9 Feb
2009
9 Feb
'09
6:32 p.m.
Hi,
I have an old jazz recording that I would like to add some beats with
hydrogen.
But the song doesn't follow any BPM, since it wan not recorded with click.
So, what I would Like to do is adjust the tempo of the song to match the BPM
I want.
There is any program that could do that for me?
I think maybe something using
rubberband<http://www.breakfastquay.com/rubberband/>d/>,
but i never used it.
thanks friends
surian
9 Feb
9 Feb
7:07 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:32:47PM -0200, surian wrote:
I have an old jazz recording that I would like to
add some beats with hydrogen.
I always wonder *why* some people, assuming they
are musicians, want to do such a thing. If it made
any sense the original players would have added
'some beats'.
But the song doesn't follow any BPM, since it
wan not recorded with click.
Of course not. There is no reason why it should
have been played with a click. What you see as
a defect is probably an essential quality, and
one you are going to destroy.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
8:53 p.m.
hey, why such anger Fons?
I really don't see it as a defect (it's just a fact).
The music is beautiful and makes me want to use it.
If you don't like that people remix <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix> the
others work
what you think of linux?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, thanks for the answer Dave
I found the *ardour time stretch toll* very useful
not exact what I was searching, but it does the trick.
10:06 p.m.
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 22:53 -0200, surian wrote:
hey, why such anger Fons?
I really don't see it as a defect (it's just a fact).
The music is beautiful and makes me want to use it.
Well, what makes it beautiful?
Most probably one of the dimensions of its beauty is the fact that it
does not have an exact beat... :-) You will squash that dimension to a
point, and probably my ears would be unhappy with the result (something
that was there and was part of the perception of beauty will be gone).
Then again you may add another dimension of beauty to make up for that
loss. Or not.
-- Fernando
If you don't like that people remix the others
work
what you think of linux?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, thanks for the answer Dave
I found the ardour time stretch toll very useful
not exact what I was searching, but it does the trick.
10:33 p.m.
I don't think there's a need to be anal about this one. People have been
doing this all the time in the professional industry. There are things like
Beat Detective and I say that it's a helpful tool, if anything. I've worked
with skilled drummers for whom the post-production stage of fixing up bad
parts is a much-needed assurance.
11 Feb
11 Feb
4:58 a.m.
Hallo,
Ray Rashif hat gesagt: // Ray Rashif wrote:
I don't think there's a need to be anal about
this one. People have been
doing this all the time in the professional industry. There are things like
Beat Detective and I say that it's a helpful tool, if anything. I've worked
with skilled drummers for whom the post-production stage of fixing up bad
parts is a much-needed assurance.
Beat and rhythm detection also is a hot topic for many years in the
academic music scene as it's a necessary prerequisite to let a
computer play along with human performers, ideally in real time.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht Do You RjDj.me? _ ______footils.org__
5:18 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:01:59AM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Beat and rhythm detection also is a hot topic for many
years in the
academic music scene as it's a necessary prerequisite to let a
computer play along with human performers, ideally in real time.
Right, and that's the opposite of matilating human-
produced music in order to let a computer play along
or add beats.
Any compentent percussionist or drummer can be expected
to be able to play along with a piece that has no
constant BPM, and if necessary 'add some beats;.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
3:30 p.m.
Hallo,
Fons Adriaensen hat gesagt: // Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:01:59AM +0100, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
Well, that's an aesthetic question of course.
Ciao
--
Frank
Beat and rhythm detection also is a hot topic for
many years in the
academic music scene as it's a necessary prerequisite to let a
computer play along with human performers, ideally in real time.
Right, and that's the opposite of matilating human-
produced music in order to let a computer play along
or add beats.
4:59 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:30:32PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Well, that's an aesthetic question of course.
Yes, It's often said that 'taste' can't be
discussed, but aeshtetics can.
There are several things mixed up in this issue.
