William:
IMO this is all related to using sampled/computer based music in live performance rather than on recordings. In recordings, people don't bring the expectation of seeing that orchestra in the pit or on the stage so, they simply respond to what they're hearing. Live perfromance is a different animal altogether.
I live in Las Vegas and have seen and heard reactions very similar to the one you describe, not only from critics but from musicians, on-stage performers and audieces as well.
In the case of the the musicians, I feel this is mostly related to the fear that they will be put out of work (which has proven to be true). The stage performers tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to not having the orchestra with them but they are starting to adjust. Those in the Pop music world are the fastest to accept this for obvious reasons. The older performers and those from the theater are not happy about it but they have to deal with it. For them, it is not having a negative effect on their opportunity to work so, it's not so bad. Indeed, in many cases, there wouldn't be a show if a live band was required or there would be far fewer dancers/singers. etc., simply because the show couldn't afford them along with a live band.
Of course, the symphonic musicians here simply don't want to hear about it. My acquaintances in the LV Philharmonic absolutely insist that this technology is going to be the ruin of modern civilization. Especially since all that extra studio work they were getting in the past has been almost eliminated.
Some of the really big shows are starting to combine the sampling with their live band/orchestras and working toward what can eventualy be a really great sound.
The most difficult problem in my mind is the audience reactions. Especially in area such as Musical Theater (my forte) and "serious" music. Those with whom I get a chance to speak have a geniunely negative reaction to what they perceive as "computerized' or "synthesized" or "tracked" music. It doesn't really matter whether it sounds better than a mediocre live orchestra. I'm of the opinion that most general audiences don't have the ability to determine the difference between a good and mediocre musical performance. They are there for the overall experience and, for them, part of that experience is seeing all those musicians. They will often base their perception of what is good on what they see, on the spectacle of the thing rather than the actual quality of the performance. This applies not only to the music but to the dancing. singing and acting as well. If the piece is presented well, and their expectations are met, then they consider it a "good" show.
I believe this is what critics react to as well. I don't belive they are even trying to determine whether the sampled creation/performace was any good. They simply decry the fact that there was no "live" orchestra and immediately close their minds to the actual musical merits. It would be one thing if a critic said the Virtual Orchestra was poorly executed (which certainly is often the case) but they aren't doing that. In fact, sometimes they don't comment on the quality of the music at all. They are so outraged that there was a computer rather than a live band that all they can express is their anger about that. The actual quality of the performance may not even be mentioned.
I feel this is going to take quite some time to overcome. It will be far more difficult than getting people to accept sample based recordings. As Virtual Orchestra technology improves, the quality of recorded performances will reach the point where even professionals will be hard-pressed to differentiate them from the "real" thing. Also, as several people have mentioned, the Virtual Orchestra will continue to develop its own identity and that sound will be accepted as well. However, getting audiences, musicians and performers to feel comfortable with computer based orchestras in live performance is a different deal. No matter how great it may sound, people won't respond the same way as to a group of live players scraping, blowing and banging away on their instruments. For them, its's not just the sound that matters, it's the whole thing.
In the meantime, we have to keep writing, recording and performing and getting better and better at it. In time, we will be accepted. It's inevitable. However, in live performance, I think it's going to take a while.
Be well,
Jimmy
IMO this is all related to using sampled/computer based music in live performance rather than on recordings. In recordings, people don't bring the expectation of seeing that orchestra in the pit or on the stage so, they simply respond to what they're hearing. Live perfromance is a different animal altogether.
I live in Las Vegas and have seen and heard reactions very similar to the one you describe, not only from critics but from musicians, on-stage performers and audieces as well.
In the case of the the musicians, I feel this is mostly related to the fear that they will be put out of work (which has proven to be true). The stage performers tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to not having the orchestra with them but they are starting to adjust. Those in the Pop music world are the fastest to accept this for obvious reasons. The older performers and those from the theater are not happy about it but they have to deal with it. For them, it is not having a negative effect on their opportunity to work so, it's not so bad. Indeed, in many cases, there wouldn't be a show if a live band was required or there would be far fewer dancers/singers. etc., simply because the show couldn't afford them along with a live band.
Of course, the symphonic musicians here simply don't want to hear about it. My acquaintances in the LV Philharmonic absolutely insist that this technology is going to be the ruin of modern civilization. Especially since all that extra studio work they were getting in the past has been almost eliminated.
Some of the really big shows are starting to combine the sampling with their live band/orchestras and working toward what can eventualy be a really great sound.
The most difficult problem in my mind is the audience reactions. Especially in area such as Musical Theater (my forte) and "serious" music. Those with whom I get a chance to speak have a geniunely negative reaction to what they perceive as "computerized' or "synthesized" or "tracked" music. It doesn't really matter whether it sounds better than a mediocre live orchestra. I'm of the opinion that most general audiences don't have the ability to determine the difference between a good and mediocre musical performance. They are there for the overall experience and, for them, part of that experience is seeing all those musicians. They will often base their perception of what is good on what they see, on the spectacle of the thing rather than the actual quality of the performance. This applies not only to the music but to the dancing. singing and acting as well. If the piece is presented well, and their expectations are met, then they consider it a "good" show.
I believe this is what critics react to as well. I don't belive they are even trying to determine whether the sampled creation/performace was any good. They simply decry the fact that there was no "live" orchestra and immediately close their minds to the actual musical merits. It would be one thing if a critic said the Virtual Orchestra was poorly executed (which certainly is often the case) but they aren't doing that. In fact, sometimes they don't comment on the quality of the music at all. They are so outraged that there was a computer rather than a live band that all they can express is their anger about that. The actual quality of the performance may not even be mentioned.
I feel this is going to take quite some time to overcome. It will be far more difficult than getting people to accept sample based recordings. As Virtual Orchestra technology improves, the quality of recorded performances will reach the point where even professionals will be hard-pressed to differentiate them from the "real" thing. Also, as several people have mentioned, the Virtual Orchestra will continue to develop its own identity and that sound will be accepted as well. However, getting audiences, musicians and performers to feel comfortable with computer based orchestras in live performance is a different deal. No matter how great it may sound, people won't respond the same way as to a group of live players scraping, blowing and banging away on their instruments. For them, its's not just the sound that matters, it's the whole thing.
In the meantime, we have to keep writing, recording and performing and getting better and better at it. In time, we will be accepted. It's inevitable. However, in live performance, I think it's going to take a while.
Be well,
Jimmy