Yes!
It's nice they did a study to prove it. Thank you for sharing it.
I think we(people in general) almost default to computers for time and immediate gratification. But based on the study above we must remember the human participant adds so much to everything we do.
Paintings are better when done by people rather than computers too.
AND . . . writing. Want to open up your life and increase your happiness level?
Write at least one letter each month to a freind or family member and mail it.
Way better than a quick email.
I still send cards and small notes to my wife, through the mail.
Try it. Send a thank you note to your parents, they will love it and watch how their attention to you is affected.
It indeeed is a nice thought to do "snail mail" rather than online email.
Just a thought...
~However emailing is free , on the other hand you have to buy stamps to write letters.Also typing is faster than hand writing (ah well I guess you could type it and print it and then put it in a envolope .)
It is a confirmation with scientific evidence of something we have all experienced first hand. Or so I think.
In fact, a majority of people in a typical concert public are not musicians, have not received any musical formation in its theory nor are they trained in performing any instrument.
Nevertheless, they react with joy and enthusiasm when attending a good concert or with coldness and even irritation when the performance is not as good as the expected it to be.
I (and all of us as we are posting in a music forum), have felt deep emotions when listening to music, probably well before we knew anything about the theory behind it.
There is also a natural ability in our brains to understand harmony and the mood of a chord; this natural understanding of the language of music is in fact, what makes music possible.
Most interesting, this ability is more or less universal, in that we can enjoy (or hate) music of very different cultures and origins. (with the exception, perhaps, of computer generated music...)
But computer music is very useful in learning and practising an instrument. I use my computer quite often when playing flute pieces, to provide accompaniment (and solve difficult rhythm issues)
Well computers r helpfull most of the time but comparing the computer version vs the one played by human we haveto say that human one would be the better one, most of the time.
No doubt human players will be best for ever... or at least for a long time.
Computer music lacks expression in general and MIDI is (probably) too much limited to provide something similar to a good human performance. Instruments sounds can be rendered to something very close (in some cases, better than) real instruments, but dynamics and expression in general are not acceptable in my opinion.
I am no specialist, but anyway I worked very hard and long hours on my MIDI/MP3 version of Faure's Berceuse (see files in my profile) to obtain just a barely acceptable result for my own practise.
No matter this limitation, more an more musicals and films are based on computer generated music only (or mainly). It is considerably cheaper and portable than having a full orchestra playing each performance.
In this application (Musicals),where the action is focused mainly on the singers, what they say and do on the stage, it is often acceptable to have a less than ideal music quality (IMHO).
Other case where computer generated music is the right thing to have is, of course, music composed to be played by modern synthesizers, without any intention to simulate symphonic instruments played by human musicians. This can be a nice and interesting experience, particularly when the composer is at command and is used "live" with theatre pieces or the like.
Judging as per the results so far, it is as you say.
The interesting thing is that computers, equipped with a flexible and more complete human interface and protocol (BTW, it should be much better than MIDI), could, in theory, obey the player commands in real time so as to be considered another instrument, performing at a good and comparable level.
As a matter of fact, it is not the player who actually produces the sounds of music, but the instruments, under close control of a trained and sensitive player.
It is the interaction between the player an his/her instrument what makes the music.
I see no reason why a computer could not, one day not so far in the future, be considered just another instrument.
Right now there are many electronic virtual instruments that when played by good human musicians so closely resemble real wood/metal /string instruments that it is increasingly difficult, when not impossible, to tell what type of instrument one is listening to. And they are, in fact, just suitable human electronic interfaces coupled to much evolved, dedicated synthesizers.
There is no basic difference between a general computer and a music synthesizer, apart of the obvious differences due to the general applicability of computers, compared to the extreme specialization of music synthesizers.
Garritan is a system of virtual instruments, with the important difference that the notes played are not synthesized at the local PC, but are notes that were recorded (one by one) from real instruments, played by professional musicians. They are put together in a special player that comes with the system. From this, a mp3 or other music standard formats can be produced and distributed.
I suppose it can be considered to be "computer music" but it is midway between it and recorded music.
I do not think there is any computer-based system that can compete with a good music player.
But the human player is not always the option selected, for a few reasons:
availability
cost-logistics
repeatibility
Fredom for the composer
a few others
For these reasons quite often the human orchestras are replaced by virtual instruments, particularly in Musicals and similar productions. In this type of performances, sometimes the music can be secondary to the action on stage, the singers and their roles.
I do not agree or support this, I just mention a fact.
searching...
.JPG)
