 |
| Yours truly doing some R & D back in 2016. Roland TR-8 & TB-3. |
Digital Tech: MAN VS MACHINE? Some notes on Future Music.
“The tools shape the art.” - Bruce Mau
There is a well worn aesthetic now associated with electronic dance music, primarily rooted in the classic Roland 606, 707, 808 analog "transistor" drums of the 80's. Those sounds, albeit over forty years old, still permeate much of current music, including the recent developments in trap, grime and dubstep. They've been around, been tested across production scenarios and they'll most likely continue to influence the sonic landscape and dynamics for years to come. And they really are beautiful sounds. They sit well in mixes. Generated by transistor technology, their qualities are incredibly natural and human sounding. But even these qualities aren’t enough to bridge the dualistic assumption that these machines are at odds with “real” human creativity. They exist as self-contained performers that have little or nothing to do with musicianship, so it goes.
In my career as a working musician, I've played in a variety of settings with a broad spectrum of musicians and styles or genres: punk, hardcore, classic rock, reggae, prog metal, pop and jazz. In that time I never ran into a band that was seeking to integrate a full blown, focused electronic technology wizard into their roster. Although many used effects processors, stomp boxes and various outboard rigs (mainly guitarists and to some extent bass players), most either were wholly ignorant of the digital side of the equation or were openly antagonistic to the idea that a drum machine, production station or sampler was "authentic" in terms of music making. Of course, I'm speaking from my own experience, which is limited, but I've yet to see the gap closed between the advancing tech and the musical scenes which I've been witness to and in which I've participated. In fact, I’ve experienced the end of a musical group because the traditionalist guitar player finally confessed after six-months of rehearsals “I can’t stand all this electronic crap!” For him it wasn’t “authentic” and seemed a cheat compared to “real musicianship”. As time goes on, this tension seems to still exist among many musicians. Deeply entrenched prejudices - mostly based in imaginary, sentimental nostalgia about the past - are hard to overcome. Remember, that “vintage” instrument was once new, and the original buyer didn’t blink at the idea of having the latest technology in their own day. Much of musical history is now over-romanticized.
There are artists who remain exceptions to the traditionalist mode of performance, and many of them have been at the digital side of things for many years, even decades. Such groups as Massive Attack, Morcheeba and Tricky come to mind. These artists have been openly integrating digital tech as a predominant feature into their live sets since their beginnings in the early 90's. Robert Del Naja has been at the cutting edge of new technologies since Massive Attack began and brings his Akai MPC 3000 on stage as a central piece of the live set. Later developments have come through bands such as Gorillaz, Radiohead, TV On The Radio and more recent groups like the Young Fathers (incidentally, both of these last two have done quite a bit of work with Massive Attack, signaling a shared approach to the musical process).
“Samplers defined Massive Attack and are still somewhat central to our methodology. Machine learning feels like an evolutionary step – and, just like sampling, the quality of the output is determined by the eccentricity of the artist.” - Robert Del Naja
Within Jazz circles the pushback is even stronger, although there are exceptions such as Mark de Clive-Lowe and the working collaboration between Henrik Schwarz and Buggie Wesseltoft. But these artists are exceptions within their genre; the jazz scene in particular has a tradition of kicking down non-traditionalists.
Mark de Clive-Lowe "Ryūgū-jō" Live at Grand Performances
Henrik Schwarz & Bugge Wesseltoft on improvisation | Loop
Despite the pushback, the hybridization of old and new tech has become a defining aspect of these artists’ overall sound. And although their creative process and live performance technique is not embraced openly by many others, the music itself is hugely popular and often recognized as ground-breaking. J-Dilla comes to mind; his work has posthumously spawned a series of performances and recordings played on traditional instruments, including a large production by Miguel Atwood-Ferguson. His work has been highly influential among drummers as well including Chris “Daddy” Dave. Digital music is influential across genres, even while the actual technology and the musicians who use the tech seem to never be invited on the stages upon which the interpretations are performed.
Suite For Ma Dukes Orchestra Untitled Fantastic A Tribute To J DILLA
Chris Dave & the Drumhedz Live (J. Dilla the greatest)
One reason for rejecting the new technology that I’ve heard on a number of occasions and in different settings is that digital tools are static machines, which are unable to produce the nuances of “real” human performance. There’s some truth to this, mainly due to the very exacting tempos that a machine can produce. For people who have never worked with a click track or a metronome, the precision of an unbending tempo can feel restraining. But it may simply be that an individual’s tendency to rush or slow down is being revealed and they are having to come to terms with a weakness in their own playing that they may have not yet noticed. The drum machine can be a ruthless teacher!
On many classic recordings bands are often at a faster tempo near the end of the song than the beginning. It’s quite common. And there is a breathing element to live performance that is often expressed in subtle tempo changes, even unintended ones. Yet, with a sensitive tech musician, tempo matching is something that is easily accomplished. With most new tech Tap Tempo is a standard feature, and this makes it possible to follow the music as well as any other musician might. The plasticity of modern digital tech more easily coincides with human feeling than perhaps it has in the past.
My inclination is towards live performance that is improvisational, less predictable and more open to experimentation and happy accidents. The possibility of incorporating digital tech into this type of live set is now reality, as the advances being made in musical tech close the gap of human and machine interactions. The drum machines, production stations and samplers are now designed for actual performance. There are many great examples of improvisational artistry executed from scratch on a drum machine or production station.
Roland TR-8S Berlin Sessions: Steffi
Traditionalist musos view risk as the defining aspect of a true musician; with no risk there's no real art. I agree with this. It's predicated on the idea that it takes skill, gained through long hours of practice, to play well live and that the lack thereof can't be glossed over when the audience is listening. At the heart of the traditionalist pushback against digital tech is the notion that the only skill required of a digital artist is the ability to push PLAY. Nothing can go wrong, because it's not an actual musician performing. This prejudice runs deep in some circles and I have to admit I understand the pushback; there are too many instances of this sort of posturing to pretend that some forms of tech aren't sometimes used as a crutch for a lack of real musicality or skill.
EPIC DJ FAILS // TOP 10 BEST MOMENTS
But the reality of pro digital tech, such as the Roland TR-8S or SP-404’s, the Elektron Digitakt or even the demure KORG Electribe, is that these are instruments and to master them isn’t as simple a task as is often assumed. The creative depth of which these machines are now capable requires many hours of practice, experimentation, musicality and technical wizardry in order to create compelling art. The number of these machines bought that end up on the resell sites isn’t so much a testimony to their failure as it is to the bad assumption that it would be easy to make music with them. Like any instrument, the quality of the work depends on the skill of the artist using the tool. There is an equality now between investment and returns, but the power is latent in the machine; it takes a skilled, thoughtful musician to dig out and obtain the gains.
Like any new technology, it often takes a while for society to come to terms with the potential changes it brings. Even Guttenburg had many detractors who saw the printing press as a dangerous device. Within the American music scene we have yet to experience a cross-genre embrace of the new tech coming out. It’s interesting that in other countries cross-pollination has been going on for decades, particularly in Jamaica and the UK, where the Jamaican expat community has had a massive influence on the music scene. Always the first to embrace new tech, the Jamaicans lead the way. Here, we have yet to universally let go of the genre boundaries that have stalled creativity and most musos still assume a distinction between instrumentation choices: “drum machines are for EDM, guitars are for rock and roll.” That mindset will eventually fade as the pressure of the times and creative influence change. Musos who reject the move forward will most likely end up in the dust-bin of "vintage" music, playing it safe for the sake of an aging audience. The experimenters and curious will eventually move to the forefront of the musical stage.
No comments:
Post a Comment