Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Miraculous Direct Note Access can completely change music
dvice.com — Music recording software just took another giant leap, now able to do what was thought to be impossible.
MrBabyMan- 1787 diggs
- digg it
- RedRummy, on 04/17/2008, -8/+40Ahh, the Holy Grail of music production. Its an excellent step forward, but it only currently works on very simple, easy to split, sound sources... I wonder if it will be truly possible to split a full song.
- Starch, on 04/17/2008, -0/+10For years, we were told it was truly impossible, the old 'putting the toothpaste back in the tube' analogy applied well here. BUT sometimes these company demos don't live up to the hype; I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
- daniel2e, on 04/18/2008, -2/+13I don't see how it could be declared "truly impossible". After all, the human brain can do it. Wasn't it mozart who purportedly transcripted an entire polyphonic piece from memory on one hearing?
This is not at all to take away from the achievement. If accurately portrayed in this film, it's very impressive indeed.- trogdor282, on 04/18/2008, -0/+11It's one thing to decide what notes are being played. It's another thing to remove a note and put it back in at a different pitch without destroying all the other notes. The whole reason that consonant chords are so pleasant to the ear is that the higher harmonics overlap.
- nospinhere, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1What the ***** are you guys talking about?
- zulfy26, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miserere_(Allegri)
"According to the popular story (backed up by family letters), the fourteen-year-old Mozart was visiting Rome, when he first heard the piece during the Wednesday service. Later that day, he wrote it down entirely from memory, returning to the Chapel that Friday to make minor corrections" - EmileVictor, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I do believe he was the first ever music pirate (having copied that entire piece illegally).
- gekkoeye, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4It's more like "reverse engineered". So legality is questionable.
- trogdor282, on 04/18/2008, -0/+11It's one thing to decide what notes are being played. It's another thing to remove a note and put it back in at a different pitch without destroying all the other notes. The whole reason that consonant chords are so pleasant to the ear is that the higher harmonics overlap.
- robbiemuffin, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8it says it can select and change notes from a single instrument in a ful symphony. I think they're addressing the very limit you're saying they still need to address.
- romistrub, on 04/18/2008, -6/+8Let's be realistic here. What this really does is turn nearly all instruments (with the possible exception of the theremin, among some others) into MIDI inputs.
- chewbie, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1hopefully you can take those "wannabe" midi outputs aand replace them with professional ones. That way you will get a more melodic and genuine sound.
I hate how the idiots are digging you down btw - BossKey, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1The analogy I'm thinking of is that it's like imaging software that can recognize and select objects and faces. Now they've expressed the same idea in audio analysis technology.
- robbiemuffin, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2mm, I think it is different ... but am I wrong? I think it is: any sound source, at least any tonal one, is now a valid input(s). That means, all the mix tapes on the planet ... the voicemail message you set up with you singing out of tune in the car .. all that stuff is an instrument you can instantly bring into tune and manipulate in standard ways, and separate out individual chords.
that does sound fanciful. it's off the hook. How many notes in a chord does it support?
- chewbie, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1hopefully you can take those "wannabe" midi outputs aand replace them with professional ones. That way you will get a more melodic and genuine sound.
- mlynn5, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1But most recordings are done on multiple tracks now anyways. I guess you couldn't edit live performances easily (they never show people working on more than one track at a time in the demo), but studio recordings could be totally manipulated by this, except for the drums, maybe..
- Hosalabad, on 04/18/2008, -8/+2Whatever retard, now they are just going to abuse this to death to apply the Cher Effect to every single note from every instrument.
- gavinonymous, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4listen closely at 3:07 the attack of individual notes sounds sounds wrong after splitting. Usually notes on a guitar interact harmonically, even more on instruments like hammond organs. The subtle interplay of harmonics is lost - but hell, if it's for digital brick wall compressed crap that the big labels put out - eat your heart out.
- shakin, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4That's just it, though, isn't it? Hire crappy musicians and fix their flaws in the studio. I can take a 5 year old banging on a drum kit and make him sound like Neil Peart and I can do it quickly enough to use in a live performance (if the software has been pre-programmed to know what the song is supposed to sound like). I can fix vocal keys and pitches with a delay of only a couple of milliseconds so any singer can sound like Freddy Mercury.
