Misgivings about Machines making Music

[Rsachi]

Click on the image above and you will be led to a You Tube video of A R Rahman endorsing a technology made by Intel, whereby you hear music made by machines. Manipulated by musicians.'With no strings, drums, or keys, or flutes, but all sounds synthesized by human gestures in conversation with powerful computers and sound systems.

I am wondering. In fact having misgivings. About the Mozart of Madras, anointed to pay his tribute to MSS at UN. I called this Rahman Effect long back, saying how synthetic sounds are invading our music. Now I hear even the best of classical musicians would like to go and work for Rahman. Twice Oscar winner and just short of a Magsaysay, Rahman is the face of world music today, hailing from Tamil Land and invoking Allah.

Should music be the product of machines manipulated by man?

Where is the interaction with the elements? Where is wood, mud, bamboo, leather and metal in touch with man? Where is man? In touch with Nature or with his head in the clouds conjuring up forces that make music at his bidding and bending?

In the Bhagavadgita, Krishna says that the lower elements are the five Bhutas, and mind, intelligence, and ahankara, He says that the higher element that makes it all possible is He, or Atma.

Should we say Jai Ho to people who are more intelligent, and can harness forces by thought or gesture, or those who intimately collaborate with Nature, and cajole music out of their innards, the music of Life, every moment beautiful in its unpredictability and the innocence of creative forces? Or bow down to the man who programmes everything and plays it out through obedient machines?

And then again, do we worship Enthiran when he goes off-key or bad? Or accept only the Perfect, and marvel at how Man is Playing God? After all, aren't we all in God's hands helpless like mere machines?

Drones make art. Robots make music. Someone will create a better machine than ever, and name it Rahman.

OK. Bottom line. Do we need man? I mean a body? Or just thought and mind?
Bhagavadgita says God wanted and so made man. and Creation. And plays out this creation (as a Lila.)

Very complex issues. What would MSS have said to all this?

PS: In 2020, I buy a China-made Rahman3.0 off eBay for Rs 175. It comes bubble-wrapped, and after I insert batteries, I choose "Ëndaro Mahanubhavulu". I wave my hands, and out comes the Enthiran song. It doesnt obey me! I am upset and want to call After Sales Service. The 1800 machine that answers is Intel3.0 It just takes me on a worldwide spin......

[Nick H]

Should music be the product of machines manipulated by man?

What, you mean like it always has been?

(or at least, for a very long time. Perhaps since musical instruments required more than being picked up from the ground or found in the forests)

True, there are machines simple and machines complex. The screw-tuning mechanisms of string instruments such as the violin and the veena could be said to be machines: they are certainly mechanical. We leap orders of magnitude to the keyboard/hammer/strings kind of machines such as the piano --- and whole universes to the complexity, mechanical/electric/electronic of the big pipe organs.

But it still takes a human being to play them.

Electronics have played a part in the world's music for a long time now. Longer than I thought, in fact: Wikkipedia tells me that it has been happening since the nineteenth century --- which is long time before names that I associate with electronic music, such as Moog. Mr Moog's work dates back to early 60s: a whole generation ago. People began to make the strangest of noises, some musical, some not so much, on synthesisers in the years that followed, and the still do.

There's a key word there: people.

Have you heard of the Theremin? It dates back even further, to 1928 and, guess what it does? The player waves their arms in the air and it makes music! Actually, it makes some hauntingly beautiful sounds, and I'm hoping, one day, for a carnatic theraminist!

Electronics moved on apace, and now we could probably house a whole orchestra (let alone the "artificial" sounds) in the PC under our desks. We can easily have non-repeating, randomly-generated sounds, and, probably, a person can control the parameters of the sounds to make them musical according to our ears. Well, of course we can. I used to have a program on my computer which did such wonderful things.

So what's new here? Perhaps the technology of connecting all that up to the gesture sensing that synthesises specific sounds (instruments) to specific gestures. Actually, the technology of reproducing the nuances of hitting non-acoustic drum pads in different ways is very sophisticated and complex (and even yet, apparently, yet to be perfected) --- so what do we have here? Something similar without the actual physical manifestation of the pads/sensors.

I didn't watch enough of the video to understand (if they told us) how much more complex, how new, if actually at all, this "new" thing is. I'm not very keen on watching AR doing his branded, trademarked thing, or listening to the sounds that are likely to result.

Again, we hit the bottom line: for better or for worse, it still takes a human to make the music.

So I wouldn't worry about the march of technology. Welcome the chances, the possibilities and opportunities it brings: none of them need to be used in any particular genre of music, but they all add to the timelessly-old tradition of finding new ways to make sounds to please the ear.

[Rsachi]

Nick,
I agree with you completely. But the concern which I tried to voice was about being connected to real things like instruments, that require a deep, in the moment, engagement. That for me is an earthiness that thr electronics substitute diminishes enormously. Computers synthesize an output which is not as fresh or unpredictable as a struck mridangam thoppi.
Just y'day, I watched on TV Laya Samudhra UKS and Karthik produce a deep and lasting kind of gumki (i don't know the exact term). To do it, do it right, is a spontaneous human creative effort. If Rahman waves his hand and the sound comes out of a synthesized, stored sound profile, would it be the same?
What if Intel were to create software and hardware to synthesize applause by the shake of my chin?

[Nick H]

gumki, yes, probably... and to the artist, it was probably perfectly predictable and intended. Especially with UKS! Exact and precise mastery of the instrument.

As for the feeling and the experience, I can make the analogy of sailing a boat rather than turning on the engine. In fact, the most intimate boat feel comes from hands on oars. Yes, I know what you mean.

By the way, have you heard the theramin? One day, I'm going to buy myself one!

[Rsachi]

Yes, Nick, have heard the Theramin on You Tube videos on a knowledgeable friend's prompting. We also referred to it I think in the context of Chitra Venu.
For me, novelty is a less important factor compared to "quality of experience".

[Nick H]

Well, novelty is fun once in a while... but I think that the theremin, in the right hands, could have at least as much staying power as the saxaphone.

Oh, yes... I guess it did get discussed before.