7 Jul
2006
7 Jul
'06
3:57 p.m.
Hallo,
Cesare Marilungo hat gesagt: // Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Blimes explicitly criticizes the existing sequencer presets for
"humanizing". He doesn't do so because they don't sound human, but
because their way of just using random variations is "unmusical" -
unless of course one tries to do a certain kind of mathematically
inspired music, which has its place, too, but most of the times may
not be, what users of commercial software sequencers want to achieve.
(Actually many of these sequencers also provide ways to use uneven
quantizations derived from recordings of real humans.)
As Dave P. wrote, if a real *groove* is wanted, editing a lot of stuff
like timings and velocities by hand and ear is the usual way to work.
Obviously one takes this hard and time consuming road, because just
adding gaussian or other randomization is not achieving satisfying
results for the goal at hand.
I would really recommend to read Blimes' paper and thesis. It is very
interesting stuff and maybe you want to try your hand at a Linux clone
of the software he presents in the paper afterwards? It would be an
interesting project and you could build it on top of your current
program.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
to really humanize is an ongoing debate. One
interesting concept in
this regard is described in the work of Jeff Blimes and in his concept
of the "Tatum". A short introduction is this paper:
http://ssli.ee.washington.edu/people/bilmes/mypapers/icmc93_paper.pdf
Well, I called it 'humanizer' just because it is how this kind of
functionality in sequencers and drum machines has always been called,
...
Anyway, as I said, I've always used this functionality in various
situations (but I can't speak for my own results). It is builtin in
cubase, digital performer and any other commercial software sequencer
I've tried in my life.