The first is the value of adding beats to music
that wasn't meant to have them. It has been done
to anything from Gregorian chant to romantic
opera, and I've *never* heard any example of
it that did improve on the original, rather
the contrary.
The second is why one would reduce the natural
rythm of any piece of music to a regular beat.
One reason can be that this is an aesthetic
feature in itself. There are some musical
genres that are firmly based on this idea.
Another reason - without wanting to comment
on the OP's musical abilities which I don't
know - is just incompetence - the inability
to handle a piece of music unless it has a
simple regular rythmic structure. A drummer
or percussionist worth the name can add beats
to whatever is thrown at him, regular or not.
Someone who can't do that should probably
not be adding beats to anything but find a
better way to enjoy life.
What would you think if someone were asking
'is there any program that can simplify the
harmony of a song so I can play a three-note
bass line to it' ??
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
5:23 p.m.
Read to the end please...
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:30:32PM +0100, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
According to you. It's your opinion. It's nothing more.
Well, that's an aesthetic question of course.
Yes, It's often said that 'taste' can't be
discussed, but aeshtetics can.
There are several things mixed up in this issue.
The first is the value of adding beats to music
that wasn't meant to have them. It has been done
to anything from Gregorian chant to romantic
opera, and I've *never* heard any example of
it that did improve on the original, rather
the contrary.
The second is why one would reduce the natural
rythm of any piece of music to a regular beat.
It's his reason that matters. It's his time. It's his interest. It's
not yours. Who are you to say it's not worth his time? Who are you to
say his interest has no value and shouldn't be pursued?
One reason can be that this is an aesthetic
feature in itself. There are some musical
genres that are firmly based on this idea.
Another reason - without wanting to comment
on the OP's musical abilities which I don't
know - is just incompetence - the inability
to handle a piece of music unless it has a
simple regular rythmic structure. A drummer
or percussionist worth the name can add beats
to whatever is thrown at him, regular or not.
Someone who can't do that should probably
not be adding beats to anything but find a
better way to enjoy life.
What would you think if someone were asking
'is there any program that can simplify the
harmony of a song so I can play a three-note
bass line to it' ??
Fons - you've added a lot of value to this list and to the world of
Open Source software over the years but I'm truly shocked at such
small minded thinking out of you. This is so completely inconsistent
with my picture of you that I'm sitting here with my jaw hanging open.
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.
While you have your opinions, and you are entitled to them, I think
you should check out work from maybe Dropin' Science and the Blue Note
resamples. It might not change your mind but it may open it up a
little bit.
With best regards,
Mark
6:24 p.m.
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.
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.
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. Yet some
people seem to believe this, often motivated
by some ideology of 'democratic' art.
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,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
7:25 p.m.
On Wednesday 11 February 2009 17:25:26 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Mark Knecht
wrote:
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.
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.
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
5:47 p.m.
The second is why one would reduce the natural
rythm of any piece of music to a regular beat.
The whole genre of Hip Hop has used this to adapt music into a new form
A drummer
or percussionist worth the name can add beats
to whatever is thrown at him, regular or not.
Not everyone works with live drummers. And a tool to either even the tempo
or create a tempo map of a piece would help re samplers extend on other
musical ideas.
What would you think if someone were asking
'is there any program that can simplify the
harmony of a song so I can play a three-note
bass line to it' ??
If the piece is under a free license or public domain. I would say "great!"
Now, I am an accomplished drummer and don't create music that would require
this. However, I have no qualms with anyone creating art in whatever way
they see fit. So, instead of criticism a simple I don't know of a tool that
does that or silence would do.
6:21 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Fons Adriaensen schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:30:32PM +0100, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
The second is why one would reduce the natural
rythm of any piece of music to a regular beat.
Good question and most of those, who do the above-mentioned
beat-adding to gregorian chants etc do not ask
that question. Or they come up with answers
like: because the cd-buyers may like it...
But there *can* be better answers to this question I could think of.
