Music, like any art form, is profoundly linked to technological evolution. From the introduction of the first vocal overdubs in the 1940s (Patty Page, 1947) to the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), each innovation has brought with it new possibilities but also ethical dilemmas. While technology has expanded music's creative horizons, significantly improving recording techniques, it has also raised questions about the profound meaning of music, its relationship with humanity, and the need to preserve its essence.<\/p>\n
This article explores the relationship between technology and music, through a unique ethical-musical analysis that seeks to understand and evaluate the intentions of those who are about to "make" music, which musical instruments and "admissible" production methods are suitable, focusing on a new paradigm that places artistic authenticity at its center.<\/p>\n
Artistic authenticity in music can be defined as the genuine expression of the musician's intention, creative ability, compositional skill, and emotion, conveyed through a performance capable of reflecting their character in an original and unique way. It is the specific moment of creation where "the idea becomes flesh" through the direct relationship with the instrument and the sound. This is an intrinsic value, manifested in music's ability to convey artistic truth, distinguishing itself from artificial or, worse, standardized manipulations that dull its meaning.<\/p>\n
In the age of advanced technology, artistic authenticity is clearly distinct from standardization. Authentic music does not seek to conform to artificial perfection or predefined models, but rather values the unique character of each performance. In this sense, authenticity opposes the excessive manipulation of sounds and pre-digested solutions that standardize performances, depriving them of their human meaning.<\/p>\n
Artistic authenticity is more than a technical or stylistic trait; it is a cultural value that reaffirms the artist's role as a vehicle for profoundly human emotional experiences to the audience. In a world increasingly dominated by automated processes and artificial intelligence, musical authenticity represents a form of cultural resistance, a reminder of what makes music a universal language capable of expressing humanity, with all its imperfections, contradictions, and wonders.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, artistic authenticity in music is the celebration of humanity in sonic creation, an act of truth that connects the musician to the audience in a profound and meaningful way.<\/p>\n
Those who set out to "make" music do so driven by a wide range of motivations and intentions, which vary from person to person and from context to context. Every musician balances internal drives, artistic aspirations, and external pressures, and these factors directly influence the degree of authenticity their music can express.<\/p>\n
Authenticity in music is closely linked to clarity and sincerity of intent. When the musician is aware of his or her motivations and acts consistently with them, authenticity emerges naturally. Conversely, when intent is confused or contradictory, externally imposed, or driven by purely utilitarian reasons, authenticity tends to diminish.<\/p>\n
Regardless of the motivation, artistic authenticity can be a guiding principle for those who make music. This means constantly questioning what you want to communicate, how you want to do it, and how much your music truly reflects who you are. Authenticity, in fact, doesn't exclude any motivation in itself, but requires a coherence between intention and outcome, so that the music remains a genuine expression of the musician and not merely a reflection of external expectations.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, \u201cmaking\u201d music is a complex and multifaceted act, in which authenticity is not a given once and for all, but requires ongoing introspection, choice, commitment and, above all, integrity.<\/p>\n
It may seem bizarre to analyze musical instruments according to the focus of authenticity, however, the last few decades, following technological innovations in electronics and information technology, have seen the birth of many new instruments that have profoundly influenced the way music is created.<\/p>\n
The classification proposed here responds to questions of authenticity, which I myself often struggle with as a pianist, keyboard player, arranger and composer.<\/p>\n
In fact, it focuses mainly on the tools keyboard players<\/strong>, since they lend themselves to a wider variety of technological configurations, definable as real tools and tools for emulating reality.<\/p>\n The tools non-keyboard<\/strong>, such as strings, wind instruments or acoustic percussion, belong instead "naturally" to the category of real instruments<\/strong> (hereinafter classified in category A), except for some specific exceptions, which we will analyze later.<\/p>\n The increasing standardization of music imposed by technology has highlighted the need for a new approach, one that isn't reserved for purists or those who have transcended market constraints, but rather becomes a universal value for every musician. This paradigm is based on the idea that music must remain authentic and profoundly human, or return to being so, celebrating the connection between the composer, the performer, their instrument, and the listener, reflecting the values inherent in the function of art with a capital "A."