28 Jan
2005
28 Jan
'05
10:56 a.m.
Back in the days before I converted my windows partition to ext3, I
used Cubase with a number of VST instruments and effects.
I miss a number of these, but there is usually something equivalent or
something that will one day be equivalent in the Linux world.
One thing I haven't been able to replace so far is the Oberheim
OB-Tune plug-in. This was an amazingly useful plug-in that would take
an audio input and make sure it stayed in tune. It worked on guitars,
vocals, synths, whatever.
There were a number of ways to use it. You could define a set of
notes that were allowed, and audio would be made to be in tune with
the closest note (useful for phrases) or you could specify a single
note. This was all parameterised, so you could write changes to these
throughout a track.
Is there anything like this out there at the moment for Linux?
If there isn't, does anyone have any idea how it works? I might
consider implementing something similar, but I'm not sure where to
begin.
Here's what I'm thinking:
Operate in smallish chunks. Find the most intense frequency (FFT or
such) and decide how far that is from the desired frequency. Scale
accordingly, preferably with as little distortion as possible, so pack
and crossfade sections.
If anyone has any thoughts, please let me know.
I'd expect to make this a plug-in rather than a standalone app, but
I've never touched LADSPA before - is it possible to send events to
change parameters?
This might be more than I can chew, but I intend to bite anyway.
James
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
28 Jan
28 Jan
11:53 a.m.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 02:57:31PM +0000, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
One thing I haven't been able to replace so far is
the Oberheim
OB-Tune plug-in. This was an amazingly useful plug-in that would take
an audio input and make sure it stayed in tune. It worked on guitars,
vocals, synths, whatever.
...
Is there anything like this out there at the moment for Linux?
Not that I know.
Operate in smallish chunks. Find the most intense
frequency (FFT or
such) and decide how far that is from the desired frequency. Scale
accordingly, preferably with as little distortion as possible, so pack
and crossfade sections.
You'll need two algorithms:
1. Pitch estimation
2. Granular resampling.
In fact the pitch estimation could be a simplified version of the real
thing. One common problem with pitch estimators is that they sometimes
lock to an harmonic or subharmonic of the real pitch. Suppose you allow
all notes on an equally tempered scale, then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 6th
harmonic will do as well as the fundamental when compared to the nearest
available note (the fifth would have an error of 0.8%, but it is rather
unlikely a pitch detector would ever pick it out).
A windowed FFT with interpolation will work except for low notes where
you would need a rather long transform, or use the phase information
from the succesive transforms in order to find the correct frequency.
Once you have the relative error, a small pitch shift can be made by
resampling small (25ms) overlapping chunks of the input. A raised cosine
window with 50 percent overlap will work fine in most cases. To avoid
some artefacts, add a little random variation to the window positions.
There is no general 'data' interface to LADSPA, so the easiest way
would be to allow all notes on the regular scale, with a control
parameter for tuning.
--
FA
12:28 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2005, at 6:57 AM, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
One thing I haven't been able to replace so far is
the Oberheim
OB-Tune plug-in. ..
There were a number of ways to use it. You could define a set of
notes that were allowed, and audio would be made to be in tune with
the closest note (useful for phrases) or you could specify a single
note. This was all parameterised, so you could write changes to these
throughout a track.
On Jan 28, 2005, at 7:52 AM, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
There is no general 'data' interface to LADSPA
...
...but DSSI provides the needed data interface: define groups of
parameter settings (temperament, note sets, etc.) using its configure()
method, then select these setting groups throughout the track using
program changes.
-Sean
6:34 p.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 09:52, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 02:57:31PM +0000,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
If you're actually going to do this (argh) take a look at Tom's TAP
Fractal Doubler and use midpoint displacement fractal approximation to
add the randomness.
Jan
One thing I haven't been able to replace so
far is the Oberheim
OB-Tune plug-in. This was an amazingly useful plug-in that would take
an audio input and make sure it stayed in tune. It worked on guitars,
vocals, synths, whatever.
...