Such as: to destroy and distort a music in order to create a very new
one. I never heard a successfull experiment like this performed with
gregorian chants though...
One reason can be that this is an aesthetic
feature in itself. There are some musical
genres that are firmly based on this idea.
Another reason - without wanting to comment
on the OP's musical abilities which I don't
know - is just incompetence - the inability
to handle a piece of music unless it has a
simple regular rythmic structure.
I too will not question the abilities of all those, who ask for such
assitance but I dare to estimate, that 9 out of 10 users of
beat-detection-automatisms do not use such tools to widen their own
atistic horizons but to narrow the horizon of the music they'd like to
use as an accompainment for their playing.
What would you think if someone were asking
'is there any program that can simplify the
harmony of a song so I can play a three-note
bass line to it' ??
I can play a 3-note bassline to *any* piece of music - and I do not need
any assistance by any software to do so ;-)
Seriously: to have some comforts and automagic is cool and can have a
very positive impact on a musical work. A sofware for beat-measurement
can help to analyse a give piece of music to find ways to add something
constructive to it. But all that "Get our 20000-loopsample-DVD/our
200-prograde-preset Guitarampemulation/ our easy-klick-your-hit
sequencer and become a big star in no time and whithout any
learning-trouble!" is emberracing nonsense made for consumes, not for
artists.
Basicly everything, that makes decisions, an artist should make
him/herself is a toy, not an instrument.
best regs HZN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkmTT2EACgkQ1Aecwva1SWMhEQCfXy4H7PUBwd55zNbccKT2zduH
mm4An26hqAnQ0WtwJsexQGyM0ovh25kA
=m9Rh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:19 p.m.
On Wednesday 11 February 2009 17:21:21 Hartmut Noack wrote:
Fons Adriaensen schrieb:
I was wanting to stay out of this for a number of reasons. I just disagree
with this on so many levels. It makes me think of someone saying that someone
should not bother to program unless they do so in machine language or perhaps
if we have to accept it, in assembler.
They are just working with different tools and on different levels. And
perhaps for very different reasons.
In then end, with music, we can each make our call based on what we hear
and "where we are" when we hear.
Such endeavors may be a necessary path for some to take to get elsewhere. For
others, it may be their preferred destination.
Can one not produce an artistic picture using an autofocus camera? Is it not
art unless you have set your aperture, and shutter speed and such manually?
Would you be happy with this altered statement:
Basicly everything, that makes every decision, and leaves none for the artist
to make him/herself is a toy, not an instrument.
I want to say more but am running out of time.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:30:32PM +0100, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
The second is why one would reduce the natural
rythm of any piece of music to a regular beat.
Good question and most of those, who do the above-mentioned
beat-adding to gregorian chants etc do not ask
that question. Or they come up with answers
like: because the cd-buyers may like it...
But there *can* be better answers to this question I could think of.
Such as: to destroy and distort a music in order to create a very new
one. I never heard a successfull experiment like this performed with
gregorian chants though...
One reason can be that this is an aesthetic
feature in itself. There are some musical
genres that are firmly based on this idea.
Another reason - without wanting to comment
on the OP's musical abilities which I don't
know - is just incompetence - the inability
to handle a piece of music unless it has a
simple regular rythmic structure.
I too will not question the abilities of all those, who ask for such
assitance but I dare to estimate, that 9 out of 10 users of
beat-detection-automatisms do not use such tools to widen their own
atistic horizons but to narrow the horizon of the music they'd like to
use as an accompainment for their playing.
What would you think if someone were asking
'is there any program that can simplify the
harmony of a song so I can play a three-note
bass line to it' ??
I can play a 3-note bassline to *any* piece of music - and I do not need
any assistance by any software to do so ;-)
Seriously: to have some comforts and automagic is cool and can have a
very positive impact on a musical work. A sofware for beat-measurement
can help to analyse a give piece of music to find ways to add something
constructive to it. But all that "Get our 20000-loopsample-DVD/our
200-prograde-preset Guitarampemulation/ our easy-klick-your-hit
sequencer and become a big star in no time and whithout any
learning-trouble!" is emberracing nonsense made for consumes, not for
artists.
