Arranged Music VS Live Music

I'm trying to understand what the difference is, specifically, between arranged music and live music. As I understand it, "arranged" music involves the use of some sort of computer sound program and allows you to specify the time signature of a mix, as well as the pitch and length of each note. In other words, you don't have to actually play an instrument to get your mix to sound the way you want it to; instead you use a program to electronically assemble the "skeleton" of the mix for you, and then you assign different instruments and sounds to each note of the mix to complete the process. "Live" music, on the other hand, is music that IS played with an electric or acoustic instrument (guitar, bass, piano, synthesizer, etc.). You play your instrument into a digital sound mixer or recorder, re-play each part until it sounds decent, apply any desired special effects, and then combine all the different tracks of the song to form one cohesive mix.

Now, I would greatly appreciate it if someone with a solid knowledge of the differences between arranged and live music could respond to my post as soon as possible and alert me if any of my impressions are incorrect. Thanks.

-ContinueTheEnd

"Arranged" doesn't mean it was made with a computer...it just means it's different from the original composition in some way, such as changes in melody, harmony, rhythm, or instrumentation. OCR has several live arrangements...in fact, even live covers of video game music are considered "arrangements" in the strictest sense of the word, since the instruments have been changed.

You might be thinking about sequenced or digital music, which does imply being created by a computer.

Dude, live just means it's being performed live. As in, you're at a bar seeing a band.

Arranged means arranged. Can mean many things. The piece has been "arranged" for string quartet as opposed to NES. It's been "arranged" in a way that is different than the original. A live band can play an arrangement. But live music really only means live in the moment, I'd say.

ASAP huh? you have a paper due tomorrow on this topic?

you may want to look up what a sequencer is on wikipedia, as that's what you're describing in your first paragraph.

What kind of professor asks a question like this, anyway?

Edit: To be helpful to the OP:

If you want the term "arranged" -- look at repertoire pieces for the double bass -- very often they are _arranged_ versions of pieces originally written for other instruments. Or if you want a more modern example, Central College's Flying Pans Steel Drum band plays an arranged concert from a rock group each year (I made it to see steel-drum Aerosmith and Santana, but unfortunately missed The Eagles this past year).

If you want the term "sequenced" -- see if you can get a hold of a course syllabus for an electronic music class somewhere. Also refer to the readme files of Finale, FL Studio, Reason, etc. The help boards here (especially for FL) are very nice too.

Alright; I see now that by "arranged" music I was really talking about "sequenced" music.......I guess that sequenced music is what I was trying to refer to. And by my description of live music, I only meant "live" in the sense that you're actually using a real instrument to create music rather than digitalized sounds from a computer or sound mixer. Thanks for all the help, and no, this isn't for a professor, it's just for my curiousity.

To add a little expansion on the topic, I would like to make mention that there is a great deal of similarity between sheet and sequenced music, in regards to structure. (Since the standard method of performing "live" music is to follow a written form, i.e. sheet music, I will use sheet music as the form of comparison to sequenced music.) As such, the only difference between the two, in reference to performance (or playback), is how they are performed. Sheet music is performed by a person, while sequenced music is performed by a computer.

Having said this, both sheet music and sequenced music allow you to determine what the time signatures, note pitches and durations should be. Though, sequenced music gives one a greater amount of control on the exact time signatures, pitches and durations of the music, sheet music is structured around using tones and forms that are "pleasing" to the human ear. (Granted that in modern forms of music, "pleasing" has become a very loose term.) In any case, sheet music and sequenced music can be used to create any type of music that one wishes, though each has it's own faults and virtues.

However, to address the subject more accurately, the topic of discussion is actually looking at various recording methods between arranged forms of music. In the initial post, the two methods of recording discussed are "sequenced recording" and "studio recording." (There are other methods of recording music for future playback, but for now, we'll discuss these two methods.)

"Sequenced recording" is very similar to "sequenced music" (music played by a computer) in that a computer program records the time signatures, pitches and durations of notes into a file that can be played back with an appropriate program. Yet, there are a variety of ways that this type of recording can be done by the computer and depends on the resources available by the computer and by the quality desired by the sequencer/composer/arranger, i.e. you, as well as other factors. Assigning instruments to perform a "track" from a piece of sequenced music is in actuality telling the program to use a certain sound library (a set of predetermined sounds) to play the indicated note pitch and duration for the piece. A common form of using sound libraries includes "soundfonts."