Is there anything like this out there at the moment for Linux?
Not that I know.
Operate in smallish chunks. Find the most
intense frequency (FFT or
such) and decide how far that is from the desired frequency. Scale
accordingly, preferably with as little distortion as possible, so pack
and crossfade sections.
You'll need two algorithms:
1. Pitch estimation
2. Granular resampling.
In fact the pitch estimation could be a simplified version of the real
thing. One common problem with pitch estimators is that they sometimes
lock to an harmonic or subharmonic of the real pitch. Suppose you allow
all notes on an equally tempered scale, then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 6th
harmonic will do as well as the fundamental when compared to the nearest
available note (the fifth would have an error of 0.8%, but it is rather
unlikely a pitch detector would ever pick it out).
A windowed FFT with interpolation will work except for low notes where
you would need a rather long transform, or use the phase information
from the succesive transforms in order to find the correct frequency.
Once you have the relative error, a small pitch shift can be made by
resampling small (25ms) overlapping chunks of the input. A raised cosine
window with 50 percent overlap will work fine in most cases. To avoid
some artefacts, add a little random variation to the window positions.
7:10 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:11:12PM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
If you're actually going to do this (argh)
I'm not. It's an interesting problem, but I'd agree that if you can't
sing in tune, then just don't.
take a look at Tom's TAP
Fractal Doubler and use midpoint displacement fractal approximation to
add the randomness.
Is there any way I could try to understand what good it does without
having to decompose Tom's plugin ?
--
FA
29 Jan
29 Jan
5:39 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 17:14, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:11:12PM -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
Just got back from a gig and it's 0330 so this might ramble a bit -
almost everything in nature is fractal. There are a couple of good
books on chaos theory that cover this. Fractals can be generated using
FFTs but they're very compute intensive. You can google for midpoint
displacement and find some good info on it. Almost all of the digital
terrains that you see in games are generated using midpoint
displacement. It gives you a very natural looking surface and just uses
a pseudo random number generator to approximate a fractal surface (or
line in this case). It's actually a pretty simple algorithm. I was
lucky enough to take the fractal seminars at the 1986 Siggraph.
Unfortunately stupid me lost the books. Doh!
Jan
If you're actually going to do this
(argh)
I'm not. It's an interesting problem, but I'd agree that if you can't
sing in tune, then just don't.
take a look at Tom's TAP
Fractal Doubler and use midpoint displacement fractal approximation to
add the randomness.
Is there any way I could try to understand what good it does without
having to decompose Tom's plugin ? 
6 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Tuning
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:16:05 -0600, Jan Depner
<eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
Here's a short and simple implementation of generating a fractal line
with the midpoint displacement method. (Taken from tap_doubler.c, from
tap-plugins-0.7.0)
/* generate fractal pattern using Midpoint Displacement Method
* v: buffer of floats to output fractal pattern to
* N: length of v, MUST be integer power of 2 (ie 128, 256, ...)
* H: Hurst constant, between 0 and 0.9999 (fractal dimension)
*/
void
fractal(LADSPA_Data * v, int N, float H) {
int l = N;
int k;
float r = 1.0f;
int c;
v[0] = 0;
while (l > 1) {
k = N / l;
for (c = 0; c < k; c++) {
v[c*l + l/2] = (v[c*l] + v[((c+1) * l) % N]) / 2.0f +
2.0f * r * (rand() - (float)RAND_MAX/2.0f) /
(float)RAND_MAX;
v[c*l + l/2] = LIMIT(v[c*l + l/2], -1.0f, 1.0f);
}
l /= 2;
r /= powf(2, H);
}
}
Tom
Is there any
way I could try to understand what good it does without
having to decompose Tom's plugin ?
Just got back from a gig and it's 0330 so this might ramble a bit -
almost everything in nature is fractal. There are a couple of good
books on chaos theory that cover this. Fractals can be generated using
FFTs but they're very compute intensive. You can google for midpoint
displacement and find some good info on it. Almost all of the digital
terrains that you see in games are generated using midpoint
displacement. It gives you a very natural looking surface and just uses
a pseudo random number generator to approximate a fractal surface (or
line in this case). It's actually a pretty simple algorithm. I was
lucky enough to take the fractal seminars at the 1986 Siggraph.