But they won't be Neil Peart or Freddy Mercury. As you say, the music loses something when you begin to alter it digitally. Harmonics are lost and they lose what I can only describe as their human sound. Go ahead and listen to Nickelback then switch to some Led Zeppelin and you'll hear it too. Nickelback uses all this corrective software. It's the modern sound. - modusop, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Like all new techniques, it can be used to enhance a talented performer, or merely homogenize the rest. A truly creative producer could use this to do all kinds of neat "impossible" guitar parts that would sound more realistic (or at least different) than a regular software instrument method. I'm all for new techniques - bring on the Melodyne!
- shakin, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4That's just it, though, isn't it? Hire crappy musicians and fix their flaws in the studio. I can take a 5 year old banging on a drum kit and make him sound like Neil Peart and I can do it quickly enough to use in a live performance (if the software has been pre-programmed to know what the song is supposed to sound like). I can fix vocal keys and pitches with a delay of only a couple of milliseconds so any singer can sound like Freddy Mercury.
- raindogmx, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7If we had not applied technology to music we would have never had drums, guitars, pianos, trumpets, recording equipment, etc.
What would have been of Mozart without technology? what about bands like Radiohead?
As I see it this is just a new instrument (for creating music). The outcome will always depend on the artist.- BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2"As I see it this is just a new instrument (for creating music). The outcome will always depend on the artist."
EXACTLY.
(I've played with Melodyne and it is very powerful. I expect the DNA will be fantastic.)
- BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2"As I see it this is just a new instrument (for creating music). The outcome will always depend on the artist."
- TomK88, on 04/17/2008, -11/+35That's awesome. I love how music creation is becoming more and more accessible. For a couple thousand dollars you can create a studio which can create music that rivals anything out there right now. Plus with the popularity of file sharing and the internet it's easier than ever to distribute your work and be heard.
- GothAlice, on 04/17/2008, -2/+48Just because the technology makes it easy, doesn't mean you're going to be any good. Plus, file sharing will only get you so far… and even then, only if you're Trent.
- TheBEAST205, on 04/17/2008, -5/+3I agree. This just makes it easier for artists to "cheat" while recording music in studios.
- GliTCH82, on 04/18/2008, -1/+10Why's it "cheating" if the end result is a great work of art? I see nothing wrong with this, it gives more people the ability to make quailty music that expresses what they like to hear.
- TheBEAST205, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1Wow, you might have just posted one of the most ignorant comments I've ever heard. If you have to use programs to enhance your music, you probably shouldn't really be recording it in the first place. I'm not trying to be sentimental, but that's the problem with many bands today; they go in the studio and put together an album that sounds decent, then they go play at a concert and sound like complete *****.
I'm all for experimentation in music, but there's a fine line between musicianship and letting the program do all the work for you. - BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2"I'm all for experimentation in music, but there's a fine line between musicianship and letting the program do all the work for you."
There was once a time when I was in the situation where I got ribbed by 'real musicians'. "Ha! All yer doing is pushing buttons. Anybody can do that!" I would simply stop all noise, step back, and ask them to SHOW me how easy it is. Every single mouth backed down every single time.
It's not about pushing buttons, it's about the sequence of the pushing. To suggest otherwise is like saying a guitar is just some string and wood hanging around a neck. - pixelate, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Remember, a studio recording is not a documentary, it's art. A 'corrected' song will still be crappy if the idea wasn't good in the first place.
- GliTCH82, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1@TheBEAST205
Dude, I'm not saying that it should be some dirty little secret or anything, if you can't reproduce the sound you make in a studio at a concert then I think you shouldn't pretend like you can. But think of it this way: a lot of the sounds in music you hear today wouldn't be possible without digital production or enhancement, for example, Trent Reznor from NIN creates most of his music electronically. Quite simply, without computers, this artist wouldn't exist. But he doesn't try to pretend that he's an acoustic musician by any means. If a band pretends to be entirely acoustic when in reality some engineer is creating their sound in a studio, that is pretty lame, and I wouldn't support them.
Also, according to your argument, you really can't draw a distinct line at what exactly constitutes what you call "real music". By your definition, I could argue that since electric guitars require amplifiers and sound modules that produce distortion, that may be "cheating" and wouldn't make that band a "real artist". - TheBEAST205, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1You guys are missing the point though, I'm not saying that using digital programs and synthesizers is bad; as a huge progressive rock fan, I actually love digital and electronic experimentation with music and I think Trent Reznor is a respectable figure in music. The point I'm trying to make though is that artists shouldn't substitute talent for a program that just goes behind you and fixes all your mistakes.
