanilli was that
  he didn't think the album would have made it at all with him and the other
  guy at the "front end".  So it was bigger for them because of the way it
  was done.  It was the combination that made it a success.

  Likewise, one of the body doubles mentioned that she got much more publicity
  from the scandal that broke out afterwards than she would have gotten if she
  was credited up front.  It was "the best publicity I never got" she said.

  So it can work both ways.  The people not credited can benefit *more* from
  the experience.

  FWIW

-TR

    IMHO this whole discussion of honesty boils down to wether or no
    deception occurred.
    
    	For example: If I give a concert and through action or inaction,
    word or deed create the impression that I am really singing and I don't
    really sing I have deceived the public. That is dishonest.
    	On the other hand, there have been bands that made entertainment by
    doing pure lip sync, and instrument sync to records. Everyone knew it.
    The entertainment value of these bands was in seeing how well they
    could stay in sync. That is not dishonest.
    
    	It doesn't matter how I create music as long as I don't try to sell
    something that I won't be providing. When you buy a Hundai you don't
    expect the performance of a Porche, nor do you pay the same price, nor
    is the Hundai advertized as being equal to the Porche.
    
    	One of the earlier replies to this topic mentioned the many aspects
    of the music business today. Performing, singing, composing, arranging,
    etc... There is usually space provided to credit those responsible for
    a finished piece of work, that is why we have credits.
    
    	If you get the credits right, you are probably being honest. Don't
    lead people to believe that you possess skills that actually belong to 
    another person.
    
    	As far as how the sound is created, the same logic holds true here.
    Saying that an acoustic instrument sound is more "honest" than an
    electronic equivalent is meaningless. It is like saying that the color
    blue is more "honest" than the color green. It doesn't mean anything.
    Sounds, like colors do not have attributes of "honesty" or "dishonesty"
    only people do. The worst patch ever created has no more or less
    "honesty" than the finest timbre out of the best acoustic (or
    electronic) instrument ever made.
    	Now if you want to talk *quality* of sound, well, that
    is something completely different. It is also a very subjective
    argument and is not in keeping with this topic.
    
    
    			there! I read through all 59 replies to have the
    			chance to write this.
    
    				Mark