Realism is overrated

I remember reading that many musicians and composers who embraced synthesizers and other equipment instead of the more traditional music-making methods have often been criticized back in the day. Traditionals were adamant that nothing can replace the classical way of writing music to be later performed by live players. Some have secretly feared that those with synthesizers would eventually replace all other musicians. This was in the early stages of electronic music, now long ago. It was the time when replicating the authentic sound of an acoustic musical instrument by using the electronic one was merely a utopia. However, technology is never at peace. In the early 1980s came the first digital synthesizers and samplers, which fulfilled this dream for the most part. Things got even hotter with the introduction of computers in music production and the arrival of modern virtual instruments and sample libraries. I wonder what would those early skeptics say to this?

Thanks to the power of modern computers and the high capacity for data storage, virtual instruments that we know today can potentially sound identical to any acoustic musical instrument you can think of, even a whole orchestra. Of course, in the right hands. To take advantage of their potential, you must use them in the right way. It is essential to get into a role of a musician whose instrument you are replicating. For example, you cannot load a trombone sound and then play a piano piece. Furthermore, you must use many MIDI parameters that control various aspects of the virtual instrument.

Theoretically speaking, it is indeed possible to come out with a "perfect replica" of music that would otherwise be performed on a real instrument. Many users of virtual instruments are nowadays primarily concerned or even obsessed with realism. The main drive for those is trying to draw out the absolute maximum from available software and to convince even the most experienced ears that they are listening to a performance of a real instrument, ensemble, or orchestra, instead of the virtual ones. Unfortunately, programming and other technical aspects can frequently overshadow creativity and the music itself. Furthermore, many are obsessively spending large amounts while buying newer software titles that are constantly being released.

In my opinion, this isn't the point of virtual instruments. Their strength comes from allowing the musicians to be creative while using sounds that would be inaccessible otherwise for various reasons. For instance, a pianist who doesn't play the violin as well can do that thanks to technology. A composer who doesn't read or write music can create music by recording and programming. Very few can afford to hire experienced players, let alone the whole orchestra to perform or record their music. Finally, many instrumentalists simply want to create and perform music on their own (myself included).

Be it as it may, virtual instruments have many advantages but also shortcomings. Working with them is a completely legitimate method of creating music, equal to the traditional ones. This is an art in its own right. But one should always keep in mind that these are tools, first and foremost. You need to know how to use them properly, but in the end, they should serve you and not vice versa. For me, creativity and the music itself are certainly much more important than trying to draw the most from the tools I'm using or trying to push through boundaries. Also, I cannot afford to follow tech trends. But in the end, this is not important. After all, many celebrated artists have created beautiful music using far more modest means than those widely available today.