On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:43:20 GMT, Richard Dobson
<richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Funny how everyone seems to assume the main use for DNA "must be" error
>correction (and that it is therefore somehow immoral). Even the demos
>don't emphasise that; it's just one possibility out of many. Indeed, I
>find is strange how moral imperatives pop up so often with respect to
>computer-mediated music. We musicians are a pragmatic lot - we simply
>use what's available. If computers suddenly disappeared, we would start
>with wood and bones again and work from there. And mostly sing for our
>suppers, one way or another. Much of the technology "out there" is used
>not by instrumentalists as such but by composers, who are typically
>asked to "deliver 20mins music by 9AM tomorrow"; frankly, ~anything~
>that helps get the job done that little bit quicker (and better) is very
>welcome. Doesn't mean that is all the composer does or can do.
I read an article long ago where the author was pointing out, in the
context of this sort of discussion, how creative geniuses throughout
history have always used the most advanced technology available to
them. This is true of the classical composers, artists, even
writers (e.g., Samuel Clemens adopted technology as fast as he could,
being one of the earliest to use a typewriter, etc.).
I don't see this tool as being any different. The internet has
certainly given publishing access to anybody who cares to scribe a
blog, but I don't think that's diminished the value of those who can
write well professionally. Likewise, I don't think this Melodyne
product will diminish the value of skilled musicianship.
>Paul Lansky said years ago that the computer *was* his instrument, and
>in doing so so he was merely articulating the feelings of a good number
>of electro-acoustic composers (yes, we still exist and are (mostly)
>thriving). To me the "creative" uses of systems such as melodyne DNA are
>much more interesting than the remedial ones; and even pedagogical uses
>come to mind. Many teachers in the conservatoires already use systems
>such as the Disklavier to record, analyse and reproduce (perhaps with
>alterations) performances as part of teaching feedback. I can, for
>eaxmple, imagine taking a recorded piano performance and remapping it
>to a different tuning system (perhaps 19t ET), given that piano's with
>alternate tuning systems are hard to come by.
>
>Being limited only by one's imagination does not mean one should limit
>one's imagination!
>
>Richard Dobson
Yeah, I immediately thought of all sorts of cool stuff I could do with
this Melodyne thing, mostly for experimentation but if the result
sounded good enough I see no reason not to use the output. If
nothing else it'll let you explore different ways of playing things so
the next time you really play it yourself you can figure out whether
stretching to that next note or odd position is really worth it or
not.
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org
Reply by Jerry Avins●March 29, 20082008-03-29
Steve Underwood wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote:
>> Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:
>>> [...]
>>> If you can't look at a demo of little Johnny's efforts at the school
>>> concert being cleaned up, and extrapolate to the potential uses
>>> experts could make of the same technology, I think there's something
>>> wrong with you.
>>
>> Oh yeah, there's something wrong with me alright. I can't see how
>> diddling notes on a screen with a mouse is ever going to substitute for
>> the expertise a talented, dedicated musician with a lifetime of
>> experience and specialized knowledge of his instrument brings to the
>> table.
>>
>> Think back to the era of musicianship that bands like Yes, Chicago,
>> Emerson Lake and Palmer, Blood Sweat and Tears, Kansas, Three Dog Night,
>> etc., brought to the world and then fast-forward to current day artists
>> that use PitchDoctor, record-scratching, digital looping, and other
>> silly-assed modern-day recording gimmicks (not to mention compression)
>> and tell me whether you think such technology has produced better
>> musicians or not.
>>
>> If thinking that a musician should ply his trade by learning how to play
>> his instrument the hard way rather than simulating it on a computer is
>> being a dumbass, then I'm a dumbass.
>
> You are being completely unrealistic. Those guys took months in a studio
> to make an album, and did huge numbers of takes. What they played live
> was almost always a dumbed down version of the studio version, so that
> it was repeatable. Much of their studio time could have been reduced, if
> they could fix up the odd fluff easily. New tools could, of course, be
> used to go beyond that. Like doing a foot to the floor, super fast and
> complex version of something the musician couldn't hope to get right in
> one go, no matter how many takes they recorded. Then again, people have
> always done that, since they've always patched together different takes
> to get a complete perfect one. New tools just push things a little
> further in the direction of "unplayable live".
