[LAU] Bpm detection/quantize
zenadsl6252 at zen.co.uk
Tue Feb 17 20:25:55 EST 2009
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:09:08 +0100
Fons Adriaensen <fons at kokkinizita.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 08:56:09PM +0000, pete shorthose wrote:
> > Fons Adriaensen <fons at kokkinizita.net> wrote:
> > (about Wagner's Rheingold ouverture)
> > > It would a be difficult one for any beat detector I'd say,
> > > and any beats would totally destroy it. There's enough life
> > > in it with just the three Rheintöchter.
> > This is really an argument about semantics. Surely it's easier to
> > more clearly define what you mean by good 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.
> > 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.
> What discussions of what constitutes good music
> are you referring to ?
> I commented on the example given in the original
> post. Everybody can put beats on the Rheingold
> ouverture, it's as easy as spraying some bright
> yellow paint on a copy of a Rubens picture, and
> the result is similar.
> Apart from the idea 'this is possible' either
> act takes nothing that could be called creative,
> you don't need to be a musician or a painter to
> do it. Anyone doing this and pretending to be
> an artist is just fooling his audience. Apart
> from the 'act' which may result in five minutes
> of fame - look what I've done ! - it would be
> completely irrelevant, except in a completely
> different context that would have nothing to
> do with either music or painting.
And if you could lay claim to the canonical definition
of words like art, music, painting and creative then all of that
would mean more than it does.
More information about the Linux-audio-user