Unfortunately stupid me lost the books. Doh!
8:39 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Tuning
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:03:52AM +0100, Tom Szilagyi wrote:
void
fractal(LADSPA_Data * v, int N, float H) {
...
}
That's a classic one. For large N, the output will approach
some form of filtered Gaussian noise. What makes this fractal
noise superior as a source of randomness in a resample algo ?
--
FA
12:06 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Tuning
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 06:44, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:03:52AM +0100, Tom Szilagyi
wrote:
Because it more closely resembles nature. Take a look at this page:
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/islands/
Jan
void
fractal(LADSPA_Data * v, int N, float H) {
...
}
That's a classic one. For large N, the output will approach
some form of filtered Gaussian noise. What makes this fractal
noise superior as a source of randomness in a resample algo ?
12:44 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Tuning
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:43:37AM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Nice pictures. But:
- Not everything in nature is fractal. Some things (even
very complex ones) are very clearly not.
- We are not trying to mimic nature, just to avoid a
nasty comb filtering effect.
- If I gave you two series of samples, one generated with
the fractal method, and one generated by sending white
Gaussian noise through a suitable filter, you would have
no way to tell which is which. And that means there is
nothing special about the fractal noise, apart from the
fact that is was generated by an interesting algo :-)
--
FA
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 06:44, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
That's a
classic one. For large N, the output will approach
some form of filtered Gaussian noise. What makes this fractal
noise superior as a source of randomness in a resample algo ?
Because it more closely resembles nature. Take a look at this page:
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/islands/
2:24 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Tuning
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 10:48, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:43:37AM -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
Nice pictures. But:
- Not everything in nature is fractal. Some things (even
very complex ones) are very clearly not.
All dogs have a tail, that animal has a tail, therefore it is a dog
;-) I didn't say everything in nature is fractal. I said fractal noise
sounds more natural.
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 06:44, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
That's a classic one. For large N, the output will approach
some form of filtered Gaussian noise. What makes this fractal
noise superior as a source of randomness in a resample algo ?
Because it more closely resembles nature. Take a look at this page:
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/islands/ - We are not trying to mimic nature, just to avoid a
nasty comb filtering effect.
I thought you were trying to make random changes in pitch sound more
natural when using a pitch tuning algorithm.
- If I gave you two series of samples, one generated
with
the fractal method, and one generated by sending white
Gaussian noise through a suitable filter, you would have
no way to tell which is which. And that means there is
nothing special about the fractal noise, apart from the
fact that is was generated by an interesting algo :-)
I disagree. White noise and pink noise are very different.
Jan
8:51 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Tuning
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 01:01:31PM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Of course they are. Please re-read. You are given 'fractal' noise
and _filtered_ 'normal' noise having the same spectrum. Can you
tell them apart ?
Referring to the web site you mentioned earlier: Brownian
motion corresponds to 'brown' (1 / f^2) noise - a strange
coincidence that the two names match. Another example from
physics is the Poynting vector of an EM wave, which indeed
is pointing in the direction the wave is going :-)
--
FA
... I said fractal noise sounds more natural.
In some cases, yes, because it happens to have the right
spectrum, not because it is fractal.
- If I gave
you two series of samples, one generated with
the fractal method, and one generated by sending white
Gaussian noise through a suitable filter, you would have
no way to tell which is which. And that means there is
nothing special about the fractal noise, apart from the
fact that is was generated by an interesting algo :-)
I disagree. White noise and pink noise are very different.
10:36 a.m.
On Sat, 29 Jan, 2005 at 12:14AM +0100, Fons Adriaensen spake thus:
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:11:12PM -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
It's not just for vocals. I found lots of uses for it.
