The Human in Music: A Reflection on Authenticity in the Age of Technology

Introduction: Music at the crossroads between technology and authenticity

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 broadened the creative horizons of music and also significantly improved recording techniques, it has also raised questions about the deeper meaning of music, its relationship to the human and the need to preserve its essence.

This article explores the relationship between technology and music, through a unique ethical-musical analysis that seeks to understand and evaluate what the intentions of those who set out to 'make' music are, what musical instruments and modes of production are 'permissible', focusing on a new paradigm that places artistic authenticity at the centre.

---

What is artistic authenticity in music?

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 that reflects its character in an original and unique manner. It is the specific moment of creation, where 'the idea becomes flesh' through the direct relationship with the instrument and sound. It is an intrinsic value, which manifests itself in the ability of music to convey an artistic truth, distinguishing itself from artificial or, worse, standardised manipulations that flatten its meaning.

The fundamental elements of artistic authenticity

1. Mental, emotional and physical involvement of the musician
   • Authenticity requires the musician to be fully present in the creative act, bringing his or her mind, emotions and body into play.
2. Uniqueness and unrepeatability of execution
   • Every authentic musical performance is a unique event, influenced by the context, the mood of the musician and the interaction with the audience. Even in highly structured and codified compositions and recordings, where uniqueness is less apparent because the performance has crystallised on the sound carrier, authenticity is reflected in the subtle variations of interpretation and temperament that naturally emerge from a real human performance.
3. Direct relationship between musician and instrument
   • Authenticity is based on an unmediated interaction between the musician and his instrument (or his voice, understood as an instrument in its own right), where physical and expressive control is not replaced or altered by invasive technological interventions. The connection between gesture and sound is essential to maintain artistic integrity.
4. Transparency of artistic intention
   • Authenticity is manifested when the musician clearly communicates his or her artistic vision, without disguising it with manipulations aimed exclusively at obtaining a technically 'perfect' product or, worse still, packaged according to canons of reference aligned with purposes that have nothing to do with art. Art, to be authentic, must convey a sense of truth that goes beyond technique and 'stylistic packaging'.
5. Emotion and vulnerability
   • Authenticity is not afraid of imperfection; the serious performance artist, on the contrary, while preparing rigorously in the studio, embraces unpredictability and even vulnerability as elements that make music alive and capable of touching the listener deeply.

Authenticity vs. standardisation

In the age of advanced technology, artistic authenticity is clearly distinguished from standardisation. Authentic music does not seek to conform to an artificial perfection or predefined models, but enhances the unique character of each performance. In this sense, authenticity opposes the excessive manipulation of sounds and pre-digested solutions that standardise performances, depriving them of their human meaning.

The cultural significance of authenticity

Artistic authenticity is more than a technical or stylistic characteristic; it is a cultural value that reaffirms the role of the artist as a carrier of deeply 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 narrating the human, with all its imperfections, contradictions and wonders.

Ultimately, artistic authenticity in music is the celebration of humanity in sound creation, an act of truth that connects the musician to the audience in a deep and meaningful way.

---

Intentions and motivations in 'making' music

Those who set out to 'make' music do so driven by a wide range of motivations and intentions, which vary between people and contexts. Every musician moves in a balance between inner drives, artistic aspirations and external pressures, and these factors directly influence the degree of authenticity that music can express.

Intentions and main motivations

1. Personal expression
   • For many, making music is a means to express emotions, thoughts and personal stories. This motivation is deeply connected to authenticity, as music becomes a form of individual truth, in which the musician exposes himself unfiltered in a unique way.
2. Communication and connection
   • Music is a universal language that allows one to connect with others. Those who make music with the intention of creating an emotional and intellectual dialogue with the audience tend to favour authenticity, because it is through it that a real and deep connection is established.
3. Aesthetic and technical research
   • Some musicians approach music as an art to be explored or perfected, with a strong orientation towards innovation or technical virtuosity. This motivation can be authentic when the technical pursuit is an extension of the artistic intention, but risks losing authenticity if it focuses exclusively on impressing or satisfying external expectations.
4. Entertainment and pleasure
   • Music is also a means of enjoyment and pleasure, both for those who make it and for those who listen to it. Although this motivation may appear lighter, it can still be authentic when the musician approaches it with sincerity, responding to the desire to communicate and participate in a community event, without lapsing into standardisation or superficiality imposed by the market.
5. Professional and commercial motivations
   • Music, for many, is also a job. The goals of profit, success and visibility may conflict with authenticity, especially when the musician feels compelled to adapt to market logic or temporary fashions. However, authenticity can be maintained if these external pressures do not distort the underlying artistic intention.
6. Spiritual and transcendental motivations
   • For some, making music is an act that goes beyond the individual, connected to a spiritual dimension or a search for universal meanings. This intent, when genuine, is often among the most authentic, as music becomes a vehicle for something that transcends the musician himself.