- TheBEAST205, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1Wow, you might have just posted one of the most ignorant comments I've ever heard. If you have to use programs to enhance your music, you probably shouldn't really be recording it in the first place. I'm not trying to be sentimental, but that's the problem with many bands today; they go in the studio and put together an album that sounds decent, then they go play at a concert and sound like complete *****.
- GliTCH82, on 04/18/2008, -1/+10Why's it "cheating" if the end result is a great work of art? I see nothing wrong with this, it gives more people the ability to make quailty music that expresses what they like to hear.
- jeff303, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Uh I don't think he was insinuating that. The biggest benefit is you don't need to sign a contract with a record company just to get your work recorded now.
- raindogmx, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I don't care if I'm any good. I enjoy making my own music. You don't have to be any good to enjoy making music.
- TheBEAST205, on 04/17/2008, -5/+3I agree. This just makes it easier for artists to "cheat" while recording music in studios.
- megaton, on 04/17/2008, -8/+7Rivals? You've obviously never been in a real studio.
Yes the home setup can be fantastic, and in many cases, indistinguishable to the average ear. But it doesn't rival a $6M recording studio.
Not yet, anyway...- asdfrewq, on 04/18/2008, -4/+15Oh please. The over-blown, expensive studio is just another example of the blatant excess of the recording industry.
You're right, a budget home studio won't compare with a multi-million dollar setup, but a $60,000 studio in the right hands certainly will. Spending more will give you options, but spending 6 mil? Or even 1 mil? That's ridiculous. - captainchris, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2CHOCOLATE RAIN
- modusop, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3He's right - it's all about the capturing hardware. Microphones can't be virtualized, and neither can preamps or other equipment. However, the gap grows closer and closer each year between "prosumer" and "actual pro" products.
- Vitalstar, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2$2000, well, that's a good microphone.
Next?
- asdfrewq, on 04/18/2008, -4/+15Oh please. The over-blown, expensive studio is just another example of the blatant excess of the recording industry.
- digitaloxygen, on 04/17/2008, -11/+9"That's awesome.". What's awesome? That you can completely fake the final result and don't have to have any real tallet? Yeah, that's "awesome" if you want to deceive everyone to make money. Not like the recording industry isn't already doing that (ever notice how most live singing sound like ***** compared to studio produced work), but now everyone can do it more easily.
- consonance, on 04/17/2008, -1/+11You fail to consider the possibilites of this software. If you haven't noticed, the sample is becoming something akin to a musical instrument. A tool like this would be ideal for making a single audio file a workable virtual instrument in both a professional studio and a home studio.
- daniel2e, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10Not only that, but what is it that you care about? Skill of performance, or skill of composition? The former is predominately mechanical, the latter creative. So yea, I'm all for "faking" mechanical talent if it better reveals the talent of the music itself.
- BossKey, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2No, this is just like any other music technology. It will be used by the fakes and the true masters, both. You'll be able to tell the difference and spot the fakes, but it won't automatically be a bad thing, because the true masters will use it to advance their craft further, like someone who uses Photoshop to produce extremely high-quality prints, as opposed to cutting and pasting for Fark contests.
- fkr3, on 04/17/2008, -5/+4ummm..... most musicians / bands are just as anonymous and unheard online as they are offline. File sharing is only a substitute for walking into a shop and buying a disc.
- Travelsonic, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I bought more CDs because of file-sharing.
- piratehead, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3I like a bunch of bands I would never have heard of if I hadn't downloaded their songs online.
- BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I quit this years ago (I have so much music), but Plaid and Amon Tobin can thank the 20 songs I downloaded from others for convincing me to own their catalogs. For two examples that I will NEVER tire of, anyway....
- shakin, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4Music is already accessible. First, you buy some instruments and learn to play them properly, then you write some songs and use a multitrack mixer ($100 at a pawn shop) and pump it into your computer to record. That's it. Music doesn't have to have any more steps than that and for decades the greatest and most influential music ever recorded was done that way (substitute reel-to-reel magnetic tape for the computer).
- Peynis, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Too bad learning how to play an instrument doesn't teach you ***** about how to "write some songs", which is actually the more important part in making music.
- shakin, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Writing Stairway to Heaven or Comfortably Numb might not be easy, but music is still accessible because anybody can get enjoyment from playing it. I spend some evenings playing guitar with my 7 year old son and we have a great time. He can't play anything that sounds like a good song, but that hasn't stopped him from having a great time doing it.
- Peynis, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Too bad learning how to play an instrument doesn't teach you ***** about how to "write some songs", which is actually the more important part in making music.