"Studio recording" is the method of recording a piece of music performed "live" in a studio and using editing software to refine the various recordings into the desired finished track. These recording sessions can be either analogue or digital, but because of improvements in home recording technology, the most common method of recording in a home studio is via digital recording. Digital studio recordings allow for a greater amount of use of digital elements in the editing process, such as special effects and other effects processing.

The advantage to using a studio recording method over a sequenced recording method is that if properly used gives the listener a more convincing sense that the piece of music is being performed "live." However, that is not to say that such an effect cannot be createded with sequenced music (as certain arrangers can create very "humanistic" recordings with sequenced music), but it requires a greater amount of talent and attention to detail to do so convincingly. Daniel Baranowsky has been cited as one of OCR's arrangers to very convincingly be able to create "humanistic" performances with sequenced music. An advantage to using sequenced recording to create an arrangement is that it requires NO ability to play an actual instrument, whereas studio recording requires some.

There are other differences between using sequenced and digital studio recordings to create music, but they require a more detailed understanding of both techniques. Perhaps there are others who would wish to explain these differences...

Ifirit - nicely described!

The only thing that I can add to that is to make sure that those terms don't allow oneself to paint themselves in a corner - rather than think about arranging in "sequenced" or "live" terms, keep the sound that you want in your head and find ways using technology and/or live recording to make that sound come to life.

The two can be combined, and often when they are, the whole becomes more than the sum of its parts

Captain Annoying-Optimism, out!

Whenever I think of live music, I think of a band performing in a venue of some sort.

Ifirit, thanks for your explanation of sequenced and "studio" music, as you call it. Yes, I understand that the two are similar in the sense that you can specify the time signature, note pitch, and note length of each, but for me, there's a more important difference between the two. When I think of "music", I think of real, actual instruments - not complicated computer programs that can synthesize musical sounds with an array of various sound libraries and effects. I was raised playing musical instruments; I grew up playing first the saxophone, then the piano, and now I practice with the acoustic and electric guitar, with some occasional piano thrown in. My point is this: it would be very difficult for me to create a sequenced piece of work and still called it "music." To me, music is a living, breathing thing - it's not cold, digitalized data awash with special effects, but LIVING music. It disappoints me to see that remixers are turning more and more to simulating music rather than playing the real thing to create their songs; in my opinion, computers tend to suck the "life" out of music and replace it with crude, commercialized, "dead" material. This sickens me - and it's to be expected for someone that grew up playing musical instruments. I've developed a strong sense of appreciation for the skill and dedication it takes to play instruments; only recently, I realized that people could actually sit down at a computer and create, literally, entire songs using various sound programs. These songs could sound highly digitalized and "techno", or they could sound like they were actually being played by real instruments, but even then, that's not the point: it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing. Why is it that people have to mock the concept of real instruments by imitating them with technology? If you want the sound of an instrument, then play it. I have great respect for those musicians who are still able to play, arrange, and record effectively with instruments. There's no "undo" button, no "save" key that you can press, none of that: you painstakingly play each note, usually over and over and over until its pitch and duration are just right. Oftentimes, you replay it even if you can't tell yourself what's wrong - you just know that something's not right. Playing with instruments allows your humanity to seep into your music - when you hear music that was not sequenced, but actually played, there's a certain quality that just can't be reproduced by the finest synthesizer or computer existing. It's a human quality, a living, breathing semblance of humanity - not the mechanical perfection and precision that sequenced music often possesses. Again, as much as the idea of sequenced music disgusts me, I try to maintain some sense of respect for sequencers - it definitely does take talent to do, although it leans more toward technological experience than actual practice and dedication to an instrument or instruments. True, even when playing with instruments, the use of some technology is necessary for successful recording - a digital soundmixer or recorder of some sort is usually needed to store the soundtracks played by the instruments, and to apply any effects, if desired. But that doesn't change the fact that the music is real - again, when you hear a sequenced piece as compared to a live piece, there's always a difference.

For those who disagree with everything I've said, what can I do? It's to be expected; the vast majority of remixers who frequent this site almost certainly prefer sequencing to playing instruments. Keep in mind that I grew up playing instruments, and seeing computers and technology replacing them tends to bother me - it's like people are starting to lose appreciation for actual instrument-oriented music. I guess I have to accept it, especially in a time where technology pretty much rules the roost. Why bother learning to play and practicing when you can emulate it all with a computer, right? It seems there are precious few here who still value "played" music; off the top of my head, goat and bladiator have songs that include actual instrumentation. I'm sure there are more of which I haven't heard, so to all the people who still do play with instruments and record with them, I give a hearty "good job" - keep playing that living stuff. And again, to all the sequencers, I'm not insulting you; I'm only explaining why I think the way I think.