<\/p>\n The essence of music lies in its dynamic, emotional, and unpredictable nature. Unlike a painting, which is a static work, music is alive: it changes with each performance, reflecting the moment, temperament, and emotional involvement of the musician. To reconstruct this essence, it is necessary to:<\/p>\n Post-performance editing, both in MIDI and audio formats, has revolutionized music production, offering nearly limitless tools for correction and manipulation. However, the widespread use of these techniques has had a significant impact on the intrinsic humanity of music, often pushing toward standardization that distances the listener from the dynamic and imperfect, yet evocative, reality of human performance.<\/p>\n MIDI editing allows you to directly manipulate the digital data describing your performance, modifying key parameters with extreme precision. Possibilities include:<\/p>\n These tools, which can be used to correct minor errors during the creation of a pictorial work (such as a record), on the other hand compromise the spontaneity of the performance. Quantization, in particular, introduces an artificial perfection that standardizes performances, erasing the micro-rhythmic variations that contribute to the distinctive character of each performance. The same applies to dynamic flattening.<\/p>\n Audio editing allows you to directly manipulate sound recordings, opening the way to very invasive interventions, including:<\/p>\n Audio editing has the potential to attenuate or eliminate every trace of humanity from a performance, transforming it into an idealized and uniform product. This process alters the listener's perception, accustoming them to unrealistic standards of perfection and a coldness that don't correspond to what would occur in a live performance. However, it can be permissible, in the right dose, in works constructed in layers by a producer, where the artistic figure of the composer\/producer predominates. Like a new sound painter, he creates his "still life" with mastery and expressive art, rich in detail, often also aspiring to the ideal of perfection, which, in itself, is one of the possible goals of art.<\/p>\n The extensive use of these editing techniques distorts the musical experience for both the musician and the listener. For the musician, the ability to "fix everything" diminishes the importance of the live performance and the physical and emotional involvement. For the listener, the music becomes a prepackaged product, devoid of the expressive imperfections that make a performance authentic and unique.<\/p>\n This loss of humanity also has a cultural effect: the average listener may develop unrealistic expectations, viewing the mistakes or variations typical of a live performance as flaws rather than an integral part of the artistic experience. Ultimately, post-performance editing shifts the focus from the connection between musician and audience to a logic of industrial production, in which music increasingly becomes an object refined by machines, and less and less a human dialogue.<\/p>\n A conscious approach to editing could instead enhance the corrective aspects without eliminating what makes the performance unique: the energy of the moment and the expressive naturalness that transform music into living art.<\/p>\n The debate over the superiority of analog versus digital recording is complex. If the goal is to preserve the authenticity of the sound, high-quality digital, produced with appropriate expertise, now offers greater fidelity than analog, which introduces distortion.<\/p>\n Herbert von Karajan, already in the 1980s, emphasized the ability of digital to represent the original sound of the symphony orchestra with greater transparency, making it an ideal means of reproducing classical music without alterations, valorizing digital recording as the most faithful and authentic means of sound reproduction.<\/p>\n One of the areas most resistant to the cumbersome contamination of etigin is classical music, whose recording protocol follows purist criteria that limit post-production manipulation to the minimum:<\/p>\n One of the less discussed effects of the technological revolution in music is the extreme accessibility of production tools, which has allowed anyone to create a finished record without necessarily possessing solid musical, compositional, or technical skills. This phenomenon has had a double consequence: on the one hand, it has democratized music production, offering expressive possibilities to those who previously would not have had access to recording studios or expensive equipment; on the other, it has drastically lowered the average level of production, giving rise to a multitude of producers with approximate skills, more concerned with the immediate impact and marketability of the product than its artistic quality.<\/p>\n The spread of intuitive software, low-cost digital instruments, and pre-packaged sound libraries has reduced the need for in-depth knowledge of music theory and performance techniques. This has fostered a market saturated with homogeneous musical productions, often built on repetitive patterns, basic harmonies, and standardized sounds, stifling creativity and originality.<\/p>\n Added to this is an even more worrying side effect: the progressive flattening of audience taste. The overabundance of music constructed with simplistic digital means has contributed to a progressive loss of critical sensitivity among listeners, who increasingly tend to appreciate productions packaged with repetitive sounds and structures, becoming accustomed to a simplified and depthless sonic aesthetic.