- GothAlice, on 04/17/2008, -2/+48Just because the technology makes it easy, doesn't mean you're going to be any good. Plus, file sharing will only get you so far… and even then, only if you're Trent.
- razorsharp84, on 04/17/2008, -3/+81That was a very-well-produced video; explained things perfectly.
- GothAlice, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8Working the music being worked on into the video was impressively done. I especially liked where they pitch-bended as the play head was passing over a segment. XD Too easy!
- Diderotten, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4The guy in reality talked with a lazy monotone voice. DNA changes everything.
- andrew1210, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3The creator of this looks absolutely crazy, and I hope someone attacks his face with a shaver.
However, this looks like it will be very interesting. Music will meet photoshop.. - Cglass, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6Yea it was refreshing to watch a video I could actually see and understand for once =.=
- doctechnical, on 04/17/2008, -22/+73Technology renders talent obsolete. Why learn how to sing or play an instrument, just wail away and we'll fix it in the mix.
- Capta1nA, on 04/17/2008, -5/+37Technology also provides more tools to express yourself. The possibilities with this are endless, not just fixing a sloppy performance.
- BetterOffEd, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2Then use an 8-track recorder. This will allow for your personal expression and preserve whatever talent you have inside you...
- TheSnuffster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1a la Nine Inch Nails
- aelias, on 04/17/2008, -3/+58Soooooo false. To be fair, it is a common misconception. As an audio engineer who gets paid, I feel qualified to tell you: Garbage in, Garbage out.
This is the golden rule. So much so that if you can't get it done while you're on the clock, someone better than you will be brought in to play your part correctly.- doctechnical, on 04/17/2008, -5/+30I agree with you, but I don't know how long you've been an engineer - tell me, how much garbage is coming in now versus a decade or three ago?
Ok, I'm an old fart. I listen to the massively over-produced made for MP3 compression crap today and my ears cringe.
Well, they would if they could.
And get off my lawn! :) - TheRealToma, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1As my Music Tech teacher told me in Uni, "You can dip a turd in chrome, but its still a piece of *****."
- doctechnical, on 04/17/2008, -5/+30I agree with you, but I don't know how long you've been an engineer - tell me, how much garbage is coming in now versus a decade or three ago?
- pegothejerk, on 04/17/2008, -6/+50technology still can't reproduce the ability to decide to place a subtle oboe halfway through your sonata in order to provoke an emotional response in the saddened gut. It can't write a masterpiece in rock, as that takes good timber on all the instruments outside of the notes and composition. It can't give you a billie holiday or tom waits growl in the voice that sounds like the devil himself sold it to you. It can't create dissonance like wagner.
technology is useful, it's not a replacement for human instinct, prowess, and creativity.- doctechnical, on 04/17/2008, -4/+8Now I have to digg you for Tom Waits.
- drafhk, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I can't digg him for failing to mention Michael Akerfeldt.
- toro913, on 04/17/2008, -4/+4Not yet at least
- duality, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I agree with you completely. Technology may make old things easier and new things possible, but the more ancient arts all have important traits about them. Technology can inspire or augment creativity, and in some cases, it can even dilute it or destroy it. However, there will always be at least a few experts (and not expert systems, either) who can separate the technologically compiled works of art from the ones that have more traditional origins.
As another example, digital cameras didn't destroy the art of photography. Even though the environment changed dramatically, I think there are still people who use ordinary film. Digital cameras just made things easier for the rest of us, who focus more on the practicality of photography than the art of it.
- doctechnical, on 04/17/2008, -4/+8Now I have to digg you for Tom Waits.
- kingvik, on 04/18/2008, -3/+3Simpson's did it.
- romistrub, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5"technology renders talent obsolete"
I don't think that's a fair analysis. Technological automation renders biological machines obsolete? Even that's a stretch. How long until Cubase becomes self-aware? - trapilales, on 04/18/2008, -0/+21The goal is to make beautiful music. The means of how you get there are irrelevant. I couldn't care less if a beautiful piece of music was made by a musical prodigy or a talentless chump in his basement. All that matters is the end product.
Technology is great because it's expanding the pool of people that can experiment. But just because it's easier to make doesn't mean it's automatically good. Those are two different things, and in the end crap will be crap no matter who or what made it.- WhiteIce89, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6I totally agree and think the ends justify the means; if people make great music thanks to this, then so be it. I won't like it any less.