-ContinueTheEnd

Whenever I think of live music, I think of a band performing in a venue of some sort.

Yeah, I dunno if there's a better term for stuff done with real instruments though. "Recorded" music?

it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing. Why is it that people have to mock the concept of real instruments by imitating them with technology? If you want the sound of an instrument, then play it.

First off, get over yourself. Second, there are plenty of remixers who play more instruments than you (more than just dabbling, mind you), but still choose to use sequencers.

I'm one of them.

In my remix Voices Broken, I sequenced the drum part. Can I play the drums? A little bit. Can I play lightning fast fills? No. Can I keep time at that tempo? No. Do I have the studio setup to record drums? No. Would you have preferred a sloppy, poorly recorded drum track in place of what's there right now? Would it sound better? No.

If you think the ability to play an instrument automatically equals musicality, that speaks to a tremendous amount of ignorance on your part. Any given remixer on this site has displayed more musicality than 80% of the people I grew up playing music with in large ensembles. All those kids could do was look at a page, press a key, and blow. No pun intended.

Listen. If there was ever an advocate for live performance in this community, its me. I was once like you, until I started to see the big picture. If you ever try to take the step from critic to creator and make your own remixes, your awareness of music and music production will blossom, and you'll probably look back on your post in a mixture of amusement and embarrassment. That was my journey, and I hope that someday it'll be yours.

-JJT-

p.s. Get over yourself

In my remix Voices Broken, I sequenced the drum part. Can I play the drums? A little bit. Can I play lightning fast fills? No. Can I keep time at that tempo? No. Do I have the studio setup to record drums? No. Would you have preferred a sloppy, poorly recorded drum track in place of what's there right now? Would it sound better? No.

From what it sounds like, you had other parts of the song that were played with instruments - that's good. I realize that it's extremely hard to create a mix with pure instruments; what I don't like is when a song is sequenced in its entirety.

If you think the ability to play an instrument automatically equals musicality, that speaks to a tremendous amount of ignorance on your part. Any given remixer on this site has displayed more musicality than 80% of the people I grew up playing music with in large ensembles. All those kids could do was look at a page, press a key, and blow. No pun intended.

Not just the ability to play an instrument, obviously, but to come up with your own material and to practice consistently without the aid of sheet music. "Those kids" that you described give a bad name to musicians - people who can't see past sheet music shouldn't be playing instruments in the first place. Sheet music may be helpful sometimes for practicing, but overall it's your own practicing that does the trick. I should think you already know this, however, if you say you used to be like me.

Listen. If there was ever an advocate for live performance in this community, its me. I was once like you, until I started to see the big picture. If you ever try to take the step from critic to creator and make your own remixes, your awareness of music and music production will blossom, and you'll probably look back on your post in a mixture of amusement and embarrassment. That was my journey, and I hope that someday it'll be yours.

So because you succumbed to the techno-craze that defines remixing nowadays, I should? Hah - think again, son. You seem to be implying that making a remix requires the use of computers, sequencers, and all else digital......I think not. If I ever get the chance to make a remix, I'll try and make it as un-sequenced as possible - in other words, played with only instruments. Also, I'm not being a "critic" of any sort; like I said, don't take offense at what I said earlier. I was merely illustrating my thoughts about the differences between sequencing and playing "live" instruments; I was in no way insulting you or anyone else. "Awareness of music"? So awareness is defined by how much you use non-"real" instrumentation to create mixes? Evidently, you abandoned your previous ambitions about making music with instruments and replaced them with the lower, easier ambitions of sequencing music. Don't try to make that MY problem........

-ContinueTheEnd

So you say you're not insulting anyone, then in practically the next sentence say that sequenced music is "lower" and "easier" than performed works.

Let me tell you something: I perform my music because it would actually be *harder* for me to learn how to sequence and become good enough to make it sound natural. I've had fellow ReMixers express envy that I can record something in a few hours, while they slave away for days tweaking each note to perfection.

And I don't see why you would call it "lower" either...it's just different. Computers and instruments serve different functions in making music, and neither will ever replace the other. Computers might be lousy musicians, but the truth is no matter how hard you try, you'll never get a square wave out of a piano.