<\/p>\n In a landscape where quantity has supplanted quality and where the primary goal is often immediate consumption rather than the creation of a meaningful artistic work, it's becoming increasingly difficult for authentic music to thrive. The decline in the skills required to produce music has led not only to a democratization of the medium, but also to the mass diffusion of musical content crafted to satisfy market demands rather than express a true artistic vision.<\/p>\n This trend calls for a broader reflection: technology, while a powerful tool for expression, must be used with awareness and judgment. The democratization of music production shouldn't translate into a trivialization of music itself, but should be an opportunity to expand creative possibilities without sacrificing artistic depth.<\/p>\n Music is at a crossroads: on one side, the convenience and perfectionism offered by technology as paths of illusory value; on the other, authentic expression, with all its imperfections and communicative power. While technology has vastly expanded creative possibilities, it has equally progressively eroded the direct relationship between musician, sound, and listener, leading to increasingly evident standardization.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the ease of access to the means of production has made music a saturated territory, where quantity risks stifling quality. A market flooded with superficial productions has contributed to a progressive dulling of artistic sensibility, accustoming audiences to repetitive models lacking in expressive depth. In this context, musical authenticity is not simply a matter of artistic choice, but becomes a cultural necessity to preserve the value of music as an art form and not just a consumer product.<\/p>\n It's not about demonizing technological progress, but about redefining its role in music, ensuring it remains a means, not an end. A collective awareness is needed, a paradigm shift involving both music creators and audiences. Musicians must question what it really means to "make" music and how their technical and expressive choices reflect their artistic identity. Audiences, in turn, must rediscover the value of authentic music, learning to distinguish between genuine expression and packaged product.<\/p>\n Only through a cultural revolution that reaffirms the importance of artistic truth and emotional connection can music continue to be a universal language capable of expressing humanity. It's time to abandon the idea of artificial perfection and return to celebrating music as a living, unique, and profoundly authentic act.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Introduzione: La musica al bivio tra tecnologia e autenticit\u00e0 La musica, come ogni forma d\u2019arte, \u00e8 profondamente legata all\u2019evoluzione tecnologica. Dall\u2019introduzione delle prime sovraincisioni vocali negli anni \u201940 (Patty Page, 1947) fino all\u2019avvento dell\u2019intelligenza artificiale (AI), ogni innovazione ha portato con s\u00e9 nuove possibilit\u00e0 ma anche dilemmi etici. Se da un lato la tecnologia ha […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":480,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-musica","category-varie-intorno-alla-musica"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/479","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/479\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/480"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alessandrofois.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Three categories of typically keyboard instruments, according to their authenticity<\/h4>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Extensions to non-keyboard instruments<\/h4>\n
\n
\nNon-keyboard instruments may be included in category B if they use IR filters (Impulse Response<\/strong>). These filters capture the acoustic response of a room or a real instrument, allowing specific sonic characteristics to be simulated without profoundly compromising the musician's control of performance, which, at most, may be slightly different from traditional acoustic and electric playing. IR filters the real instrument, enriching its timbral possibilities while maintaining the authenticity of the performance almost intact.<\/li>\n
\nWhen non-keyboard instruments are controlled via MIDI or sampled libraries, they lose the direct connection between musician and sound, falling into category C. Examples include \u201cMIDIized\u201d guitars or wind instruments, which profoundly alter the physicality of the performance, in an attempt (again) to distort the technique to imitate the emulated instrument as closely as possible and, often, introducing intolerable latency, as it is capable of altering the playing technique in an attempt to anticipate the perceived delay.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nMusical creation and authenticity<\/h2>\n
A new paradigm for all musicians<\/h3>\n
The reconstitution of the musical essence<\/h3>\n
\n
\nThe three types of music production<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nPost-performance editing: midi and audio, and their impact on the humanity of music<\/h2>\n
Post-performance MIDI editing<\/h3>\n
\n
Post-executive audio editing<\/h3>\n
\n
The impact of music on humanity<\/h3>\n
\nRecording: Analog vs. Digital and \u201cPurist\u201d Recording<\/h2>\n
\n
The impact of low-cost technology on music quality and audience tastes<\/b><\/b><\/h2>\n
Towards a cultural revolution in music<\/h2>\n