>
> There is hardly a live album made without studio overdubs to fix up all
> sorts of errors, or to add back some the complexity of the studio version.
>
> All of this applies just as much to classical recordings, as to rock
> ones. There aren't many of those recorded in a single take.
When tape replaced the Sculley lathe, conductors (Toscanini I know about
from technicians who worked with him) were delighted that flubs could be
patched by re-recording a couple of bars instead of a whole movement.
The wonderful flute solo in the Westminster recording of Bach's B-minor
Mass was patched with a copy of the same notes from some other part of
the score. There was a lot of touch-up done with a razor blade.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Richard Dobson●March 29, 20082008-03-29
Randy Yates wrote:
> Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:
>> [...]
>> If you can't look at a demo of little Johnny's efforts at the school
>> concert being cleaned up, and extrapolate to the potential uses
>> experts could make of the same technology, I think there's something
>> wrong with you.
>
> Oh yeah, there's something wrong with me alright. I can't see how
> diddling notes on a screen with a mouse is ever going to substitute for
> the expertise a talented, dedicated musician with a lifetime of
> experience and specialized knowledge of his instrument brings to the
> table.
>
> Think back to the era of musicianship that bands like Yes, Chicago,
> Emerson Lake and Palmer, Blood Sweat and Tears, Kansas, Three Dog Night,
> etc., brought to the world and then fast-forward to current day artists
> that use PitchDoctor, record-scratching, digital looping, and other
> silly-assed modern-day recording gimmicks (not to mention compression)
> and tell me whether you think such technology has produced better
> musicians or not.
>
> If thinking that a musician should ply his trade by learning how to play
> his instrument the hard way rather than simulating it on a computer is
> being a dumbass, then I'm a dumbass.
Hmm.
Funny how everyone seems to assume the main use for DNA "must be" error
correction (and that it is therefore somehow immoral). Even the demos
don't emphasise that; it's just one possibility out of many. Indeed, I
find is strange how moral imperatives pop up so often with respect to
computer-mediated music. We musicians are a pragmatic lot - we simply
use what's available. If computers suddenly disappeared, we would start
with wood and bones again and work from there. And mostly sing for our
suppers, one way or another. Much of the technology "out there" is used
not by instrumentalists as such but by composers, who are typically
asked to "deliver 20mins music by 9AM tomorrow"; frankly, ~anything~
that helps get the job done that little bit quicker (and better) is very
welcome. Doesn't mean that is all the composer does or can do.
Paul Lansky said years ago that the computer *was* his instrument, and
in doing so so he was merely articulating the feelings of a good number
of electro-acoustic composers (yes, we still exist and are (mostly)
thriving). To me the "creative" uses of systems such as melodyne DNA are
much more interesting than the remedial ones; and even pedagogical uses
come to mind. Many teachers in the conservatoires already use systems
such as the Disklavier to record, analyse and reproduce (perhaps with
alterations) performances as part of teaching feedback. I can, for
eaxmple, imagine taking a recorded piano performance and remapping it
to a different tuning system (perhaps 19t ET), given that piano's with
alternate tuning systems are hard to come by.
Being limited only by one's imagination does not mean one should limit
one's imagination!
Richard Dobson
Reply by Steve Underwood●March 29, 20082008-03-29
Randy Yates wrote:
> Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:
>> [...]
>> If you can't look at a demo of little Johnny's efforts at the school
>> concert being cleaned up, and extrapolate to the potential uses
>> experts could make of the same technology, I think there's something
>> wrong with you.
>
> Oh yeah, there's something wrong with me alright. I can't see how
> diddling notes on a screen with a mouse is ever going to substitute for
> the expertise a talented, dedicated musician with a lifetime of
> experience and specialized knowledge of his instrument brings to the
> table.
>
> Think back to the era of musicianship that bands like Yes, Chicago,
> Emerson Lake and Palmer, Blood Sweat and Tears, Kansas, Three Dog Night,
> etc., brought to the world and then fast-forward to current day artists
> that use PitchDoctor, record-scratching, digital looping, and other
> silly-assed modern-day recording gimmicks (not to mention compression)
> and tell me whether you think such technology has produced better
> musicians or not.
