Reading Response #4

to Artful Design — Chapter 4: "Programmability and Sound Design"

Ethan Buck

10/22/2023

Music 256A, Stanford University

Reading Response: 

From this week's reading, I'd like to respond to Artful Design Principle 4.10, which states:

Principle 4.10: Programmability is a Blessing and a Curse

To me, this principle evokes a similar sentiment to the saying, “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” Programmability allows computers to be infinitely powerful, especially when it comes to sound design, but with this great power, also comes great responsibility (corny saying count: +2). 

I think about this idea quite frequently in regards to computer music. The reason that I love music is that it makes me feel connected to humanity. It has the power to teach about the lives of others, at the same time that it drives us to learn more about ourselves. As such, when the connection to humanity is missing, I feel that music loses its sense of whimsy. In my opinion, this connection is most likely to be severed in the domain of computer music. 

To elaborate, since computers have such possibility in terms of sound design, they also have a unique capability to produce sounds that are not familiar in the physical world. Of course, this has paved the way for so much innovation in music with synthesizers, VSTs, sound effects, etc. At the same time, this also opens a door for the creation of music that is completely untethered to the human experience. To give an example, there is an electronic instrument (I’m sure you all have heard of it) called an Electronic Wind Instrument (affectionately referred to as an EWI, pronounced “ee-wee”) that has gained immense popularity, especially among saxophone players in the past 40 years. This is an awesome instrument, as it leverages the familiar mechanics of a woodwind instrument while sporting a vast range of synth sounds that are sensitive to the air pressure you create when blowing, impressively mimicking the expressiveness of an acoustic wind instrument. Moreover, the EWI also has features that distinguish it from its acoustic counterparts, like effortless switching between octaves and a theoretically infinite range. 

On paper, these features can offer more sonic possibilities, however they also allow for the instrument to lose any sense of familiarity and sound. The instrument becomes untethered from the human sphere of understanding. More importantly, they allow for a player to produce music because they can but not necessarily because they should (don’t even get me started on AI generated music). 

I find that this applies to a lot of computer music. Of course, computers offer so much expressive power and allow artists to create in vastly creative and innovative ways. But, they also allow artists to create music that resonates at mathematically bonkers, mind-blowing, breakthrough frequencies, but fails to resonate with any one person. 

To this, one might assume I only value computers insofar as they reinforce pre-existing musical concepts. I would not go this far, however, as I also subscribe to Principle 4.5: Design things with a computer that would not be possible without. As such, I think that there needs to be a balance between 4.5 and 4.10. I feel that the reason we create things with computers should be novel and unique to the computer, but these creations should never disregard the human audience.