If you're actually going to do this
(argh)
I'm not. It's an interesting problem, but I'd agree that if you can't
sing in tune, then just don't. take a look at
Tom's TAP
Fractal Doubler and use midpoint displacement fractal approximation to
add the randomness.
Is there any way I could try to understand what good it does without
having to decompose Tom's plugin ?
28 Jan
28 Jan
6:32 p.m.
Next up... a plugin that plays your instrument for you. Why deal
with the tedious hassle of having to tune your instrument or actually
learn how to play it? Can't sing... not a problem! I can see Micro$oft
coming out with something like that ;-)
Sorry, but this goes against the grain for me. If I'm going to suck
live I'd damn well better suck digitally so I'll know better than to
play live ;-)
Jan
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 08:57, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Back in the days before I converted my windows
partition to ext3, I
used Cubase with a number of VST instruments and effects.
I miss a number of these, but there is usually something equivalent or
something that will one day be equivalent in the Linux world.
One thing I haven't been able to replace so far is the Oberheim
OB-Tune plug-in. This was an amazingly useful plug-in that would take
an audio input and make sure it stayed in tune. It worked on guitars,
vocals, synths, whatever.
There were a number of ways to use it. You could define a set of
notes that were allowed, and audio would be made to be in tune with
the closest note (useful for phrases) or you could specify a single
note. This was all parameterised, so you could write changes to these
throughout a track.
Is there anything like this out there at the moment for Linux?
If there isn't, does anyone have any idea how it works? I might
consider implementing something similar, but I'm not sure where to
begin.
Here's what I'm thinking:
Operate in smallish chunks. Find the most intense frequency (FFT or
such) and decide how far that is from the desired frequency. Scale
accordingly, preferably with as little distortion as possible, so pack
and crossfade sections.
If anyone has any thoughts, please let me know.
I'd expect to make this a plug-in rather than a standalone app, but
I've never touched LADSPA before - is it possible to send events to
change parameters?
This might be more than I can chew, but I intend to bite anyway.
James
8:15 p.m.
On fre, 2005-01-28 at 17:09 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Next up... a plugin that plays your instrument for
you. Why deal
with the tedious hassle of having to tune your instrument or actually
learn how to play it? Can't sing... not a problem! I can see Micro$oft
coming out with something like that ;-)
I can see Apple coming out with something like this already yesterday.
From the Garageband_II blurb:
- Enhanced tuning fixes your lead singer’s flats.
-----------------------------------------------
Sorry, but this goes against the grain for me ...
Acknowledged! :)
mvh // Jens M andreasen
10:59 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:09:09PM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Next up... a plugin that plays your instrument for
you. Why deal
with the tedious hassle of having to tune your instrument or actually
learn how to play it? Can't sing... not a problem! I can see Micro$oft
coming out with something like that ;-)
Sorry, but this goes against the grain for me. If I'm going to suck
live I'd damn well better suck digitally so I'll know better than to
play live ;-)
I'm with ya. But isn't this just Autotune all over again?
-PW
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
29 Jan
29 Jan
12:14 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:09:09PM -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
I have a friend that has used a plugin like this (on apple digital
performer) to add an interesting effect to his voice (by making it very
exact and singing a bit out of tune). I've also heard it
used as an effect on middle-eastern violins (that are usually played
portomento) by setting the tolerance very high. Perhaps this is one of the
situations that one would otherwise turn to a synthesizer insead of the
real thing when they want this sound.
I think that any program suporting advanced effects should have something
like this in it's toolbox.
-tewner
Next up... a plugin that plays your instrument
for you. Why deal
with the tedious hassle of having to tune your instrument or actually
learn how to play it?Can't sing... not a problem!I can see Micro$oft
coming out with something like that ;-)
Sorry, but this goes against the grain for me. If I'm going to suck
live I'd damn well better suck digitally so I'll know better than to
play live ;-)
-PW
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
10:40 a.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan, 2005 at 05:09PM -0600, Jan Depner spake thus:
Next up... a plugin that plays your instrument for
you. Why deal
with the tedious hassle of having to tune your instrument or actually
learn how to play it? Can't sing... not a problem! I can see Micro$oft
coming out with something like that ;-)
Sorry, but this goes against the grain for me. If I'm going to suck
live I'd damn well better suck digitally so I'll know better than to
play live ;-)
I think you're suffering more from lack of imagination than musical
ability. How would you "tune" plain speech? i did this with the
OB-Tune and the effect was impressive. Or the sound of a formula one
car, removing the doppler efefct to create a very interesting bass?
