The other day, I had lunch with an acquaintance of mine who played
and taught the violin for a living. Susan (not her real name)
was complaining about how guys with synthesizers were destroying
her work. Before, Susan would be fairly busy doing recording work
on anything from commercials to film soundtracks. The last five
years or so, she's had to rely more and more on teaching as recording
opportunities dried up. Instead of using string sections, composers
and studios frequently do the work themselves on electronic keyboards.
Every year, it seems that synthesizers are more accurately emulating
the sound of many mechanical instruments including strings, horns,
brass, and even drums. "What's even more upsetting,"
Susan says, "is the fact that they're using these electronic
monsters to make all kinds of bizarre noises that they pass off
as music."
It's interesting to note that as early as 1937, John Cage, an
influential experimental composer, said that "the use of
noise to make music will continue and increase until we reach
a music produced through the aid of electrical instruments, which
will make available for musical purposes any and all sounds that
can be heard." Susan thinks this a horrible trend and it
will take all the art out of music. But, is that necessarily so?
Before we examine the pros and cons of using electronic instruments,
it would be helpful to discuss just what it is that these things
are capable of. To start with, there's the synthesizer. A synthesizer
electronically produces a variety of sounds. Usually, a keyboard
is used to trigger the sound. At first, keyboards were quite crude
and there was no way to control the volume or the quality of the
sound. These days, many keyboards feature what's known as 'weighted
action.' This allows a high degree of expressiveness. The combination
of a flexible keyboard with an accurate sound generator makes
the modern synthesizer a very powerful all-purpose instrument.
Next, we have something called a sequencer, which is used to record
sounds, one at a time. Typically, sequencers feature up to 16
available tracks. Combining a synthesizer with a sequencer creates
an incredibly powerful music-making device. The synthesizer generates
any musical instrument or sound required. The sequencer records
these sounds, one track at a time. Then, the sequencer plays back
all the recorded tracks simultaneously to form a complete musical
composition. You can have, in effect, an orchestra in your own
living room.
From the above, you can see why synthesizers are replacing orchestral
players including violinists like Susan. It's a tragedy for Susan
but is it a tragedy for music? As a means of illustration, let's
look at a similar situation that took place in the early half
of the eighteenth century.
In 1709, an enterprising Florentine instrument maker named Bartolomeo
Cristorfori created a unique instrument: a keyboard where the
keys were connected to little hammers that struck strings to create
a sound. He called it the 'gravicembalo col piano e forte'. Thank
God this was eventually shortened to 'piano'. At the time, the
keyboard instrument that held sway in Europe was the harpsichord.
The harpsichord and other related instruments did not use hammers.
Instead, the keys were connected to a plectrum (or pick) which
plucked the strings to generate sound. Harpsichords were capable
of a sparkling clarity but it didn't matter how hard or how quietly
you played the damned keys. They always sounded the same. On the
piano, though, once the bugs were worked out, the use of hammers
meant that you could control the volume and the attack. Others
picked up on Cristofori's invention, improving it in stages until
it became quite popular. In 1777, the young Mozart transferred
his allegiance to the piano after having a chance to play one
in Vienna. Soon afterwards, the piano became all the rage and
the poor harpsichord was dumped. All the while, there were harpsichord
purists that refused to give up. They considered those that switched
over to the piano to be traitors to the noble keyboard tradition.
Ultimately, the piano won out because it could do more than the
harpsichord. And because the piano won out, we were blessed with
the beautiful piano compositions of Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt,
Debussy, and Gershwin, just to name a few. If the piano had lost,
the harpsichord may have retained its preeminence but a lot of
wonderful art would never have been created.
Which brings us back to today. The synthesizer is winning out
because it can do more. You many have to hire fifty to a hundred
players to duplicate what one 'synth' is capable of doing. However,
electronic instruments have never been able to measure up to a
virtuosic soloist. So, when a virtuosic violin part is called
for, a violinist is still needed. The very best violin players
will always be in demand. However, the ones that are good, but
not great, will probably suffer. Will this hurt art? I don't think
so. Just like the piano two centuries ago, the synthesizer opens
up new vistas for creative composers. I think we're going to see
more and more innovations in the years to come. All manner of
natural and unnatural sounds will be blended together to create
musical works that were never possible before. Whew! I had to
hit the history books hard for this one. As always, stay happy
and don't take no crap! I am...
Truly yours,
Happy.