So because you succumbed to the techno-craze that defines remixing nowadays, I should? Hah - think again, son. You seem to be implying that making a remix requires the use of computers, sequencers, and all else digital......I think not. If I ever get the chance to make a remix, I'll try and make it as un-sequenced as possible - in other words, played with only instruments. Also, I'm not being a "critic" of any sort; like I said, don't take offense at what I said earlier. I was merely illustrating my thoughts about the differences between sequencing and playing "live" instruments; I was in no way insulting you or anyone else. "Awareness of music"? So awareness is defined by how much you use non-"real" instrumentation to create mixes? Evidently, you abandoned your previous ambitions about making music with instruments and replaced them with the lower, easier ambitions of sequencing music. Don't try to make that MY problem........

-ContinueTheEnd

I'm succumbing to techno? I've lost my ambition to use real instruments? If you'll actually listen to my music in the order it was posted, I won't need to point out how laughably misguided that statement is (hint: there's a couple solo piano recordings that you may have missed).

My main point, dude, is that if you ever get really involved with producing your own music, you'll eventually realize how foolish you appear to everyone else at the moment. Nothing more, nothing less.

Good luck in your anti-sequencing crusade. The third remix I had posted (Anthem of Exile) uses a full rhythm section, and I did it without any sequencing. It was fun, but I would later found out I could program fills better than I could play them. Go figure.

p.s. if you ever use broad, critical statements like "this sickens me" or "the idea of sequenced music disgusts me," then expect to be labeled as a critic

p.s.s. you didn't get over yourself, like i asked. please do.

So because you succumbed to the techno-craze that defines remixing nowadays, I should? Hah - think again, son. You seem to be implying that making a remix requires the use of computers, sequencers, and all else digital......I think not. If I ever get the chance to make a remix, I'll try and make it as un-sequenced as possible - in other words, played with only instruments. Also, I'm not being a "critic" of any sort; like I said, don't take offense at what I said earlier. I was merely illustrating my thoughts about the differences between sequencing and playing "live" instruments; I was in no way insulting you or anyone else. "Awareness of music"? So awareness is defined by how much you use non-"real" instrumentation to create mixes? Evidently, you abandoned your previous ambitions about making music with instruments and replaced them with the lower, easier ambitions of sequencing music. Don't try to make that MY problem........

-ContinueTheEnd

ok then...

first off i have to laugh because no matter what you do to create your music for this site, it will still go through some kind of digital formatting. even if you had recorded all of your tracks on some kind of ancient analog tape, you'd have to figure out some way to get it onto a computer and put together into a digital format to upload onto the internet.

secondly, if you don't know JJT's music you really have no right to say he's succumbed to a "techno-craze". sure there's a lot of electronic genres on OCR that doesn't make an orchestral track i sequence a techno remix.

thirdly, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in this community who does everything entirely live...or even has the means to do their music entirely live. for example, i have no way of obtaining access of a full orchestra to perform my pieces, nor a means of recording them. i'm sure in saying that other composers here do record some of their stuff live, but not all of it, and that's simply because they do not have the means to do it (and if they do, more power to them...they'd consider themselves lucky i'm sure)

to comment on what you said about sequencing being easier...in reality it's not easier at all. you may spend time practicing and recording something but that time will not add up to nearly the same amount of time it takes to sequence everything by hand (and make it sound good).

i would often argue with one of my instructors about this whole "humanization" thing. in his debate he would say before computers and step-sequencers existed, good money was paid so that the performer would always hit the downbeat perfectly every time. sure some of us would like to emulate a humanistic performance, but in reality if it's really that professional...it should be as close as possible. so why not have perfection? (i neither agree or disagree with this statement)

also in one of your previous posts you said, "Keep in mind that I grew up playing instruments, and seeing computers and technology replacing them tends to bother me". computers will never replace live performance. you have nothing to worry about. i also can see some genres as being impossible to perform live due to humanistic constraints.

Words

So what you're basically saying is that a guy like Protricity (correct me if I'm wrong on this) without experience with musical instruments and without formal theoretical education isn't a real (and a damn awesome one at that) musician?

Because that would be an extremely bold statement.

A true musician is in my opinion not one who conforms himself to playing the music of others from sheet, nor one who knows all the modes from dorian to locrian from his head. A true musician simply knows what sounds best, and knows how to implement it when creating his music.

