# Programmed Or Performed



## Cearux (Sep 16, 2008)

When it comes to music creation/composition, there are several different ways to do this. Usually, people prefer performance artists over programmed but I personally don't mind either way. Its music, wither it was played by a band, or dj'd by someone at a nightclub. 

Thoughts on Programmed music;

I've been working with different music programs over the course of about eight years. Using anything from ableton, magix, M-Audio, Fl Studio, and Cuebase. I believe that programming music is much easier to do however, it does take time to understand the program. For Fl, I remember just sitting down for an entire week studying the content of the program because I couldn't understand how to link midi keyboards/microphones to the computer at first. Also, there is some unavoidable recording lag when using a computer (Depending on what bit rate you use) So trying to get the music to flow correctly is quite hard.

Thoughts on Performance Music;

The above usually targets more towards people who can afford it (Usually 100-3000 range free sometimes even), Performance music usually cost several grand just to get a good sound from the instruments, not even the players. I actually like to record with live equipment because I consider it easier then recording onto a computer with input delay. I have to say this as well, mixers can be a pain. You just finished an entire piece, 2:43 minutes long, there was an area where the notes were detuned or you accidentally stepped on an unwanted effect in the sound room... Time to start over again. With having said that right there, I can honestly say that I can see why people tend to prefer performance music over programmed.

Myself, I write music(8 years), program it(6 years), perform it(13 years), etc. I have to say, which ever way you're willing to create a piece, so be it. Music is music.


----------



## Aden (Sep 16, 2008)

Cearux said:


> Thoughts on Programmed music;
> 
> I've been working with different music programs over the course of about eight years. Using anything from ableton, magix, M-Audio, Fl Studio, and Cuebase. I believe that programming music is much easier to do however, it does take time to understand the program.



Feh, recorders have to understand the program, too, especially if they create programmed parts to back up their recorded parts.



> For Fl, I remember just sitting down for an entire week studying the content of the program because I couldn't understand how to link midi keyboards/microphones to the computer at first. Also, there is some unavoidable recording lag when using a computer (Depending on what bit rate you use) So trying to get the music to flow correctly is quite hard.



Quantization is your friend. Also, I like recording to MIDI because you can adjust each note after the fact.



> Thoughts on Performance Music;
> 
> The above usually targets more towards people who can afford it (Usually 100-3000 range free sometimes even), Performance music usually cost several grand just to get a good sound from the instruments, not even the players.



Tell me about it. Pain in the ass.



> I actually like to record with live equipment because I consider it easier then recording onto a computer with input delay. I have to say this as well, mixers can be a pain. You just finished an entire piece, 2:43 minutes long, there was an area where the notes were detuned or you accidentally stepped on an unwanted effect in the sound room... Time to start over again.



That's where the dubbing step comes in. 



> I have to say, which ever way you're willing to create a piece, so be it. Music is music.



Too true. Writing ability is the basis to both forms of creation of music. However, I tend to gravitate towards recorded instruments. First reason is because I think it sounds more pleasing to the ear, and second reason is that I respect the skill of the instrumentalist. I hold someone who has dedicated an overwhelming amount of their time and effort into learning an instrument _far_ more than some kid who spent a weekend in FL to make a song.

That being said, there are good examples and bad examples of both groups. You get the lazy, shitty, sloppy instrumentalists and the amazing trance artists who spend a ton of time on a song.


----------



## virus (Sep 16, 2008)

since human beings cannot keep a set tempo like a computer can. Performed music will always be more pleasing.


----------



## Cearux (Sep 16, 2008)

virus said:


> since human beings cannot keep a set tempo like a computer can. Performed music will always be more pleasing.


 
Well, programmed music can be 'performed'. If for say you where to have someone DJing it while putting on a light show for the crowd. It as far as programmed vs performed, it all comes down to the one listening to the song. For say, they could look at a rock song, dislike it because they don't like the ring of a guitar while falling in love with the 8-bit sounds from an old school gameboy.


----------



## Eshmasesh (Sep 16, 2008)

virus said:


> since human beings cannot keep a set tempo like a computer can. Performed music will always be more pleasing.


not playing on tempo makes music good?


----------



## Aden (Sep 17, 2008)

Eshmasesh said:


> not playing on tempo makes music good?



When laying down a track, the different instruments can and will be offset from each other by a matter of milliseconds. As small as this may seem, it makes the music more audibly interesting. You can draw a comparison to stereo mixing over mono - if slightly different things are going into each ear, it's going to be more interesting. Conversely, if there's the exact same thing going into each ear (or if each instrument is exactly, robotically in-tempo), it's going to be a little more unexciting and flat.

AFAIK.


----------



## Takun (Sep 17, 2008)

I have some really raw sound songs on my playlist.  I love them.  Sound like they were recorded in a garage one night just fooling around.


----------



## demonwerewolf110 (Oct 14, 2008)

I use a combination of both. When I write a song, I use several different MIDI programs to work out every note of the song while playing it on my guitar. This way, I can make sure that the song will be (in my eyes at least) perfect. Also, it makes the writing process much easier when it comes to instrumental solos, harmonies, things of that sort. Then, after all the MIDI work is done, I move to recording the actual instruments. All in all, it takes me about a month to write and record an entire song, depending on the length and how many different instruments (for my next album, it will probably be much longer because I keep experimenting with pianos, violins, bagpipes, bells, whistles).