Basicly everything, that makes decisions, an artist should make
him/herself is a toy, not an instrument.
best regs HZN
all the best,
drew
15 Feb
15 Feb
1:43 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
First: I think, I have to apologize to all those, who felt offended by
my quite speedy first post on this topic, after giving it some more
thinking, I cannot uphold my former condamnation of beat-detectors
anymore. Such tools can be used very well for making real music and they
are not a toy by default.
But very often, such tools are being abused - the same as drumkits or
saxophones or guitars are....
Fons Adriaensen schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:30:32PM +0100, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
The first is the value of adding beats to music
that wasn't meant to have them.
In 9/10 cases this leads to crap, true. But it does not need to yield
tasteless dance-versions of music, that is much better without such
additives.
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.
2.: I can do *anything* I want to my own music. If I made a
demo-recording with a band, that has split up and I want to finish that
piece, I could use a rhythm-analyzer to get an adequate basis to use the
demo in a new context and thus to complete the piece without loosing the
original feel by using simple estimations of BPM-figures to add new
percussive sounds or bass using a sequencer.
Of course: 2.: can be achieved also by actually play new stuff to the
piece. But if somebody has get the impression, that I generally abhor
the usage of a sequencer, this impression is wrong: using sequencers to
make music is the same as using written notes or a guitar.
I abhor to make music or listen to music, that is constructed out of
pre-configured patterns, that you can buy to sound like everybody else
in the single-top-ten.
Another reason - without wanting to comment
on the OP's musical abilities which I don't
know - is just incompetence - the inability
to handle a piece of music unless it has a
simple regular rythmic structure.
I don't know, if "incompetence" is really the exact term. I'd rather
say: "lack of artistic attitude" - if someone is really that numb to be
disappointed, if a good beat-detector does not find a way, to make
classical gamelan-music sound like 4/4 dance-music, then the problem is
not incompetence but lack of feeling for the worth of music.
And a good beat-detector would be one, that finds out, that classical
gamelan is neither 4/4 nor 140BPM but polyrhythmic and delicately
changing speed throughout the composition. And I would be disappointed,
if the detector would offer to add straight beat to a gamelan-piece....
A drummer
or percussionist worth the name can add beats
to whatever is thrown at him, regular or not.
And so should a beat-detector...
best regards
HZN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkmYVFkACgkQ1Aecwva1SWNvWQCeIMROx5fem2RyAqpIN6VRPtsM
bRcAn20fEDf7yNUusqNbe+VV8qHVHmQB
=uK23
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3:06 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 06:43:54PM +0100, Hartmut Noack wrote:
Heiaha weia! Woglinde, Wellgunde and Flosshilde will deal
with such a person, who will disappear into the Rhine,
never to be seen again !
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.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
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. 
4:56 p.m.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:07:18 +0100
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 06:43:54PM +0100, Hartmut
Noack wrote:
Heiaha weia! Woglinde, Wellgunde and Flosshilde will deal
with such a person, who will disappear into the Rhine,
never to be seen again !
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.
pete.
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.
6:08 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 08:56:09PM +0000, pete shorthose wrote:
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
(about Wagner's Rheingold ouverture)
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.
You can always try it if you want. There isn't
any regular 'beat' pattern in the Rheingold
ouverture - it's meant to be suggestive of
flowing water and waves if anything. A human
listener can detect it's written in 6/8, but
only because some of the melodic patterns
suggest this. Any beat detector I know of
would have a difficult time. But go ahead,
put some beats on it manually and enjoy the
result !
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
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. 
6:27 p.m.
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
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.
