[LAU] Bpm detection/quantize
zettberlin at linuxuse.de
Sun Feb 15 17:39:36 EST 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
pete shorthose schrieb:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:07:18 +0100
> Fons Adriaensen <fons at kokkinizita.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 06:43:54PM +0100, Hartmut Noack wrote:
>>>> The second is why one would reduce the natural
>>>> rythm of any piece of music to a regular beat.
>>> 1.: every music has a rhythmic structure, though many great pieces do
>>> not work with a straight 4/4 beat. So, if a detection tool is able to
>>> analyze the rhythmic essence of say: Wagners overture for the Rheingold,
>>> it could help to produce a very interesting musical comment to this
>>> piece of music without destroying its initial qualities.
>> Heiaha weia! Woglinde, Wellgunde and Flosshilde will deal
>> with such a person, who will disappear into the Rhine,
>> never to be seen again !
If its only the Rheintöchter, I think I could deal with them - but to
lay hands on the ride of the valkries uhhhaaaaaa.....
>> It would be a difficult one for any beat detector I'd say,
absolutely - but as Karl Valentin has stated: "Art is beautyfull, but it
takes a lot of work."
>> and any beats would totally destroy it.
Depends on what is meant by "beats" Standard-Reggeabeats or 4/4
Dancebeats with some phony standard-breaks would absolutely litter and
shamefully degrade it but some really wild and weired drum'nbass
avantgarde or some really crazy minimalistic EinstürzendeNeubauten
Percussion could fit. I doubt though, if it could be done using a
original orchestra-recording. Best would be a competent orchestra
playing the Wagner-score together with the electric part.
Ahhh - and maybe the classical 80ies Celtic Frost could add some
metal-guits .... Or Neurosis... hmmm...
> This is really an argument about semantics. Surely it's easier to
> more clearly define what you mean by good music...
But we all agree that there are such things as good music and bad music
> ...than it is to
> fight over who best embodies the meaning of the original word which
> is by now utterly bastardised. There are many different factors that
> contribute to a person deciding that a given piece of music is good.
Of course there is a lot of subjectivity in this. I dislike a lot of
music personally and still accept, that this music is good. But there is
really bad music also and even though, many people may "like" bad music
the world would be a better place without such music.
But of course nobody shall dictate, what music is allowed to exist and
which is not because of badness. But the same as I believe, everybody
must be allowed to make and hear bad music I demand the right to call
music bad, if I have reasons to do so....
> If you want to exclude any of them then you should define those
> exclusions from the outset, if only to avoid the controversy that
> will arise as a result of that omission.
Yeah - standards, what standards shall we have for music? You are right:
It is easier to define, what is good: the complexity and deepness of
Bach, Wagner or Thelonius Monk is obvious. The craft and intelligence of
Tom Waits or PJ Harvey is plain to see also.
But how can we define badness? Primitivity? No: listen to the first
album of the Stooges or to the Ramones or to Suicide - complexity is not
Stupidity? Yes: stupid stuff is bad stuff, but what is stupid?
I guess, I could prove the stupidity of the average
gregorian-chant-dance-beat-CD but it is late now, I need to sleep and
nobody would read an elaboration on this that would take 4-5 h to write
and 20min to read....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Linux-audio-user