I usually post the MIDIs into my FA gallery. My fully recorded songs are on my MySpace page: http://myspace.com/miseryfields if you want to check it out.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 14, 2008)

From a listening perspective, I much prefer performed, but I'm not talking about DJ's or anything. A few of those unheard-of black metal bands use drumming programs, and you could tell immediately, it /sounded/ fake, even though the sound clips used were real. Maybe I've just listened to bad programmed music, but I still have a strong need for real musicians


----------



## GatodeCafe (Oct 14, 2008)

I do both. Although I'm an ardent supporter of live instrumentation, I truly believe that there are certain timbres that can only be accomplished satisfactorily through the use of sequencers. 

In the end, I don't care how it gets made as long as it's close to the noise I hear in my brain.


----------



## Tiarhlu (Oct 15, 2008)

When you say programmed, I'm assuming you mean something created in a sequencing program. With something like Max/MSP your program can create endless variety each time, but I assume you do mean the former. I think an inherent problem with it is that it's going to be exactly the same. Once you've heard it, that's it. The great thing about live performance is that it will never be the same, and the performers have freedom of expression that isn't possible via a recording. I think you get the same problem with CDs. Everytime you play it, it's the same. How many cover bands have I heard go out of their way to emulate what's on the CD? It ends up becoming the only way for that song to sound, and once you do something different with it, it startles people, and not always in a good way.


----------



## virus (Oct 16, 2008)

Eshmasesh said:


> not playing on tempo makes music good?



human beings can sync with one another however the tempo is not set at one time it bounces all over the place. So for instance if your playing at a BPM of 110 its can move from as low to 80 and 140 high and its not perceptive because everyone is changing tempo naturally. If you had a beat machine you would see the persons  swinging in and out of the set tempo.

A set tempo is good for practicing but its not practical in playing with other people.


----------



## Sedit (Oct 16, 2008)

I use Tune Trax Drumkit From Hell to do all my drums, since i'm just not talented or in shape enough to do the kind of drumming my music requires....but after that it's all live recorded instruments and amps.

I use Ableton Live for sequencing and arrangement of my drum MIDI files, and even recorded takes of my live instruments.  Than from there I do my final mixing, editing, and mastering on Adobe Audition


----------



## Kiffa_kitmouse (Nov 1, 2008)

Eshmasesh said:


> not playing on tempo makes music good?



I don't think that was the point lol...

Music performed by people will always be more interesting because it will always be different, even if only by a little bit, every time it's played live. A machine can play music, but it can't put feeling and soul into it.


----------



## GatodeCafe (Nov 1, 2008)

Kiffa_kitmouse said:


> I don't think that was the point lol...
> 
> Music performed by people will always be more interesting because it will always be different, even if only by a little bit, every time it's played live. A machine can play music, but it can't put feeling and soul into it.




I beg to differ. I've been working vehemently with some audio programming languages (ChucK, Csound, SuperCollider, etc...) and when one trancends traditional "sequencing" in favor of naturally-based algorithms and instructions, programmed music can duplicate a degree of "soul". i.e. controlled chaos, alegoricism, improvisation, etc...

So the question I would like to raise is thus: In the case that a machine is programmed not just to perform a set of actions, but to be "Creative" and go form it's own set of actions based upon a given framework, is it still music? Can a thing that cannot comprehend what it is creating still create something beautiful? I would argue for this.


----------



## Kiffa_kitmouse (Nov 1, 2008)

GatodeCafe said:


> I've been working vehemently with some audio programming languages (ChucK, Csound, SuperCollider, etc...) and when one trancends traditional "sequencing" in favor of naturally-based algorithms and instructions, programmed music can duplicate a degree of "soul". i.e. controlled chaos, alegoricism, improvisation, etc...



But it's still not emotion and 'soul', it's just a facsimile of it. An illusion.



GatodeCafe said:


> So the question I would like to raise is thus: In the case that a machine is programmed not just to perform a set of actions, but to be "Creative" and go form it's own set of actions based upon a given framework, is it still music?



Yeah, I'd say it's still music. But hell, you could compose a song by picking random notes out of a hat and it would still be music.



GatodeCafe said:


> Can a thing that cannot comprehend what it is creating still create something beautiful? I would argue for this.



I'd say that's possible, too. But that's because beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Any _emotional_ reaction to the music would be one-sided, entirely in the experience of the listener. I'm not necessarily saying that that makes that reaction meaningless... I'm just saying that I don't think that a machine will ever be able to put its heart into a musical composition, because it doesn't have one.


----------



## Aden (Nov 1, 2008)

GatodeCafe said:


> Can a thing that cannot comprehend what it is creating still create something beautiful? I would argue for this.



I'd say so. Looks at schools of fish, or beautiful natural formations of rocks and trees and earth. 

What's different about your music example, though, is that there has to be someone to originally write the algorithms. To that end, there's always going to be a small element of creativity in there.


----------



## Takun (Nov 2, 2008)

GatodeCafe said:


> I beg to differ. I've been working vehemently with some audio programming languages (ChucK, Csound, SuperCollider, etc...) and when one trancends traditional "sequencing" in favor of naturally-based algorithms and instructions, programmed music can duplicate a degree of "soul". i.e. controlled chaos, alegoricism, improvisation, etc...
> 
> So the question I would like to raise is thus: In the case that a machine is programmed not just to perform a set of actions, but to be "Creative" and go form it's own set of actions based upon a given framework, is it still music? Can a thing that cannot comprehend what it is creating still create something beautiful? I would argue for this.



Are we getting into pseudo-randomness?


----------