- joshmoney, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6"Technology renders talent obsolete." I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps it renders certain types of talent obsolete but for the most part I'd say it paves the way for new types of talent. Think about all of the other technological advances that have been used to enhanced music. Originally distortion was created by overdriving tubes, over driving tape, or even poking holes in speaker cones, yet when artificial distortion units came out it didn't make good guitar playing disappear. Reverb units that simulate natural sounding ambiances were created to enhance vocal and instrumental performances but no one would think that a reverb could replace a good performance (well some people thought that in the 80's). Im an audio engineer/producer and I frequently use Melodyne but just because you can tune all or part of a performace doesnt mean its going to be a good performance or even a good song. I once spent an entire week tuning and "perfecting" a vocal track and in the end, the original, raw recording sounded better and thats what ended up on the release. A note being slightly out of tune or even a note thats pitch is bending up to the right note will many times sound far more pleasing than a perfectly tuned note. I think that there will be a lot of people who "abuse" the functions of the software but if anything they will just come out sounding like a singing Microsoft Sam. Nothing will ever render real talent obsolete.
- haikuFU, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Talent is not necessarily a person's ability to play and instrument and sing. Plenty of bands do that, but only play covers of other people's material because they don't have the talent to write their own. This allows people with writing talent and great ideas to make the music they otherwise wouldn't be able to without years of voice lessons or learning and practicing multiple instruments.
I can play the violin, poorly. But, I very frequently have classical music running through my head that I'd love to be able to hear and allow others to hear in real life, but I can't because I don't have the time to practice as much as I need to. - CVanO, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5Give me a ***** break. Yes, people will use this to throw together ***** music, same with any piece of new music technology. Try to think about this in terms of the possibilities for sample-based musicians for example. Panda Bear's "Person Pitch" is one of the best albums of the last 10 years and it's built primarily from samples, and don't try to say that what he's doing "isn't creative", because it is. Taking fragments of dozens of songs and turning them into an incredible, fully-realized album is a talent, and this kind of technology is going to allow these musicians to go even further with their art, and I for one support that.
Not to mention the kind of people who would be using this to lazily construct ***** music would be making ***** music ANYWAY, so what does it matter?
By the way, I was going to submit this story months ago but found that someone else already had, and it received barely any diggs. In fact, about 3 people had submitted it. Why am I not surprised that it only hit the front page when MrBabyMan made a duplicate submission?- BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2"By the way, I was going to submit this story months ago but found that someone else already had, and it received barely any diggs. In fact, about 3 people had submitted it. Why am I not surprised that it only hit the front page when MrBabyMan made a duplicate submission?"
No *****. It's my second time digging it too. But at least there's commentary this time!!
- BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2"By the way, I was going to submit this story months ago but found that someone else already had, and it received barely any diggs. In fact, about 3 people had submitted it. Why am I not surprised that it only hit the front page when MrBabyMan made a duplicate submission?"
- rodelero2, on 04/18/2008, -4/+1even though I agree with you, nothing can take away from a live set concert. Not even this gay product.
- BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4You could, I'll bet.
- Metasquares, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Along with the comments of the other posters, I'd also like to mention that most of the instruments musicians play are centuries old, despite the wide availability of synthesizers that can perform nearly as well. Why do musicians keep pounding on keyboards when a synth can do it for them? In no small part, because it's fun! Technology isn't taking that away.
- TheRealToma, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Id love to hear a delta blues song "Corrected" with this thing and then chuckle at how lifeless it sounds.
- Capta1nA, on 04/17/2008, -5/+37Technology also provides more tools to express yourself. The possibilities with this are endless, not just fixing a sloppy performance.
- Ciryon, on 04/17/2008, -23/+46Some will say this is bad because now everyone can make music without beeing able to play an instrument, to those people: ***** you. I don't care how the music is made as long as it sounds good. Hell, this make more people understand how music is made. I will still be able to appreciate "real" artists, talent comes in different forms you know.
- jglaser, on 04/17/2008, -3/+6I agree, and I hate how you will be dugg down for this. I love people that can sing or play an instrument beautifully, but I also love people that can write excellent songs. This plugin could encourage people that can't sing to write music anyways. If you're famous for having a great voice(American Idol winners) then using this program is a complete no-no, but if your talent shines in the music you write then this program could work wonders - particularly for home studio musicians.
Kurt Cobain admitted that he was not a good guitar player. If he had used this program to fix up some of his ***** guitar playing would I be mad? Hell no, he was great because of the music he made; I really don't care if he sucked at guitar. Most other people would just say, "Well if you're not good at guitar then don't play." I'm glad he played, but whatev.- deskattire, on 04/17/2008, -6/+3If Kurt Cobain used this program to "fix up" his guitar playing, it would have resulted in pure radio corporate *****, so don't advocate that. Sometimes its the imperfections that give music its personality.