I am not familiar with either Rheingold
Ouverture or Rubens' art and am
no expert on music, but if he is able to "fool his audience" with this
then I would say that makes him an artist although maybe not to your (or
my) tastes. I have heard "fools his audience" used to describe many more
alternative musicians and their followers, AMM springs to mind.
Cheers,
Ross.
17 Feb
17 Feb
9:25 p.m.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:09:08 +0100
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 08:56:09PM +0000, pete
shorthose wrote:
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.
cheers,
pete.
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net>
wrote:
(about Wagner's Rheingold ouverture)
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. 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.
18 Feb
18 Feb
4:33 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 01:25:55AM +0000, pete shorthose wrote:
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.
Any discussion about the definition of words
is pointless. If your definition of 'art' or
'creativity' differs from mine that is no
problem as long as we are aware of that.
The practical consequence is that if we want
to debate we should either agree on one
definition and use that without any implicit
emotional connotation, or use two words, e.g.
'PS-art' and 'FA-art'.
There are no canonical definitions of these
words, people tend to use a definition that
agrees with their vision on those things.
The real debate is about those visions, not
the meaning of words.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
15 Feb
15 Feb
6:39 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
pete shorthose schrieb:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:07:18 +0100
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)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
do we?
...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
a must-have.
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....
;-)
best regs
HZN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEUEARECAAYFAkmYmacACgkQ1Aecwva1SWPS1QCeNiq+v1tqo+1lwG/zAonm9dZ/
XfIAmICp+ILzcyosTDARxUTfQXl8G1g=
=PSy9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:23 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Hartmut Noack wrote:
... 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.
OK, we'll have it played by the Portsmouth Simfonia !
(and their percussionists !)
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
8:23 p.m.
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
do we?
...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
a must-have.
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....
17 Feb
17 Feb
11:04 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Roger E <gurusonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I suggest we mandate a licence of competency before
allowing a recording
to be played on the radio. The "pop" charts are very mediocre lately.
Then I guess a lot of people have mediocre taste in music. Sometimes I
hear a song and regret it's illegal to shoot people in the head. :)
Too subjective. I'd be satisfied if they just banned that Antares
Autotune digi-warble effect that's all over every freaking R&B track
made in the last few years.
If I'd known it would get this bad I'd have killed myself the day
Cher's "Believe" came out. ;-)
Lee
11 Feb
11 Feb
6:03 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
Beat and rhythm detection also is a hot topic for many
years in the
academic music scene as it's a necessary prerequisite to let a
computer play along with human performers, ideally in real time.
I actually find this goal more distasteful than the one Fons is objecting to.
I can understand why people are interested in automatic accompaniment,
but mangling human-made music to fit a specific timing map seems like
a more proper goal to me -- "manufactured" being somehow preferable to
"simulated". (I think this may be an "uncanny valley" situation --
if
you haven't met this term before, look it up.)
Chris
6:07 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Chris Cannam
<cannam(a)all-day-breakfast.com> wrote:
I actually find this goal more distasteful than the
one Fons is objecting to.
("Distasteful" is probably too strong. I don't really object to it.
I just found it interesting that the automatic accompaniment goal
should be cited as the acceptable reverse of the unacceptable audio
quantization goal. I don't see it that way.)
Chris
7:09 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:03:15PM +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Frank Barknecht
<fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
'Good' automatic accompaniment will require more than
the computer's ability to listen combined with some
condensed programmed knowledge of musical structure
and performance praxis.
By 'good' I mean that the computer should be able to
do it as expected, and without requiring specific
instructions for each particular case.
I suspect it would require 'training' of the same
form that a musician capable of the same would go
through.
Now if such ability is the result of training, can
it be called either 'manufactured' or 'simulated' ?
If yes, should we humans consider ourselves as being
manufactured or simulating ?
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
Beat and rhythm detection also is a hot topic for
many years in the
academic music scene as it's a necessary prerequisite to let a
computer play along with human performers, ideally in real time.
I actually find this goal more distasteful than the one Fons is objecting to.