I can't sing for toffee, and not because I'm out of tune. My voice
sounds crap even when I hit the right notes. I don't really intend to
use this for singing, but there are plenry of other uses, especially
if you deal with samples.
Jan
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 08:57, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
Back in the days before I converted my windows
partition to ext3, I
used Cubase with a number of VST instruments and effects.
I miss a number of these, but there is usually something equivalent or
something that will one day be equivalent in the Linux world.
One thing I haven't been able to replace so far is the Oberheim
OB-Tune plug-in. This was an amazingly useful plug-in that would take
an audio input and make sure it stayed in tune. It worked on guitars,
vocals, synths, whatever.
There were a number of ways to use it. You could define a set of
notes that were allowed, and audio would be made to be in tune with
the closest note (useful for phrases) or you could specify a single
note. This was all parameterised, so you could write changes to these
throughout a track.
Is there anything like this out there at the moment for Linux?
If there isn't, does anyone have any idea how it works? I might
consider implementing something similar, but I'm not sure where to
begin.
Here's what I'm thinking:
Operate in smallish chunks. Find the most intense frequency (FFT or
such) and decide how far that is from the desired frequency. Scale
accordingly, preferably with as little distortion as possible, so pack
and crossfade sections.
If anyone has any thoughts, please let me know.
I'd expect to make this a plug-in rather than a standalone app, but
I've never touched LADSPA before - is it possible to send events to
change parameters?
This might be more than I can chew, but I intend to bite anyway.
James
11:59 a.m.
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 08:41, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan, 2005 at 05:09PM -0600, Jan Depner
spake thus:
Good point. I don't normally think about using things other than
instruments for music. I can see where that could be very handy. I
guess I'm just old school where music is concerned (probably because I'm
old ;-)
Jan
Next up... a plugin that plays your
instrument for you. Why deal
with the tedious hassle of having to tune your instrument or actually
learn how to play it? Can't sing... not a problem! I can see Micro$oft
coming out with something like that ;-)
Sorry, but this goes against the grain for me. If I'm going to suck
live I'd damn well better suck digitally so I'll know better than to
play live ;-)
I think you're suffering more from lack of imagination than musical
ability. How would you "tune" plain speech? i did this with the
OB-Tune and the effect was impressive. Or the sound of a formula one
car, removing the doppler efefct to create a very interesting bass?
30 Jan
30 Jan
8:52 a.m.
On Sat, 29 Jan, 2005 at 10:36AM -0600, Jan Depner spake thus:
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 08:41, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net
wrote:
Well since I've only recently clocked up a quarter of a century, most
people still seem old to me. Although they're getting younger. And
the bloody kids, making a racket, and this was all fields...
But good for you for playing instruments. I'd love to be more
proficient, but although I understand the music, I have poor motor
control - not like a disease, just an inherited trait. I can play the
guitar and the piano, but only slowly. Too fast and my fingers can't
decide where to go.
That's why I love making music with modern equipment - trackers and
sequencers are the two things that I couldn't live without.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I agree that singers that can't sing and
instrumentalists who can't instrument (verb abuse) should be singing
and instrumentalising.
On Fri, 28 Jan, 2005 at 05:09PM -0600, Jan Depner
spake thus:
Good point. I don't normally think about using things other than
instruments for music. I can see where that could be very handy. I
guess I'm just old school where music is concerned (probably because I'm
old ;-) Next up... a plugin that plays your
instrument for you. Why deal
with the tedious hassle of having to tune your instrument or actually
learn how to play it? Can't sing... not a problem! I can see Micro$oft
coming out with something like that ;-)
Sorry, but this goes against the grain for me. If I'm going to suck
live I'd damn well better suck digitally so I'll know better than to
play live ;-)
I think you're suffering more from lack of imagination than musical
ability. How would you "tune" plain speech? i did this with the
OB-Tune and the effect was impressive. Or the sound of a formula one
car, removing the doppler efefct to create a very interesting bass?