- Professr, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6Sometimes.
- dwninjungleland, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1He may have admitted that he was not a guitar player, but he knew very well that he was an incredible song writer/singer and really actually a decent guitar player. There never would have been doubt that he would have made music.
- deskattire, on 04/17/2008, -6/+3If Kurt Cobain used this program to "fix up" his guitar playing, it would have resulted in pure radio corporate *****, so don't advocate that. Sometimes its the imperfections that give music its personality.
- Y0tsuya, on 04/17/2008, -7/+7If everybody can do it, then by definition it's not considered a talent anymore.
- consonance, on 04/17/2008, -1/+12I dare you to to use Direct Note Access to create a song after it's released by Celemony. It will be readily available through BitTorrent. Chances are 9 out of 10 that you will write a sucky song. Why? If you don't understand songwriting, you can't write a song. DNA is a tool and an enabler. It is not a substitute for songwriting. Not everybody can write a good song.
- BossKey, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2You make the mistaken assumption that everyone can do it...equally well.
- Peynis, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1The talent doesn't lie in playing instruments.
I know sooo many people who call themselves "musicians" because they can play the guitar or the piano...they're no more than jukeboxes.
- sayeo, on 04/17/2008, -2/+8You're right. If I like a piece of music, I don't care how it was made.
- dwninjungleland, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. It will completely destroy peoples' idea of how music is made. You don't even have to know how music is made-- you just need a good engineer. How lame is that?
You can always tell now what music is corporate focus-grouped ***** written by a bunch of suits sitting around a business table guessing at and deciding what this years' teenagers are going to be obsessed with. As a listening assignment, I'd like to point you to 'We built this city" (purportedly on rock n' roll) or any 'emo' song written in the past decade. Not an ounce of emotion or feeling. It's just purely what record companies want you to listen to. When this technology goes mainstream (it will, I have no doubt of that), it will only become easier and easier for people with less talent to be clogging up the airwaves (or internet, i guess), singing exactly what some sold-out PR rep wants them to. Sad.- BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!
- Feep, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Gee, it doesn't seem like you're affected by pop-culture trends and corporate media interests. Go enjoy the music that you enjoy, and stop whining about other people's tastes. If they like it, you're no one to tell them otherwise. Troll elsewhere.
- jglaser, on 04/17/2008, -3/+6I agree, and I hate how you will be dugg down for this. I love people that can sing or play an instrument beautifully, but I also love people that can write excellent songs. This plugin could encourage people that can't sing to write music anyways. If you're famous for having a great voice(American Idol winners) then using this program is a complete no-no, but if your talent shines in the music you write then this program could work wonders - particularly for home studio musicians.
- KelteN, on 04/17/2008, -17/+5I've played with this in the past. It takes some getting used to but it certainly is a powerful tool in creative hands.
- blackdude, on 04/18/2008, -0/+11Dude, this new version of melodyne hasn't even come out yet; what the ---- are you talking about. I've been waiting for this new version forever for my productions.
- nowisnothing, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9Played with what? Direct note access will only be available in Melodyne 2, and that won't be hitting the shelves until fall...
- BetterOffEd, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3*COUGH*(*****)*COUGH*
.
- ginestony, on 04/17/2008, -6/+72So Hanna Montana doesn't actually sing good??? oh noes!
- Onyxblaze, on 04/17/2008, -3/+18well
- disp, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Hannah
- 68024, on 04/17/2008, -12/+101Music, now with 20% less talent!
- trivialmaggot, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4although that's not much of a change from most of todays "music"
- Harbinger67, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3So the majority of new bands will now be rocking out with -5% talent. Sweet.
- gavinonymous, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I don't mind low talent bands - the sex pistols were just sober and good enough to play their instruments without falling down.
- BetterOffEd, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1You are correct, kind sir. A perfect example---And people recognized that they were talentless (I challenge anyone to find more talentless bass player that sold as many records as Sid Vicious), and that was pretty much the entire point of the band, as well as an undercurrent of the punk movement overall.
Could you imagine if this was available then?
- BetterOffEd, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1You are correct, kind sir. A perfect example---And people recognized that they were talentless (I challenge anyone to find more talentless bass player that sold as many records as Sid Vicious), and that was pretty much the entire point of the band, as well as an undercurrent of the punk movement overall.