I can understand why people are interested in automatic accompaniment,
but mangling human-made music to fit a specific timing map seems like
a more proper goal to me -- "manufactured" being somehow preferable to
"simulated". (I think this may be an "uncanny valley" situation --
if
you haven't met this term before, look it up.)
18 Feb
18 Feb
12:15 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
'Good' automatic accompaniment will require
more than
the computer's ability to listen combined with some
condensed programmed knowledge of musical structure
and performance praxis.
By 'good' I mean that the computer should be able to
do it as expected, and without requiring specific
instructions for each particular case.
I suspect it would require 'training' of the same
form that a musician capable of the same would go
through.
Now if such ability is the result of training, can
it be called either 'manufactured' or 'simulated' ?
If yes, should we humans consider ourselves as being
manufactured or simulating ?
If you've access to a Windows or Mac, I'd be interested to know what
you think of this software:
http://www.circular-logic.com/
http://www.circular-logic.com/howItWorks.html
It uses a neural-net algorithm, derived from neurological research on
how the brain perceives tempo. I've tried it and was quite impressed.
Lee
12 Feb
12 Feb
5:22 a.m.
Hallo,
Chris Cannam hat gesagt: // Chris Cannam wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Frank Barknecht
<fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
I know this term from research on human-like robots.
Anyway it's not just "automatic accompaniment" as in "Band in a
Box"
that I'm referring to, but the use of a computer to do what it can do
better than any human, namely carrying out algorithms for complicated
processes designed by a human.
Also experimentation with a computer in this regard can give valuable
insights into how the human mind experiences music. In the end, the
computer, like the book, is a tool to help humans think.
A good introduction to what I mean is Robert Rowe's book "Machine
Musicianship" by MIT Press.
Ciao
--
Frank
Beat and rhythm detection also is a hot topic for
many years in the
academic music scene as it's a necessary prerequisite to let a
computer play along with human performers, ideally in real time.
I actually find this goal more distasteful than the one Fons is objecting to.
I can understand why people are interested in automatic accompaniment,
but mangling human-made music to fit a specific timing map seems like
a more proper goal to me -- "manufactured" being somehow preferable to
"simulated". (I think this may be an "uncanny valley" situation --
if
you haven't met this term before, look it up.)
5:25 a.m.
Hallo,
Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
Anyway it's not just "automatic
accompaniment" as in "Band in a Box"
that I'm referring to, but the use of a computer to do what it can do
better than any human, namely carrying out algorithms for complicated
processes designed by a human.
Oh, and btw: It's interesting that in this thread there are complains
when a computer is used to add a beat to music while in another thread
the addition of reverb to music seems to be no problem at all. I know a
lot of natural rooms that give a much more beautiful reverberation than
any digital allpass network can generate. ;)
Ciao
--
Frank
6:09 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:26:25AM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Oh, and btw: It's interesting that in this thread
there are complains
when a computer is used to add a beat to music while in another thread
the addition of reverb to music seems to be no problem at all.
It's two very different things really:
Emulation of natural reverb can be compared to generating
drum or percussion sounds electronically or by software.
Which is quitea different from adding such sounds to music
that doesn't have them, usually for good reasons.
I know a lot of natural rooms that give a much more
beautiful
reverberation than any digital allpass network can generate. ;)
So do I, and I usually also prefer real percussion over
its synthesised version.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
6:16 a.m.
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:26:25AM +0100, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
I always prefer real percussion over synthesized. Humans don't usually
play music in rigid lock-step tempos, but with subtle changes as they go
along that help produce the total effect of the music.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Oh, and btw: It's interesting that in this
thread there are complains
when a computer is used to add a beat to music while in another thread
the addition of reverb to music seems to be no problem at all.
It's two very different things really:
Emulation of natural reverb can be compared to generating
drum or percussion sounds electronically or by software.
Which is quitea different from adding such sounds to music
that doesn't have them, usually for good reasons.
