Symposium – Musik im digitalen Zeitalter (2019)
Conversation between Nikolaus Brass, Harry Lehmann, Kristin Amme, Iris ter Schiphorst and Manos Tsangaris, Bayerische Akademie der Schönen Künste, Yearbook 33/2019, Wallstein Publishing House
S. 339-342
Excerpt:
(ItS): Interestingly, although my students are digital natives, most of them don't know the difference between digital and analogue - and associate the word sampler or sampling primarily with commercially available sound libraries or sample libraries, be it the famous Vienna Sound Library (expensive, by the way), the con-timbre sound library by Thomas Hummel that you mentioned. Sample libraries, be it the famous Vienna Sound Library (expensive as hell, by the way), the con-timbre sound library by Thomas Hummel that you mentioned, which has stored every conceivable extended technique, or the many others.
Only very few people realise that the sampler was used very differently by many composers in its early days in the 70s and 80s - I would say: much more creatively and in a certain way 'more freely', that back then it was primarily about recording your own sounds and, above all, creating new, never-before-heard combinations, as there is usually a lack of historical awareness.
What's more, 'usage' has become too inscribed in the music. Many compositional decisions today are determined by what is available (sound libraries are an example of this), by what is technically feasible, rather than by what is impossible. In other words, despite seemingly endless possibilities, we find ourselves in a kind of bottleneck. In my opinion, this should be reflected much more.
(...)
(ItS): The digital units, as you call them (note: addressed to Harry Lehmann), i.e. digital audio workstations, can be found all over the world today, they are distributed 'globally' and used 'globally', so to speak, and are basically equipped more or less in the same way. Their various integrated programmes are well put together by the engineers and programmers at Apple and the like, prepared for immediate use, so to speak, relatively easy to learn and quickly lead to audible results. We no longer have to imagine anything 'in the inner', we can tinker with the sound and samples in 'real time' by listening to them and, under certain circumstances, actually achieve interesting results through 'trial and error'.
But it's not as if there is no writing, no code at work here. Because what is easily forgotten: Beneath the surface, invisible to the user, is a universe of communicating protocols of machine algorithms that are neither visible nor controllable for the user in front of the screen. This is also not necessary for music production, as the digital data is 'read', analysed and processed by machines - in contrast to traditional musical notation, which has always been made by people for people. In a way, the 'rule' has therefore shifted. It is no longer the 'scribes' of high culture who determine the rules, but computer scientists, programmers and engineers.
I would like to mention something else in this context. Computers are far superior to us when it comes to pattern recognition and formalisation. However, computers cannot think about meaning and significance. And this is precisely why we need the 'old' institutions, the universities and colleges, which think beyond what is technically feasible and ask these questions! But for this we also need spaces and a public sphere in which these questions can be discussed: Concerts, symposia, festivals...
(...)
(ItS): Perhaps a few final remarks in my capacity as a university lecturer; I teach the subject 'Media Composition' at the University of Music and Performing Arts in Vienna, a kind of Master's programme that is referred to there as a 'second branch of study'. So people come to me who have already completed the first branch of study or a bachelor's degree. Of course, they are all generally well trained and know their way around what we are used to calling 'music'.
The situation is quite different when it comes to entrance exams. More and more young people are coming with some, sometimes quite interesting, mostly computer-generated pieces, but they have less and less knowledge of so-called 'traditional music', of music in general, and some of them can no longer even play an instrument. This speaks of a fundamental change in society.
I find it interesting that these young people still want to go to university! They want to learn to compose, they want to belong to this institution, they want an academic degree in composition - it's not enough for them to just work away at the computer.
Institutionally, the question arises as to how to deal with this, whether, for example, the entire admissions procedure should not change, and subsequently also the teaching. There is a lot to consider for the future.