- BossKey, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Technology changes nothing. I'll bet if you wandered from town to town in the Middle Ages listening to local bands, you would have rated half of them as complete untalented garbage. Then there would have been the 5% who were mind-blowingly excellent...those are the ones we remember today, but people distort it and assume that 5% of genius was 100% of the romanticized past.
- stonebone4, on 04/17/2008, -8/+35Sweet, now it'll be even easier for talentless hacks like Paris Hilton to make "music." Hooray science!
- jaredcat, on 04/17/2008, -3/+5do you think talentless hacks like Paris Hilton could use a computer either?
- twiztidsinz, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3no but the people producing the albums could.
- twiztidsinz, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6Hooray Beer!
- logiktrip, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2It'll also be easier for people without access to a checkbook like hers to make music.
- jaredcat, on 04/17/2008, -3/+5do you think talentless hacks like Paris Hilton could use a computer either?
- Modestexcuse, on 04/17/2008, -6/+8This is great and all, but it is taking even more away from the natural sound of music. I have to admit, I love the idea of them cleaning up some of that old stuff though :)
- BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I like the idea of remixing that old stuff. I would love to make a 'Stairway to Hell', for one easy example. :)
- exomni, on 04/17/2008, -6/+16Musicians are already just banging out crappy takes with the knowledge that the producers can "fix it all" for them. This just makes it worse, honestly.
- obliviousfool, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1"Some producer with computers fixes all my ***** tracks." ~Ben Folds
- BrapAllgood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I disagree with Ben. :)
- Scottievm, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1There are more musicians out there than the pop crap you hear on mainstream radio.
- exomni, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I'm not talking about them. They can't help but bang out crappy takes, because they have no talent. I'm talking about the artists that could do a good job but don't bother spending the time to because they have paid producers to do the work for them.
- obliviousfool, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1"Some producer with computers fixes all my ***** tracks." ~Ben Folds
- ChiffX, on 04/17/2008, -4/+19The creator scares the ***** out of me.
- DrummerAndrew, on 04/18/2008, -0/+11An appropriate comment in any situation, I'm sure.
- innocentsinner, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4I lol'd
- cdawzrd, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I have a music engineering professor who looks just like him
- DrummerAndrew, on 04/18/2008, -0/+11An appropriate comment in any situation, I'm sure.
- GothAlice, on 04/17/2008, -11/+5***** dupes.
http://digg.com/software/Direct_Note_Access_making ...
http://digg.com/music/Revolutionary_new_music_modi ... - PastyBabyface, on 04/17/2008, -3/+8can't wait to see how talentless the pop musicians get. as is so often the case with science, this is an incredible invention that will almost certainly be used exclusively for greed and evil.
- Peynis, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Is there such a thing as a "pop musician"?
I believe "pop" is derived from the term "puppet".
- Peynis, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Is there such a thing as a "pop musician"?
- NsinU8, on 04/17/2008, -11/+12Now you can play any instrument with no talent. Autotuners for everyone! Written, produced, composed, all instruments performed by Talentless J. Idiot.
- Dubstep, on 04/18/2008, -4/+1Agreed. True talent seems to be falling at the wayside. Welcome to the future.
- amneosis, on 04/17/2008, -1/+50He says midi funny.
- bonjovisucks, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10I thought so, too. Are you more of a "mid-ee" person or "my-die"? Personally, I'm the former.
- logandurand, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2Same here, but what really annoys me is the people who actually *care* about how you pronounce it. It's a matter of preference, people!
- anaesthetica, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5Strange, that's the exact line I use to pick up girls at parties. Works way better than "What's your sign?"
- lundeja, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4I thought he was saying "meaty" at first.
- bonjovisucks, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10I thought so, too. Are you more of a "mid-ee" person or "my-die"? Personally, I'm the former.
- Tyorant, on 04/17/2008, -8/+7Cheating at music!!
- HastyBoom, on 04/17/2008, -3/+4Everyone on the radio is using Pitch correction these days. Even allot of indy bands. Its pathetic.
- joshmoney, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4I think overuse of it is pathetic, or using it when its not needed. But the main reason its used so much is because of time. Just remember, before autotune, producers were doing a different kind of "cheating" - They would record 50 takes and then comp/cut the best performances into a final "perfect" take. Either way you are getting a polished product thats not 100% accurate to real life. Personally i don't think theres much of a difference when you're talking about comparing a performance thats comped from multiple takes or single pitch corrected performance, in the end its just semantics.