Whether a guy like that plays a 'classical' instrument like guitar, piano or violin, or just knows his way around the sequencer and the sampler (which are IMO instruments just as well, I don't care what you purists think) doesn't matter. If the results sound awesome, what is there to nitpick about having used sampled drums as opposed to fiddling around with recording 'real' ones?

I actually get into this type of debate with my... ahem, "musician" buddies. It always kinda sucks talking music with them. For one, I've becom pretty good at making music. Not pro by any means, but on par, if not a bit better, than the common garage band. Whenever I try to get in on these conversations, they always say something to the effect of, "Dude, we're musicians, your just a producer." Which is... really odd, considering a producer is a musician in technical terms. Always pisses me off. I can make a killer hip hop beat, sequence an orchestral que, & still, I'm just a "non-musician producer", whatever the heck that means, who's makes cool sounds.

To start a new paragraph, & a slightly new thought, I say this to CTE, & all of the other l33ts, pick up a sequencer & try to make something yourself. You actually try & succeed in making something listenable, & I'm %100 sure you'll appreciate it. I've learned a least a little guitar, as well as some drums... & a fiar bit of keyboards, & I still appreciate the music that comes from a sequencer, & few FX, & a buttload of work. Really, when it comes down to it, a computer, a guitar, or a trombone, it's all "pushing buttons".

P.S. JJT is right, get over yourself.

Alright, alright, alright.........it seems that the everyone here EXCEPT me thinks that I've made some pretty hasty conclusions about sequencing - I'll admit it, I have a really hard time presenting the opposing argument fairly, but I'll try to do so now. I will also try to explain, AGAIN, why I think the way I think about it. First of all, let me just say this: I'm guessing that the vast majority of posters here use more sequencing than they do instrumentation in their mixes. Naturally, this would endow all of you with a sort of "bias" against those who create mixes using instruments, especially those that tend to be "purists", as you termed them. I guess I would fall under the purist category - I find it extremely difficult to think of sequenced data as true music, but perhaps I will some day, who knows.

Yes, I referred to sequenced music as being generally "easier" to do than playing an instrument - isn't that the truth? Think about it.....for those of you who have ever actually played an instrument and tried to make a half-decent recording, you know what you have to go through. I'm not saying that it can't be difficult to sequence music; of course it can. I AM saying, however, that no matter how you slice it, computers are NOT "instruments." They can emulate them, sure, but they are not instruments. Bottom line. I think of music as something that is played by instruments; computers are not instruments, therefore they cannot make music. I'll admit that they can help arrange the digital aspects of music; i.e., you have the recorded tracks of a song and you have to combine them via a computer or digital mixer. But I don't think that people should rely upon them as heavily as they've been doing - as I said earlier, you can use a synthesizer or computer sound library to "fill in" the parts of a song that you absolutely can't do by yourself; that's understandable. Using a computer to completely and totally construct a song, however, when there's such a wide variety of instruments at your disposal...........whatever. I tend to stick with what I have - guitar, bass, piano, and the effects on my amp and mixer - rather than search for "new" types of sounds. I realize now that if you're looking for a full, orchestrated type of soundtrack, it WOULD be next to impossible to create that with pure instruments. Still, you could make do with a synthesizer of some sort and still avoid the sequencing - as long as it's a human playing it and not a computer, it'll have that human quality, though it won't be the actual instruments playing. One of bladiator's mixes, "Super Mario Grand Valse", was played by a synthesizer, and it retained that human quality; it did not have that precise sequenced quality that is often so easily detectable in those types of mixes. By far, the most abominable thing I find about sequenced music is that it lacks that "human quality" - as soon as you insert sequenced material in a song, you have that mechanized, precise, machine-like taste, even if the instrumentation you used doensn't sound "techno" or mechanical. I will admit that, with music, the bottom line is that it sounds good - however, sticking to my definition of music, anything made by a computer or sequencer wouldn't count anyway. Whenever me and my brothers are jamming in the garage (guitar, bass, and drums), that's usually the rule we go by: as long as it sounds good, it is.

