they could never replace a human musician. remember, most of us play music not only for the final product but for the process in creating it. my students do not take lessons just to sound good but to have a hobby! A robot can never take music away from us as professionals or amateurs.
Hmm, I'm not sure the robot provides any possibilities that a human player doesn't. Although I'v not really seen this potential fully explored. A flautist robot at a live concert would almost certainly be a novelty item, at least for the moment. However, examples such as the guitar playing robots do provide other possibilities as they're not limited by four fingers on the left hand and those not being able to discombobulate over the whole neck. thus, more possiblities acoustically.
...and of course in live performance, for concerts, you probably want to have live musicians. Even an enthusiast such as myself likes to hear live musicians often. However, I certainly don't mind sitting down to the occasional automatic musical instrument concert (such as a pianola concert with a real pianolist, or a fairground organ concert representing different music arrangers' talent). As a musician, I think in some ways it's more fun to make the music live, yourself.
They're not better, just different. They're equally good because each can produce sounds that the other cannot. I think having a wide variety of sounds available is good for a composer. They can bring in a real flute player, or use a robot. Or use a synthesizer, or a pipe organ rank. The possibilities are endless because each one of the 4 named represents a multitude of subtle sound differences (different musicians, brands of flute, scales of pipe ranks)
Tbh, organ flutes don't follow the patterns of actual flute playing.
You have an interesting argument, similar could be said of synthesized music, which isn't limited by sounds which can actually be acoustically produced. The trouble is people like the limits, and to push them. It's too easy to say I have an organ/synthesizer that sounds like a flute, and pretend that it's better than the real thing. It's just not.
For a scary, creepy robot, it sure plays beautifully...
sonicawesomeness 6 months ago 2
Lifeless dead tone. Still fairly impressive.
FullMetalFerret6 6 months ago
the robots tone is awful. seriously.
kittynila1990 2 years ago
that's scary
224108spacer 2 years ago
they could never replace a human musician. remember, most of us play music not only for the final product but for the process in creating it. my students do not take lessons just to sound good but to have a hobby! A robot can never take music away from us as professionals or amateurs.
joethemusician 3 years ago
Interesting indeed!
onln4jesus 3 years ago
Hmm, I'm not sure the robot provides any possibilities that a human player doesn't. Although I'v not really seen this potential fully explored. A flautist robot at a live concert would almost certainly be a novelty item, at least for the moment. However, examples such as the guitar playing robots do provide other possibilities as they're not limited by four fingers on the left hand and those not being able to discombobulate over the whole neck. thus, more possiblities acoustically.
Beatboxbob 3 years ago
...and of course in live performance, for concerts, you probably want to have live musicians. Even an enthusiast such as myself likes to hear live musicians often. However, I certainly don't mind sitting down to the occasional automatic musical instrument concert (such as a pianola concert with a real pianolist, or a fairground organ concert representing different music arrangers' talent). As a musician, I think in some ways it's more fun to make the music live, yourself.
KawhackitaRag 3 years ago
They're not better, just different. They're equally good because each can produce sounds that the other cannot. I think having a wide variety of sounds available is good for a composer. They can bring in a real flute player, or use a robot. Or use a synthesizer, or a pipe organ rank. The possibilities are endless because each one of the 4 named represents a multitude of subtle sound differences (different musicians, brands of flute, scales of pipe ranks)
KawhackitaRag 3 years ago
Tbh, organ flutes don't follow the patterns of actual flute playing.
You have an interesting argument, similar could be said of synthesized music, which isn't limited by sounds which can actually be acoustically produced. The trouble is people like the limits, and to push them. It's too easy to say I have an organ/synthesizer that sounds like a flute, and pretend that it's better than the real thing. It's just not.
Beatboxbob 3 years ago