I know a lot of natural rooms that give a much
more beautiful
reverberation than any digital allpass network can generate. ;)
So do I, and I usually also prefer real percussion over
its synthesised version. 
6:16 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:26:25AM +0100, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
I'll echo Fon's comments about reverb............
Alex.
Oh, and btw: It's interesting that in this
thread there are complains
when a computer is used to add a beat to music while in another thread
the addition of reverb to music seems to be no problem at all.
It's two very different things really:
Emulation of natural reverb can be compared to generating
drum or percussion sounds electronically or by software.
Which is quitea different from adding such sounds to music
that doesn't have them, usually for good reasons.
I know a lot of natural rooms that give a much
more beautiful
reverberation than any digital allpass network can generate. ;)
So do I, and I usually also prefer real percussion over
its synthesised version.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
Parchment Studios (It started as a joke...)
10:07 a.m.
Hallo,
Fons Adriaensen hat gesagt: // Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:26:25AM +0100, Frank
Barknecht wrote:
In my view it's technically the same, only that the beats added by
reverbs are much faster and less regular than drum beats, and they get
triggered by the original music, but that's something, you can do with
drum beats as well, if you have a good beat tracker/segmenter.
Reverbs change the impression, music makes just as adding beats to
Gregorian chants does. That's the whole point of adding a reverb. There
are tastless ways to use reverbs, too.
Ciao
--
Frank
Oh, and btw: It's interesting that in this
thread there are complains
when a computer is used to add a beat to music while in another thread
the addition of reverb to music seems to be no problem at all.
It's two very different things really:
Emulation of natural reverb can be compared to generating
drum or percussion sounds electronically or by software.
Which is quitea different from adding such sounds to music
that doesn't have them, usually for good reasons.
11:10 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Frank Barknecht <fbar(a)footils.org> wrote:
Hallo,
Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
If we give computers the 'intelligence' to add beats then possibly we
should give, or have already given, computers the intelligence to
decide which is better? Maybe they don't like our music and are simply
trying to express themselves to their own target audience... ;-)
- Mark
Anyway it's not just "automatic
accompaniment" as in "Band in a Box"
that I'm referring to, but the use of a computer to do what it can do
better than any human, namely carrying out algorithms for complicated
processes designed by a human.
Oh, and btw: It's interesting that in this thread there are complains
when a computer is used to add a beat to music while in another thread
the addition of reverb to music seems to be no problem at all. I know a
lot of natural rooms that give a much more beautiful reverberation than
any digital allpass network can generate. ;)
Ciao
--
Frank
12:09 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Barknecht schrieb:
Hallo,
Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Anyway it's not just "automatic accompaniment" as in "Band in a
Box"
> that I'm referring to, but the use of a computer to do what it can do
> better than any human, namely carrying out algorithms for complicated
> processes designed by a human.
This I agree.
Yet the question is, who that human is. Somebody, who is getting paid to
implement what a marketing-crew has designed based on a marketing
resaerch? Or an artist, who experiments with his/her patterns fed into a
system, that alters them following abstract mathematical logic?
This is not a technical issue, it is cultural/socio-economic etc.
I tried to use Garage-Band and Abelton Live and I found both of them
extremely difficult to use. It took me about 2 h in both until they
played a little sequence with the sounds I like, the way I like....
But they offered a lot of easy shortcuts to somewhat "standard"-sounding
music in this 2h.
I guess, this is a tendency induced by marketing-decisions. As I opened
Audioheads Orion back in 2000 it took me 30min to make it sound somewhat
interesting. It had a lot of flexibility just under a thin layer of
eye-candy. I have the impression, in Abelton or Garageband that layer is
much much thicker.
Oh, and btw: It's interesting that in this thread
there are complains
when a computer is used to add a beat to music while in another thread
the addition of reverb to music seems to be no problem at all.
Harr harr - that was me_ yess - I even set a bounty for a delay with
(apage satanas!!) automagic BPM-detection via MIDI. That bounty has gone
to ardour as of now for Krzystof Foltman recommended to do so..