Jan
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
12:02 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 06:53, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan, 2005 at 10:36AM -0600, Jan Depner
spake thus:
Actually, one of the reasons that I really enjoy this list is that I
get my eyes opened occasionally. This is a good thing (TM) ;-)
Don't worry about speed with an instrument - it's way overrated.
Less is definitely more in that department. I didn't start playing
guitar until I was 20 which I thought was very late. After 30 years I
think I'm finally beginning to get the hang of it ;-) I wish I
understood trackers, sequencers, MIDI, soft synths... I was thinking
the other day that the next big musical genius may well not be able to
play any instrument - that the music may just be in his/her head.
Without those kind of tools we would miss out on that. When I was
really young I was a flute playing jazz snob (if it didn't have a
million key changes I wasn't impressed). Now I like the Ramones :-)
For a while I felt the same way about making music without being able to
play an instrument. So, sorry for my immediate, knee jerk reaction to
pitch correctors.
Jan
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 08:41,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Well since I've only recently clocked up a quarter of a century, most
people still seem old to me. Although they're getting younger. And
the bloody kids, making a racket, and this was all fields...
But good for you for playing instruments. I'd love to be more
proficient, but although I understand the music, I have poor motor
control - not like a disease, just an inherited trait. I can play the
guitar and the piano, but only slowly. Too fast and my fingers can't
decide where to go.
That's why I love making music with modern equipment - trackers and
sequencers are the two things that I couldn't live without.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I agree that singers that can't sing and
instrumentalists who can't instrument (verb abuse) should be singing
and instrumentalising.
On Fri, 28 Jan, 2005 at 05:09PM -0600, Jan Depner
spake thus:
Good point. I don't normally think about using things other than
instruments for music. I can see where that could be very handy. I
guess I'm just old school where music is concerned (probably because I'm
old ;-) Next up... a plugin that plays your
instrument for you. Why deal
with the tedious hassle of having to tune your instrument or actually
learn how to play it? Can't sing... not a problem! I can see Micro$oft
coming out with something like that ;-)
Sorry, but this goes against the grain for me. If I'm going to suck
live I'd damn well better suck digitally so I'll know better than to
play live ;-)
I think you're suffering more from lack of imagination than musical
ability. How would you "tune" plain speech? i did this with the
OB-Tune and the effect was impressive. Or the sound of a formula one
car, removing the doppler efefct to create a very interesting bass?
1:45 p.m.
On Sun, 30 Jan, 2005 at 10:39AM -0600, Jan Depner spake thus:
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 06:53, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net
wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan, 2005 at 10:36AM -0600, Jan Depner spake thus:
> > On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 08:41, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Jan, 2005 at 05:09PM -0600, Jan Depner spake thus:
<SNIP!>
Actually, one of the reasons that I really enjoy this list is that I
get my eyes opened occasionally. This is a good thing (TM) ;-)
Don't worry about speed with an instrument - it's way overrated.
Less is definitely more in that department. I didn't start playing
guitar until I was 20 which I thought was very late. After 30 years I
think I'm finally beginning to get the hang of it ;-) I wish I
understood trackers, sequencers, MIDI, soft synths... I was thinking
the other day that the next big musical genius may well not be able to
play any instrument - that the music may just be in his/her head.
Without those kind of tools we would miss out on that. When I was
really young I was a flute playing jazz snob (if it didn't have a
million key changes I wasn't impressed).
Maybe you should try cheesetracker. I find trackers to be a very
intuitive interface, but maybe that's because I come from a computer
science background.