Correlation between intent and authenticity

Authenticity in music is closely linked to clarity and sincerity of intent. When the musician is aware of his or her motives 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.

Authenticity as a guide

Regardless of motivations, artistic authenticity can be a guiding criterion for those who make music. This means constantly questioning what you want to communicate, how you want to do it and how far your music really reflects who you are. Authenticity, in fact, does not exclude any motivation per se, but requires coherence between intention and result, so that the music remains a genuine expression of the musician and not just a reflection of external expectations.

Ultimately, 'making' music is a complex and multifaceted act, in which authenticity is not given once and for all, but requires continuous work of introspection, choice, commitment and, above all, integrity.

---

The ethical-musical classification of instruments

It may seem bizarre to analyse musical instruments according to the focus on authenticity, yet the last few decades, as a result of technological innovations in electronics and information technology, have seen the emergence of many new instruments that have profoundly influenced the way music is created.

The classification proposed here answers the questions of authenticity, in which I myself often struggle as a pianist, keyboard player, arranger and composer.

In fact, it focuses mainly on instruments keyboardsas they lend themselves to a wider variety of technological configurations, which can be defined as real tools and tools for emulating the real.

The tools non-keyboardsuch as strings, woodwinds or acoustic percussion, instead 'naturally' belong to the category of real instruments (hereafter classified in category A), with some specific exceptions, which we will discuss below.

Three categories of typical keyboard instruments, according to the profile of authenticity

1. Real instruments (category A)
   • Physical keyboard instruments, i.e. instruments that are played manually with a piano/keyboard technique; acoustic (such as the piano), electric and electromagnetic (such as the electric reed pine and the Hammond organ) and synthetic (such as analogue and digital synthesisers).
   • They maintain a direct relationship between the musician and the sound, preserving the technique, expression and physicality of the performance, without emulating other instruments, but 'remaining true to themselves'.
2. Eligible' sampling instruments (category B) - digitally emulate real keyboard instruments, playing them through a keyboard of more or less similar quality to the originals
   • They use sound samples of physical, acoustic, electric and synthetic keyboard instruments.
   • Although pre-recorded note-by-note, these samples are triggered by the keyboard mechanics and therefore play like the instruments they emulate; they allow the musician to interact with the instrument in an authentic manner, maintaining technique and expression very close to that of the equivalent authentic instrument in category A.
3. Ineligible' sampling instruments (category C)
   • They include sample libraries of non-keyboard instruments.
   • Such configurations reduce executive interaction, compromising the authenticity of the musician's physical control over the sound, which is forced into a technical contortion, aimed at attempting to elicit the expressive emotion typical of non-keyboard instruments (such as the violin, sax, trova and guitar or string orchestra), with sonorous results that are more or less plausible, but always questionable in terms of authenticity.

Extensions to non-keyboard instruments

• Instruments with IR filters (category B)
  Non-keyboard instruments can be included in category B if they use IR filters (Impulse Response). These filters capture the acoustic response of a real environment or instrument, making it possible to simulate specific sound characteristics without profoundly compromising the musician's playing control, which, at best, may be slightly different from the traditional acoustic and electric one. The IR, in fact, filters the real instrument, enriching its timbre possibilities, while keeping the authenticity of the performance almost intact.
• MIDI or sampled instruments (category C)
  When non-keyboard instruments are handled via MIDI or sampled libraries, they lose the direct connection between musician and sound, falling into category C. Examples include 'mechanised' guitars or wind instruments, which profoundly alter the physicality of the performance, in an attempt (again) to contort the technique to imitate the emulated instrument as closely as possible and, often, introducing intolerable latency, as it alters the performance technique in an attempt to anticipate the perceived delay.

---

Musical creation and authenticity

A new paradigm for all musicians

The increasing musical standardisation imposed by technology has highlighted the need for a new paradigm, one that is not reserved for purists or those who have overcome the constraints of the market, but one that becomes a universal value for every musician. This paradigm is based on the idea that music must remain authentic and deeply human, or return to being so, celebrating the connection between the musician-composer, the performer, his instrument and the listener, reflecting the values inherent in the function of art with a capital 'A'.

