This article begins with a discussion of an organ piece by Mozart. One of the most important parts of this discussion with respect to this article is that the pieces is specifically written for a mechanical organ and there are some features of it which prevent it from being played by a single human on a traditional organ (for shear want of hands). This fact and the idea that this piece was played multiple times a day perfectly since it was being played by a machine specifically made for the piece set up the main argument of this essay, that of man vs. machine.
This article discusses the effect of the industrial revolution with regard to machines taking over tasks that have traditionally been reserved for humans. The broader movement of the period may be seen in the anecdote on p. 380 about Haydn being sent machine made stockings in thanks for his contribution to the musical scene in England. It seems to me that this gesture would have been far more meaningful if the stockings had been hand made, but that seems to be a matter of my personal opinion. However, when we look at the mechanical flute player that actually played the instrument cleanly and without errors, we see the same arguments are being applied in that people like Quantz. He says that even though the mechanical device may play equally as well or even better than a human, it will not move you because it cannot interpret the music and play it in a way that moves you. In both cases we see that the argument that humans are better than machines comes down to the axiom, it's the thought that counts. So my first question is, with technology increasing at the rate it has since the 18th century and still on the rise, if there is a way to create a machine which is capable of arousing the passions in a listener, is there still a barrier which keeps human musicians in a superior position to music making machines?
Was it just their novelty, or was there something else that made mechanical music making machines so popular in the late 18th century?
Is this barrier between humans and machines in power of musical expression just due to the fact that we haven't become skilled enough in making machines?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The somewhat disturbing imagery of your title aside, I think this discussion focuses on one of the main points of the article: man vs. machine.
ReplyDeleteThough the anecdote concerning the machine-made stockings seems devoid of personal expression, it is actually a fantastic example of the integration and marriage of humanity and technology, a popular idea of the emerging industrial revolution. The sentiments and thought behind the stockings are what made the gift humbling and meaningful, not the technical accuracy by which they were produced.
We must remember though, that it is not just the performer (machine or human) that dictates the meaning of the music, but also the audience, context, etc. So a "consistently perfect" performance every hour, on the hour, is subject to the new crowd that gathers at the wax museum to give a listen.
My response to your first question may sound a little bit cliche and corny, but at some level, there is some truth to it; there exists a impermeable barrier that separates man from machine, and that modern science has been unable to artificially recreate in lab: the soul. That intangible, ethereal thing that separates "us" from what we make. I doubt that even artificial sentient thought would dissolve this barrier.
The popularity of the mechanical organ has remained well into the twentieth century, establishing itself as a fairground centerpiece. Its image is now, however, one of cheap nickel music—not the refined masterpieces that Mozart composed (probably worth well over a dollar). The precise, fast, contrapuntal textures—that could not have otherwise been achieved by a human player, at least not with the same regularity—are what I believe drew the crowds to come (but they stayed for the wax). Why does a department store like Macy’s have a pipe organ? To draw business by conjuring up nostalgic moments.
When it comes down to it, these mechanical music makers are simply clockwork iPods. Yes, as long as the machine lacks creativity and intelligence, it will be unable to add that human flair (or error) that makes music dynamic and interesting, giving it "soul." But this property can only be detected with multiple hearings! It is a simple thing to engineer a machine to hesitate, and flourish, and play with passion, in ONE particular way. But this is easily detected if a listener pays attention on his second hearing.
ReplyDeleteThat, then, is the key difference. A machine is able to play passages that no man can possibly perform, but in the overall scheme of things, that is irrelevant. What matters is that a machine can imitate flawlessly, and imitate CREATIVITY flawlessly, but it cannot, in fact, create.
So, your final question asks whether the future holds engineers capable of manufacturing creativity. My response is: I don't know. I don't think we have enough knowledge about what creativity IS to be able to predict the time line of its deconstruction. Innovation comes in unpredictable spurts, in unanticipated directions. Our modern fiction certainly contains enough instances of artificial intelligence, and if the past is any indicator, this is evidence that no such technology will ever exist.