4 ms·

> Is this still considered "playing music" since the person using it is still making choices and decisions even if those choices are aided by the computer algor

by Ace17 8y ago

> Is this still considered "playing music" since the person using it is still making choices and decisions even if those choices are aided by the computer algorithm? Think about hang drums, diatonic harmonicas, or about the Tenori-on. They make it basically impossible to play a "wrong" note. But a normal piano was already a step in this direction. A piano restricts the pitches to discrete ones, making it harder to play a "wrong" pitch. Violins, and to some extent, guitars, have continuous pitches. And there are indeeded some pitch nuances that piano players can at best hope to hear (e.g C# vs Db), and some pitch effects that a piano player can only mimic (glissando, vibrato). However, nobody today would argue that a piano player isn't really "playing music". > this could potentially be used to bring people into music that normally would be too intimidated to consider it And this is where the real issue lies IMHO: playing or making music shouldn't be "intimidating", but the way we teach it certainly doesn't help.

bograt 8y ago
This doesn't invalidate the point you're making, but saying that it's 'basically impossible to play a wrong note on a diatonic harmonica' is simply false, as anyone hearing me play one will attest to.
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Pianos evolved from older instruments where each string had fixed pitch - probably psalteries, which are related to harps - so there was no stepping towards removing wrong notes. They were simply different instruments. In fact the stepping went in the other direction, from a limited note selection in one scale to a full chromatic scale that could play in any key, wrong notes included. Many things that humans do are intimidating - such as running a marathon, climbing Everest, or inventing Smalltalk. Removing challenges devalues the personal satisfaction of mastery. Making any art simple makes it trivial and unexpressive. So you can't say anything of interest or value with machine music that does most of the musicking for you. You can make some sort-of-music-like noises, but that's all.
- Ace17 8y ago
  > Pianos evolved from older instruments where each string had fixed pitch Interesting. But my point is actually unrelated to history. It's related to the tradeoff between "easy to play" and "expressive power": There are some steps you can take, as an instrumentist, in the "easy" direction, while still keeping enough expressive power. > Removing challenges devalues the personal satisfaction of mastery. Surely. It's unclear, though, how instrumentist mastery correlates with musicality: Some virtuoso guitar solos can be considered "non-musical". To the other extreme, some great composers don't use any musical instrument (from classical music composers, to Amiga sequenced-music composers) - some of them can't even play their own compositions properly! > Making any art simple makes it trivial and unexpressive. This reminds me of an old a running joke on french TV, starring a fake David Guetta having a custom piano built, with only one key ( a reference to the intro of "I Gotta Feeling" ). I think it's safe to say that you can't express a lot with a such a piano :-) However, a smart 10-key "piano" opens new horizons: because now it's reasonnably possible to "play" multiple pianos at the same time. I can certainly see new forms of mastery and non-trivial expressiveness here (e.g a setup of 4 "smart keyboards", each of them using a different sound).

by Ace17 8y ago

bograt 8y ago

This doesn't invalidate the point you're making, but saying that it's 'basically impossible to play a wrong note on a diatonic harmonica' is simply false, as anyone hearing me play one will attest to.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

Pianos evolved from older instruments where each string had fixed pitch - probably psalteries, which are related to harps - so there was no stepping towards removing wrong notes. They were simply different instruments. In fact the stepping went in the other direction, from a limited note selection in one scale to a full chromatic scale that could play in any key, wrong notes included. Many things that humans do are intimidating - such as running a marathon, climbing Everest, or inventing Smalltalk. Removing challenges devalues the personal satisfaction of mastery. Making any art simple makes it trivial and unexpressive. So you can't say anything of interest or value with machine music that does most of the musicking for you. You can make some sort-of-music-like noises, but that's all.

Ace17 8y ago
> Pianos evolved from older instruments where each string had fixed pitch Interesting. But my point is actually unrelated to history. It's related to the tradeoff between "easy to play" and "expressive power": There are some steps you can take, as an instrumentist, in the "easy" direction, while still keeping enough expressive power. > Removing challenges devalues the personal satisfaction of mastery. Surely. It's unclear, though, how instrumentist mastery correlates with musicality: Some virtuoso guitar solos can be considered "non-musical". To the other extreme, some great composers don't use any musical instrument (from classical music composers, to Amiga sequenced-music composers) - some of them can't even play their own compositions properly! > Making any art simple makes it trivial and unexpressive. This reminds me of an old a running joke on french TV, starring a fake David Guetta having a custom piano built, with only one key ( a reference to the intro of "I Gotta Feeling" ). I think it's safe to say that you can't express a lot with a such a piano :-) However, a smart 10-key "piano" opens new horizons: because now it's reasonnably possible to "play" multiple pianos at the same time. I can certainly see new forms of mastery and non-trivial expressiveness here (e.g a setup of 4 "smart keyboards", each of them using a different sound).