>
> If thinking that a musician should ply his trade by learning how to play
> his instrument the hard way rather than simulating it on a computer is
> being a dumbass, then I'm a dumbass.
You are being completely unrealistic. Those guys took months in a studio
to make an album, and did huge numbers of takes. What they played live
was almost always a dumbed down version of the studio version, so that
it was repeatable. Much of their studio time could have been reduced, if
they could fix up the odd fluff easily. New tools could, of course, be
used to go beyond that. Like doing a foot to the floor, super fast and
complex version of something the musician couldn't hope to get right in
one go, no matter how many takes they recorded. Then again, people have
always done that, since they've always patched together different takes
to get a complete perfect one. New tools just push things a little
further in the direction of "unplayable live".
There is hardly a live album made without studio overdubs to fix up all
sorts of errors, or to add back some the complexity of the studio version.
All of this applies just as much to classical recordings, as to rock
ones. There aren't many of those recorded in a single take.
Steve
Reply by Randy Yates●March 29, 20082008-03-29
Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:
> [...]
> If you can't look at a demo of little Johnny's efforts at the school
> concert being cleaned up, and extrapolate to the potential uses
> experts could make of the same technology, I think there's something
> wrong with you.
Oh yeah, there's something wrong with me alright. I can't see how
diddling notes on a screen with a mouse is ever going to substitute for
the expertise a talented, dedicated musician with a lifetime of
experience and specialized knowledge of his instrument brings to the
table.
Think back to the era of musicianship that bands like Yes, Chicago,
Emerson Lake and Palmer, Blood Sweat and Tears, Kansas, Three Dog Night,
etc., brought to the world and then fast-forward to current day artists
that use PitchDoctor, record-scratching, digital looping, and other
silly-assed modern-day recording gimmicks (not to mention compression)
and tell me whether you think such technology has produced better
musicians or not.
If thinking that a musician should ply his trade by learning how to play
his instrument the hard way rather than simulating it on a computer is
being a dumbass, then I'm a dumbass.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by Steve Underwood●March 28, 20082008-03-28
Randy Yates wrote:
> Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:
>> [...]
>> Maybe you are the one musician who plays defect free, with the maximum
>> of emotion, for hours and hours. For the rest, [...]
>
> Smart-assedness noted.
I wrote that because I thought you were being a dumbass. :-)
> No, Steve, I didn't mean to imply that it wouldn't be useful
> there. However, that's not really the application I saw being pushed, at
> least not in the previous youtube video of the german and his invention.
You push things for a volume market, if you want to stay in business.
Makeup artists and photographers have developed some wonderful skills
for turning a beautiful woman into a stunning portrait. However, the
volume business is in making ugly women look half decent in their
wedding photos.
If you can't look at a demo of little Johnny's efforts at the school
concert being cleaned up, and extrapolate to the potential uses experts
could make of the same technology, I think there's something wrong with you.
Regards,
Steve
Reply by Mark●March 24, 20082008-03-24
On Mar 23, 1:57�pm, "Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org>
wrote:
> I really don't know much about this stuff. �When my wife got a new cell
> phone she wanted to keep the simple, single-noted, ring tone of "Take Me Out
> to the Ball Game" for baseball season. �So, I decided to build one for her
> new phone.
>
> I found a program that would take an original recording .wav file and split
> the music up into individual voices and write the score for each, etc. �I
> thought the ability to write the score was so cool!
>
> This looks pretty much the same thing with the added capability of moving
> those notes - which as an extension seems pretty simple. �Simple because the
> other would play back the selected voice from the score. �Using this I was
> able to get a single-noted version of the tune using a voice that was more
> or less "pure".
>
> It appears that phase is unimportant. �Ever tune a guitar with a pitch fork
> and listen for the beats? �The beats (although not their phase) exist
> independent of when you hit the pitch fork or when you pluck the string and
> what you hear is independent of those times. �That seems a pretty good
> demonstration.
>
> So, yeah, I believe it. �I liked the tool to translate keys, etc. �Otherwise
> I'd be pretty lost if I had to do it all manually. �I'll bet Jerry could
> make interesting comments here!