There is absolutely no problem with manipulating music you already made
from scratch. And it seems to me a handy tool to have the opportunity to
fed a BPM-number to the maths, a delay has to offer.
I know a
lot of natural rooms that give a much more beautiful reverberation than
any digital allpass network can generate. ;)
Beauty is the choice of the artist. Of course it is great, to have
physical rooms at hand to make a voice sound different. But in the end
it is just this you want to achieve: difference. A certain difference
because you are not pleased with the raw sound of a recording. So I do
not consider it a must-have to work with any certain method to achieve
such a manipulation. Reverb-software with some flexibilty, an adequate
physical room or both mixed - if the result is unique and pleasing, it
is fine with me ;-)
But I would not use *any* room or *any* software ;-)
best regs
HZN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkmUSdEACgkQ1Aecwva1SWMfDACfdMYPsDd9Q4Avmh/EJvAw5Qol
uG8Anjrd9p72iYsHtRuZNpE+XWjP91J2
=hZSl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
13 Feb
13 Feb
3:04 a.m.
Without hearing the piece I can't comment completely. But usually old jazz
often doesn't have a set tempo as it is in a space where the rhythms are
"felt"... The best way to add beats as you put it is to feel it... Either
bang your hands on the desk or sing the lines. you might even try recording
this and using a midi trigger tool (I am sure there is one of these about)
to replace the tapping with a sampled drum sound. Also by looking at what
you recorded you should be able to deduce a lot of information about the
tempo and time structure.
Good luck with whatever you attempt... Like a lot of people here I am sick
to death of completely regular computerized rhythmic structures and prefer
the looser felt ones. But mixing the two can sometimes sound good. Knowing
how to anticipate or go behind the rhythm helps a lot in this regards....
10 Feb
10 Feb
3:24 a.m.
Am Dienstag, den 10.02.2009, 01:30 -0200 schrieb surian:
Then again you may add another dimension of
beauty to make up
for that
loss. Or not.
that's the idea
:)
a new work will born
there's a free beat detective?
maybe this one, I hav'nt check it out
http://bpmdj.yellowcouch.org/index.html
regards hermann
maybe freecycle can do this also...?
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6:10 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:53:07PM -0200, surian wrote:
hey, why such anger Fons?
It's not anger, and don't take my comments personally.
I really don't see it as a defect (it's just a
fact).
The music is beautiful and makes me want to use it.
Re-using music, or parts of it, is probably as old as
music itself, and until music became very big business
(it was business before, but not in that way), people
were usually honoured when it happened as long as the
result was attributed to the original composer.
But. Adding a ostinate beat to music that was never
designed to have such a beat has IMHO never produced
anything of value. In the best case it creates an
effect of 'alienation', but it's an effect, no more.
Which means it's surprising the first time, much less
so the second, and just boring from the third time you
hear it.
If you don't like that people remix
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix>
the others work what you think of linux?
I don't see the relation.
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
9 Feb
9 Feb
7:38 p.m.
surian wrote:
Hi,
I have an old jazz recording that I would like to add some beats with
hydrogen.
But the song doesn't follow any BPM, since it wan not recorded with click.
So, what I would Like to do is adjust the tempo of the song to match
the BPM I want.
There is any program that could do that for me?
I think maybe something using rubberband
<http://www.breakfastquay.com/rubberband/>, but i never used it.
Perhaps Rosegarden with Rubberband support ? Or even Ardour ?
Best,
dp
5786
days inactive
5795
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
42 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
alex stone -
Chris Cannam -
Daniel Worth -
Danni Coy -
Dave Phillips -
david -
drew Roberts -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Fons Adriaensen -
Frank Barknecht -
Hartmut Noack -
hermann meyer -
Lee Revell -
Mark Knecht -
pete shorthose -
Ray Rashif -
Roger E -
Ross -
surian