Plato once claimed “music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.” His quote is riddled with natural imagery, bringing birds and living, breathing creatures to mind. “Music gives life” was this philosopher’s argument.
And as music changed, it continued to give life to words and sounds.
When metal, electronic structures replaced the early wooden structures of instruments, people didn’t seem to notice, or perhaps they simply didn’t mind. Wooden flutes became shiny, glossy metal flutes, while acoustic guitars became acoustic-electric, then totally electric.
And it was no big deal, really, because the natural quality was still found in the artistry, in the human soul expressed within each note and sound wave that the artist selected. The audience couldn’t help but feel emotionally connected to the lyrics, or if without lyrics, to simply the mood the composer steered the music to elicit.
That’s where humanity found its place in the composition of music. Just as the novelist makes the reader fell nauseous, distraught, triumphant, or swooned, the musician makes the audience laugh, cry, dance, or feel in love.
But what happens when humans are removed from the process? When scanners read code instead of pupils reading sheet music? When metal fingers replace the soft, trained human ones?
As introduced on CNN.com, the “Z-Machines” is a three-piece, all-robotic band created by University of Tokyo engineers.
According to the article, the guitarist robot, two meters tall, has 78 fingers and can pluck its instrument’s strings within milliseconds of each other, playing faster than any human. The drummer robot has 22 arms and can play “four times faster than any human ever could.” And finally, the keyboardist shoots lasers at its instrument’s keys, striking each note with extraordinary accuracy.
The article addresses the possibility of audiences becoming bored with human performances one day and taking to the fascination of mechanical music that human talent can’t achieve on the stage.
Tom Jenkinson, interviewed by CNN.com, stated that “the footage of the robot performer is almost like watching a broken human, with a skeleton of steel, and oil for blood.” He composed the music for the band’s up and coming EP.
Could this advancement in music technology challenge musicians, or does it merely frustrate them?
Though the robot band’s music is impressive and lively, the idea of resorting to machines for music does not sit well with some instrumentalists.
Cyrus Patel, musician for seven years and drummer in a metal and rock band, believes that this invention takes away from real, not simulated music.
“Though it is cool, it gets rid of the human element that makes music unique to the person.”
Though a human musician composed the music, Patel argues that the artist is just programming a machine to play the music for him, instead of playing it himself.
“There is no human emotion, talent or taste behind the music that the machine is playing.”
Cody Edger, former guitarist for Social Jet Lag and One Accord, shares that he too initially viewed the invention as “cheating” until he began to see the robots as the instruments.
“It’s definitely a very interesting concept, and the fact that there is technology that advanced to be able to play music that well is pretty awesome. [But] someone who knows and understands music had to compose it and then make the robots perform it. That takes skill and talent.
Engineer Jessye Gaines offers her opinion on this innovation through a practical perspective and a logical mindset, stating that she doesn’t see the efficiency in replacing a human with a machine for music.
“I think it’s about a human performance behind the music. The electronic band seems like a waste of money, time, and energy.”
This leads Gaines to reflect on and criticize the true value of not only this new mechanism, but of robotic advancements in general. What should machines be utilized for?
“Robotic work becomes a positive advancement when they’re taking a human job that would be dangerous, perhaps, or inefficient for a human to do,” Gaines explains. “Robots that direct traffic, deal with bomb threats, go into outer space—things that there is no use risking a human life for when we could program a robot.”
And as it does with other inventions that supersede human abilities, the question of “Are we taking on a dangerous feat by replacing our species with robots?” arises.
Gaines, who is also a pre-calculus teacher at Bob Jones High School, believes people walk a very fine line when they start replacing human capabilities with machines, even at the student-calculator level.
She explains that her students often times don’t see the importance of a written explanation or proof of a problem when they can simply have their calculators compute the answer for them.
“There is no grounding,” Gaines states. “As a society, we have to stay smarter than the machines we use, so that it doesn’t become dangerous. We’re entrusting too much into machines, and not using the human thought process and common sense. It can become dangerous if you don’t have an ethical point of view.”
Perhaps society’s blurring of entertainment with practicality poses an ethical question or an efficiency question, as Gaines mentioned.
Or could it be that the up and coming generations will, by default, prefer quick and entertaining mechanical commodities rather than a more old-fashioned, strictly human product?