>
> Fred
Cross posting this interesting discussion to rec.audio.pro
Mark
Reply by Fred Marshall●March 23, 20082008-03-23
I really don't know much about this stuff. When my wife got a new cell
phone she wanted to keep the simple, single-noted, ring tone of "Take Me Out
to the Ball Game" for baseball season. So, I decided to build one for her
new phone.
I found a program that would take an original recording .wav file and split
the music up into individual voices and write the score for each, etc. I
thought the ability to write the score was so cool!
This looks pretty much the same thing with the added capability of moving
those notes - which as an extension seems pretty simple. Simple because the
other would play back the selected voice from the score. Using this I was
able to get a single-noted version of the tune using a voice that was more
or less "pure".
It appears that phase is unimportant. Ever tune a guitar with a pitch fork
and listen for the beats? The beats (although not their phase) exist
independent of when you hit the pitch fork or when you pluck the string and
what you hear is independent of those times. That seems a pretty good
demonstration.
So, yeah, I believe it. I liked the tool to translate keys, etc. Otherwise
I'd be pretty lost if I had to do it all manually. I'll bet Jerry could
make interesting comments here!
Fred
Reply by ●March 22, 20082008-03-22
On Mar 23, 2:15 am, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> writes:
> > [...]
> > Maybe you are the one musician who plays defect free, with the maximum
> > of emotion, for hours and hours. For the rest, [...]
>
> Smart-assedness noted.
>
> No, Steve, I didn't mean to imply that it wouldn't be useful
> there. However, that's not really the application I saw being pushed, at
> least not in the previous youtube video of the german and his invention.
> --
> % Randy Yates % "She tells me that she likes me very much,
> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % but when I try to touch, she makes it
> %%% 919-577-9882 % all too clear."
> %%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
I see it as an extension of Midi sequencing - only with REAL
instruments!! Great...
Reply by Eric Jacobsen●March 22, 20082008-03-22
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:07:00 -0700 (PDT), emeb <ebrombaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Mar 21, 7:20 pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
>wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 4:19 pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> > First, I'm in no way shape or form connected with these folks, I'm a
>> > curious bystander and perhaps potential user:
>>
>> >http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=dna
>>
>> > The claim is that they can pull notes out of a chord in recorded music
>> > and alter the notes individually, e.g., change chord from a major to
>> > a minor, change the key, etc.
>>
>> well, changing the key by shifting *all* of the notes the same amount,
>> that can be done and has been done, even to a broadband mix of
>> instrument notes. but yanking a note out of a chord, operating on
>> that, and putting it back it is very new. even separating a duet (Rob
>> Maher long ago did a paper on that) is, or at least used to be,
>> difficult and hazardous.
>>
>> > I'm a bit skeptical as to how well it might work in general, and I'm
>> > also not quite clear on how this is really applied. It appears to be
>> > a plug-in to sequencer software, which, I think, implies that it
>> > samples and then resynthesizes?
>>
>> > In any case, if it does what is claimed it's quite impressive.
>>
>> i am too. and from what i've seen in Electronic Musician, it *does*
>> do pretty much what is claimed. it's in different forms, and it's not
>> so much sequencer software, but general audio editing software (like
>> Pro Tools) that it works with. (also Cubase and whoever else runs
>> VST, and also AU for the Mac.)
>>
>> looks like they be doing to the pitch-shifting and time-scaling market
>> sorta what Google did to the landscape of search engines. a company i
>> used to work for as well as former competitors (like Serato) might be
>> a little concerned about these German guys.
>>
>> r b-j
>
>There was a good video demo of this by Neubaker at Frankfurt
>MusikMesse showing it operating in real time. One of the caveats that
>he pointed out was that it works best on musical phrases that are
>played on one instrument - mixing various instruments and/or vocals
>apparently works but not optimally. That suggests their algorithm may
>be looking for similar harmonic structures and that dissimilar
>structures may confuse it.
>
>Eric
That was my thought, that at some point it's got to be pretty tough to
discern the harmonics from different instruments, and moving them
around if they're not all selected perfectly will start to degrade the
performance.
I can certainly see where this would be useful for recorded tracks
that were being mixed, as each track, with one instrument, could be
manipulated prior to mix without worrying about inter-instrument
interference (III, ;) ). There's definitely utility in that.
It's still impressive, I gotta say that.
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org