[LAU] Bpm detection/quantize

[drew Roberts]

On Wednesday 11 February 2009 17:25:26 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > The poor guy asked a simple question and you've chosen to put him or
> > his ideas down or to put him on the spot about what he's doing, why
> > he's doing it and the value he thinks he'll get from it. Why does this
> > have to be a problem? Let him make his music. If you don't like it be
> > polite and either make a constructive comment or remain quiet about
> > it.
>
> Mark, this isn't about the 'poor guy' who originally
> started this thread. I wrote: "... without wanting
> to comment on the OP's musical abilities...", and in
> a previous post: "... don't take this personally...".
>
> I wrote that 'incompetence' is one (just one)
> possible reason why people are wanting to use
> technology to simplify music or the production
> of it. And I don't think that statement is wrong.

I am one such incompetent but that will not stop my from making my art as best 
I can. And anything that can help me achieve my vision is welcome by me 
within certain bounds that I set.
>
> It certainly isn't in the case of the sexy female
> who can't sing but sells records only because
> of her other qualities, and who can't finish
> a song without automatic pitch correction.
> IMHO, nothing of value is lost if such people
> just would not sing at all. That is of course
> an extreme example.

I am once who can't seem to hit the notes I want. I want real time pitch 
correction for myself, not to pass my singing off as that of an accomplished 
singer, but rather to help me in composing my music.
>
> And yes, that same technology is occasionally
> useful to save the work of a competent singer,
> but that's not why it exists.
>
> There are some kinds of music for which a
> strictly constant beat is an essential feature.
> I do not reject such music because of that, on
> the contrary there is a lot of it that I do
> appreciate very much. And there isn't anything
> wrong with such music because of that regular
> beat. Again on the contrary, almost all art is
> in a way the result of some restrictions that
> the artist imposes on his tools and his style.
> The result is that other dimensions will emerge,
> as is indeed the case with some of the music I
> refer to.
>
> But it doesn't follow that anyone who can run
> Hydrogen becomes a instant musician.

Indeed, I may wish it so, but it isn't and perhaps that is for the best.

> Yet some 
> people seem to believe this, often motivated
> by some ideology of 'democratic' art.

If they are happy with the results they achieve fine. If they want to force 
others to tell them how good their work is, that is a different matter.
>
> The real value of such tools is the fact they
> are available, not any automatic guarantee of
> quality or relevance of what is produced using
> them.
>
> Kind regards,

all the best,

drew