The reconstitution of the musical essence

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, the temperament and the emotional involvement of the musician. To reconstitute this essence, it is necessary:

• Reduce the use of technologies that separate the musician from the sound.
• Promote practices that foster uniqueness of performance, both live and in the studio.
• Valuing the human in music, as the bearer of emotions and related meanings.

---

The three types of music production

1. Human and dynamic production - eligible
   • Based on instruments of categories A and B.
   • It involves the musician in all dimensions: mental, through inspired compositions oriented towards truth and beauty, emotional and physical, through performance.
   • Each performance is unique, whether live or recorded, and reflects the authenticity of the performative act.
2. Music production in layered (pictorial) style - eligible 
   • Similar to the creation of a work of visual art, in which the compositional idea takes shape through gradual techniques.
   • It reduces the physical involvement but preserves the emotional aspect, enhancing the vision and artistic role of the composer/producer/performer over that of third-party performers. In this context, some instruments of category C may find a place, when used with discretion and good taste, as the focus is essentially on the "pictorial" result of the work, i.e. on the musical work engraved on a support and thus definitively crystallised, like the painting of a picture.
   • It must be clearly distinguished from music that can be performed live to avoid ambiguity, but can retain a high and genuine aesthetic, expressive and artistic value.
3. Artificial production - not permissible
   • Generated by AI and/or performed by misusing Category C tools.
   • Devoid of human dynamics, physicality and emotionality, it represents a technological exercise devoid of basic artistic meaning, even when the result turns out to be stunning in an absolute sense, as it is deficient in its very premise.
   • Intended for purely or mainly utilitarian purposes, losing sight of the meaning of the artistic creative act.

---

Post-performance editing: midi and audio, and their impact on the humanity of music

Post-performance editing, both in MIDI and audio formats, has revolutionised music production, offering almost unlimited tools for correction and manipulation. However, the massive use of these techniques has had a significant impact on the inherent humanity of music, often pushing it towards a standardisation that distances the listener from the dynamic and imperfect, yet evocative reality of human performance.

Post-executive MIDI editing

MIDI editing allows direct intervention in the digital data describing the performance, modifying fundamental parameters with extreme precision. Possibilities include:

• Editing of timbre presets: Substitution of the original sound selected for a track, which inspired and conditioned the performer through his perception of timbre and dynamics
• Deleting, adding or editing notes: Allows you to 'rewrite' a performance, adjusting, adding or deleting musical events.
• Quantization: Adjusts the timing of notes to a predefined time grid, eliminating rhythmic oscillations typical of human performance.
• Interventions on timing and dynamicsSubtle or massive manipulations controlling volume, expression and tempo changes.

While these tools can be used to correct minor errors during the creation of a pictorial work (such as a record), they also compromise the spontaneity of the performance. Quantization, in particular, introduces an artificial perfection that standardises performances, erasing the rhythmic micro-variations that contribute to the distinctive character of each performance. And the same goes for dynamic flattening

Post-executive audio editing

Audio editing allows for the direct manipulation of sound recordings, paving the way for very invasive interventions, including:

• Choosing and editing fragments from different takesA common practice to create a 'perfect' performance by assembling the best parts from multiple recordings.
• Elimination of noise and retouching of breathsInterventions that while improving sound cleanliness may reduce the sense of intimacy and naturalness.
• Timing and intonation adjustments: Often used to correct errors, these interventions can profoundly alter the natural expressiveness of the musician.
• Duplication and displacement of executive parts: Techniques that turn a unique execution into a repetitive collage of elements that are all the same.
• "Extreme 'cut and sewManipulations that construct a 'table-decided performance', to the detriment of the coherence and authenticity of the performer.

Audio editing has the potential to attenuate or eliminate any trace of humanity from the performance, transforming it into an idealised and uniform product. This process alters the listener's perception, accustoming them to unrealistic standards of perfection and a coldness that do not correspond to what would happen in a live performance. However, it may be permissible, with the right dosage, in works built up in layers by a producer, where the artistic figure of the composer/performer predominates, who, like a novice sound painter, realises his 'still life' with mastery and expressive artistry, rich in detail, often also aspiring to the ideal of perfection which, in itself, is one of the possible aims of art.

The impact on humanity of music

The massive use of these editing techniques distorts the musical experience for both the musician and the listener. For the musician, the ability to 'correct everything' reduces the importance of live performance and physical and emotional involvement. For the listener, the music becomes a pre-packaged product, lacking the expressive imperfections that make a performance authentic and unrepeatable.