Part of the problem here is that music has been totally re-defined with the coming of sequencing technology. I hold a more traditional definition of music, while most everyone else embraces the modern definition. If you define music as ANYTHING that sounds "good", then yes, you can include sequenced music in along with instruments. But if you define music as that which is played by instruments, well, that rules out computers of any type. Synthesizers are kind of a gray area - you can use them to create un-sequenced music, but they're computers themselves in that they emulate other instruments. I'd be more willing to accept synthesizers as an instrument if people didn't tend to use them for sequencing purposes like (I think) they do. To me, music played by instruments is like a ripe, juicy peach - it's real, it's live, and it tastes (sounds) great. Sequenced music is the artificial, plastic peach that sits in the basket with all the other fake fruit, for looks - it's cold, "dead", and, while it may look better than the real peach and be more visually pleasing, it doesn't have that taste (sound). That's my view, as best as I can explain it. Again, I'm not trying to insult any one of you - you are free to define music however you wish to, as am I.

-ContinueTheEnd

Okay, I want you to listen to this piece and this piece and tell me honestly whether you think they were performed or sequenced.

http://remix.supertux.com/songs/Fire_Emblem_EtudeforPianoinFSharpMinor_OC_ReMix.mp3

Maybe this one also.

What is this, The Music Preaching Thread?

I think this question still holds.

Still, you could make do with a synthesizer of some sort and still avoid the sequencing - as long as it's a human playing it and not a computer, it'll have that human quality, though it won't be the actual instruments playing. One of bladiator's mixes, "Super Mario Grand Valse", was played by a synthesizer, and it retained that human quality; it did not have that precise sequenced quality that is often so easily detectable in those types of mixes. By far, the most abominable thing I find about sequenced music is that it lacks that "human quality" - as soon as you insert sequenced material in a song, you have that mechanized, precise, machine-like taste, even if the instrumentation you used doensn't sound "techno" or mechanical.

If sequenced music lacks human qualities, that's because the arrangers suck. There is nothing inherent about sequencing that *forces* music to be made in a more mechanical way. Besides, some people like me who have musical ideas that they can't translate to sound using an instrument alone (I have tendonitis and was forced to really reduce the amount of time I spent playing the piano, so my playing skills now are not what they used to be, nor will I ever hit that level again); should those good musical ideas be lost because of some idealistic, pretentious crap?

Also remember that a lot of people use things like MIDI keyboards to play their parts in, only resorting to sequencing tools like a piano roll when editing is needed. And before you say that editing is just trickery used by sequencers, you're ignorant if you don't realize the amount of editing that happens on nearly every album released in every genre, including classical and jazz.

Either way, I'll be damned if some pretentious loser comes along and says that because I don't have the skills to make top-quality recordings live and don't have a band to play with or a drum kit or piano in my apartment to record on, that I'm not making real music because I use a MIDI keyboard and a bit of editing to get good results.

Music isn't notes on a page, data on a computer, audio waves, tone colors, and anything else that someone like you would typically associate with music. Music is a language of self-expression that transcends and encompasses all of these. Maybe someday you'll realize that.

So tell me, what do you do? You play a handful of acoustic instruments and jam in a garage with your brothers. Have you accomplished anything creative? Do you fairly regularly create music that makes people with more musicality (note: this doesn't just include technical skill or even experience as a player) be impressed, not because of your tone quality or things like that, but because of what you've done? Have you taken any genre and pushed its limits? Have you re-imagined any music in such a way that would get the original composer, should he happen to hear your music, take notice? Have you tried coming up with a new sound that no one else has done before? If not, then why are you insulting those here who have?

Every new genre of music has had its critics. There will always be some narrow-minded buffoons who will hear something going in a direction they didn't imagine and try to discredit it, because they have mechanical skills and maybe even some semblance of musicality, but they do not have creative ideas. Right now, you are one of the ignorant.

I don't understand what's being argued here. Of course digital musicians are musicians making music and can express humanism in their own way. There is no question that what they are making is art. If they're composing their own works, I'd say they are even more artistic than any non-composing musician.

But are they more skilled in their craft?

No. I’ve yet to hear anyone show any kind of virtuosity when it comes to recreating the humanistic qualities of music through a synthesizer. As digital musicians we have all day to muddle through a trial and error approach to music-making. Yes, we can be artistic about it, but we are far from making it a skill that combines our mental and physical agility with our musical sense of rhythm, timing, tone, etc. What we (as digital musicians) do in an hour, a skilled performer can do in seconds, and much better than us, and that’s definitely something that deserves respect. But if his skills are limited solely to performing, that’s when he loses a certain aspect of humanism. Is it any wonder why many music teachers today despise the "trained monkey" approach to musicianship? If you want to sound like a recording, just go and play a recording.