Now I like the Ramones :-)
Hehe. It's funny. My favourites are people like Bread, Simon and
Garfunkel, Sam Cook and for more recent music, Snow Patrol, Portishead
and The Flaming Lips.
The music I make, however, is more like BT, Squarepusher, Aphex Twin,
Boards of Canada or Wagon Christ.
I don't think that there's a difference in the quality of the two
groups, but the latter doesn't require me to actually play an
instrument. At least not in real time - I do tend to record midi
events at half tempo, because I just can't play what I want at the
speed that I want.
For a while I felt the same way about making music
without being able to
play an instrument. So, sorry for my immediate, knee jerk reaction to
pitch correctors.
Jan
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
3:37 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 11:46, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Maybe you should try cheesetracker. I find trackers
to be a very
intuitive interface, but maybe that's because I come from a computer
science background.
Me too. It's just that I am not familiar with what those things
do. I'll have to take a look.
Jan
4:20 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 14:05, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 10:39 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Yes, I've heard it. I used to be a big Al Dimeola fan too but I got
over it. It's impressive to listen to but it's also tiring. I'm more
partial to Gabor Szabo than Dimeola, McLaughlin, Malmsteen, Satriani,
Vai and the rest. One of my favorite guitar solos is Neil Young's
one-note solo on Cinnamon Girl. Interesting side-note - about 15 years
ago Guitar Player magazine asked 25 of the world's best (or more
probably, most famous) guitarists what their favorite guitar solo was.
Malmsteen, being the egotistical jerk that he is, picked one of his own
(he was the only one out of the 25 to do this). IIRC there were 23
different choices. The only solo picked by more than one of the
guitarists (three actually) was the aforementioned Neil Young solo.
Jan
Don't worry about speed with an
instrument - it's way overrated.
Less is definitely more in that department.
Anyone who tells you this has obviously never heard Yngwie Malmsteen's
"Rising Force".
4:35 p.m.
New subject: [OT] players and... Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tuning
Jan Depner wrote:
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 14:05, Lee Revell wrote:
Apparently Al did too. Some time ago he gave an interview in which he
stated rather flatly that he didn't think much of his earlier recorded
stuff really stood up to his personal test of time. He felt the speed
was 'way overdone, that too much of of the flash was just more style
than substance.
Jan Hammer made similar remarks regarding his tenure with John McLaughlin.
OTOH, players like Malmsteen and a host of other flyers did raise the
bar for the expected capabilities of a fully professional rock guitarist.
Speed does where speed is required. Musical sense should always prevail
(except where it shouldn't). :)
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 10:39 -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
Yes, I've heard it. I used to be a big Al Dimeola fan too but I got
over it.
Don't worry about speed with an instrument
- it's way overrated.
Less is definitely more in that department.
Anyone who tells you this has obviously never heard Yngwie Malmsteen's
"Rising Force".
It's impressive to listen to but it's also
tiring. I'm more
partial to Gabor Szabo than Dimeola, McLaughlin, Malmsteen, Satriani,
Vai and the rest. One of my favorite guitar solos is Neil Young's
one-note solo on Cinnamon Girl.
If you haven't already seen it, check out Jim Jarmusch's "Dead
Man".
Johnny Depp plays the main character, the cast is filled with cameos,
and the soundtrack is an entirely instrumental track played by Neil
Young. Normally I can't stand his playing, but I love it for this movie.
Best,
dp
5:18 p.m.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 03:05:53PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 10:39 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Didn't care for it. I'll take Neil Young instead, thanks.
To me this seems like an "obvious" choice, once again making the
point: to each his/her own!
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Don't worry about speed with an
instrument - it's way overrated.
Less is definitely more in that department.
Anyone who tells you this has obviously never heard Yngwie Malmsteen's
"Rising Force".
7034
days inactive
7036
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
26 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Alfons Adriaensen -
Dave Phillips -
Fons Adriaensen -
james＠dis-dot-dat.net -
Jan Depner -
Jens M Andreasen -
Lee Revell -
michael tewner -
Paul Winkler -
Sean Bolton -
Tom Szilagyi