This loss of humanity also has a cultural effect: the average listener may develop unrealistic expectations, seeing typical mistakes or variations in 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 becomes more and more a machine-finished object, and less and less a human dialogue.

Instead, a conscious approach to editing could enhance the corrective aspects without eliminating what makes the performance unique: the energy of the moment and the expressive naturalness that turn music into living art.

---

Recording: analogue vs. digital and 'purist' recording

The debate on the superiority of analogue over digital recording is complex. If the goal is to preserve the authenticity of sound, high-quality digital, made with appropriate know-how, now offers greater fidelity than analogue, which introduces distortions.

Herbert von Karajan, as early as the 1980s, emphasised 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, valuing digital recording as a more faithful and authentic means of sound reproduction.

One of the areas most resistant to the cumbersome contaminations of etigin is precisely classical music, whose recording protocol follows purist criteria that limit post-production manipulations as much as possible:

• Recording: Predominance of panoramic shots with possible use of single miking only to improve ideal acoustic proportions, without altering the natural size of the ensemble, i.e. maintaining real positioning (width and depth) in the reproduced virtual soundstage.
• EditingJointing of fragments from different takes is forbidden, with very rare exceptions. Any intervention in intonation and timing is forbidden.
• Sound treatmentMinimum dynamic compression during mastering is now permitted, to improve usability without altering sound authenticity. General equalisation of the master is permitted, intended to restore the ideal conditions altered by unfavourable acoustics, eliminating resonances and restoring brilliance; different characterisations and interventions between the various groups of microphones are forbidden, so as not to alter the timbre proportions between instruments. A discreet use of artificial reverberation is permitted, but only for recordings made in open spaces or spaces with too little reflection.

The impact of low-cost technology on music quality and audience tastes

One of the least discussed effects of the technological revolution in music is the extreme accessibility of production tools, which has allowed anyone to create a finished record product without necessarily possessing solid musical, compositional or technical skills. This phenomenon has had a twofold consequence: on the one hand, it has democratised music production, offering expressive possibilities to those who in the past would not have had access to recording studios or expensive equipment; on the other hand, it has drastically lowered the average level of productions, giving space to a multitude of producers with approximate skills, more concerned with the immediate effect and marketability of the product than with its artistic quality.

The spread of intuitive software, cheap digital instruments and prefabricated sound libraries has reduced the need for in-depth knowledge of music theory and performance techniques. This has favoured the emergence of a saturated market of homogeneous musical productions, often built on repetitive patterns, elementary harmonies and standardised sounds, penalising creativity and originality.

Added to this is an even more worrying side effect: the progressive flattening of public taste. The overabundance of music constructed with simplistic digital means has contributed to a progressive loss of critical sensitivity on the part of listeners, who increasingly tend to appreciate productions packaged with repetitive sounds and structures, becoming accustomed to a simplified sound aesthetic devoid of depth.

In a landscape where quantity has supplanted quality and where the main objective is often the immediacy of consumption rather than the creation of a meaningful artistic work, it is becoming increasingly difficult for authentic music to find space. The lowering of the skills required to produce music has not only led to a democratisation of the medium, but also to a massive dissemination of musical content built to satisfy the logic of the market rather than to express a true artistic vision.

This drift imposes a broader reflection: technology, while being a powerful tool of expression, must be used with awareness and criterion. The democratisation of music production should not result in a trivialisation of music itself, but should be an opportunity to expand creative possibilities without sacrificing artistic depth.

Towards a cultural revolution in music

Music is at a crossroads: on the one hand, 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 it is true that technology has greatly expanded creative possibilities, it is equally true that it has progressively eroded the direct relationship between the musician, the sound and the listener, leading to an increasingly evident standardisation.

In addition, easy access to the means of production has made music a saturated territory, where quantity risks stifling quality. A market invaded by superficial productions has contributed to a progressive flattening of artistic sensibilities, accustoming the public to repetitive models lacking expressive depth. In this context, musical authenticity is not only a matter of artistic choices, but becomes a cultural necessity to preserve the value of music as an art form and not only as a consumer product.

It is not a question of demonising technological progress, but of redefining its role in music, ensuring that it remains a means and not the end. What is needed is a collective awareness, a paradigm shift involving both the creators of music and the audience. Musicians must ask themselves what it really means to 'make' music and how far their technical and expressive choices respect their artistic identity. The audience, in turn, must rediscover the value of authentic music, learning to distinguish between genuine expression and packaged product.

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 narrating the human. It is time to abandon the idea of artificial perfection and return to celebrating music as a living, unrepeatable and profoundly authentic act.