- HastyBoom, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1god damn thats a good point.
- joshmoney, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4I think overuse of it is pathetic, or using it when its not needed. But the main reason its used so much is because of time. Just remember, before autotune, producers were doing a different kind of "cheating" - They would record 50 takes and then comp/cut the best performances into a final "perfect" take. Either way you are getting a polished product thats not 100% accurate to real life. Personally i don't think theres much of a difference when you're talking about comparing a performance thats comped from multiple takes or single pitch corrected performance, in the end its just semantics.
- HastyBoom, on 04/17/2008, -3/+4Everyone on the radio is using Pitch correction these days. Even allot of indy bands. Its pathetic.
- jbenson2, on 04/17/2008, -5/+52Musical Photoshop - what a great concept.
- Howsmydriving, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0I can't wait for 'You Suck at Musical Photoshop #1'
- TymonBrown, on 04/17/2008, -14/+12well, there goes the art form...
- Berkana, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Not quite; photoshop has elevated the quality of photography, in its final published forms. This could potentially do the same for published music. Live music will still remain untouched. When they can do this real time, the art will die.
- Vapor17, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4except for, as mentioned above, it cannot create the music only fix it, so even if this software fixes a poorly played boring song, it will still be boring.
- BossKey, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Which means that true talent will still stand out and not be overshadowed by music that can only lean on its technological enhancement. Nothing has really changed!
- Vapor17, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4except for, as mentioned above, it cannot create the music only fix it, so even if this software fixes a poorly played boring song, it will still be boring.
- KonnayahaBoogie, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0Even though music absolutely rocks now, and MAY suck in the future as a result of this, there's plenty exciting art out there to be enjoyed by TALENTED people who have something IMPORTANT to say. Didn't you see that girl who kept giving herself miscarriages?
- Berkana, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Not quite; photoshop has elevated the quality of photography, in its final published forms. This could potentially do the same for published music. Live music will still remain untouched. When they can do this real time, the art will die.
- colinbg, on 04/17/2008, -2/+38Back Streets Back... Alright!
- loquedesea, on 04/17/2008, -9/+14...and people wonder why the music industry is dying. neither Patsy Cline, Hendrix, Roberta Flack, nor B.B. King never needed this.
- Starch, on 04/17/2008, -6/+5true, but I bet Hendrix, for one, would have loved it.
- Dubstep, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Correction, he would have been intrigued by it. Instead of using it to help a talentless person he would have likely used it to create even more unique and dynamic compositions that couldn't have otherwise been created without it.
- gavinonymous, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2exactly - take the reverse reverb effect for example. Using a computer it is so easy to do, but reversing analog tape, adding reverb, and reversing it back again is kind of tedious in comparison. Hendrix would have created some great effects in the studio with today's gear. My problem is there's almost too many options now to tweak your sound, and it takes you away from the real task of communicating good music!
- Dubstep, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Correction, he would have been intrigued by it. Instead of using it to help a talentless person he would have likely used it to create even more unique and dynamic compositions that couldn't have otherwise been created without it.
- danisth, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4double negatives FTW
- Starch, on 04/17/2008, -6/+5true, but I bet Hendrix, for one, would have loved it.
- BrendanSheehan, on 04/17/2008, -4/+10One thing this will lead to is over produced albums. Sometimes not being perfect is better. The Eagles is the perfect example of this. Of the best bands in the world managed to ***** up their most recent album by producing the crap out of it, and killing any edge it would have had.
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 04/17/2008, -1/+48"What doesn't work in theory can still work in reality."
Huh... WHAT?!
My mind has officially been blown.- shark72, on 04/18/2008, -0/+17Well, the fellow's German. There's a German word for stuff that works in reality but not theory: Arbeitenwirklichkeitnichttheorie. Remarkably compact language, that German is.
- manitoba98xp, on 04/18/2008, -0/+14Google returns 0 results for that. Did you just concatenate the German words for working (arbeiten), reality (Wirklichkeit), not (nicht) and theory (Theorie)?
- peterjmag, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Isn't that how the vast majority of German words were created in the first place?
http://courses.csusm.edu/grmn201mh/long%20words.ht ... - Tulle, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Yes, Yes it is.
- shark72, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Yes, I did. You have done an excellent job of explaining the joke -- thanks!
- peterjmag, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Isn't that how the vast majority of German words were created in the first place?
- manitoba98xp, on 04/18/2008, -0/+14Google returns 0 results for that. Did you just concatenate the German words for working (arbeiten), reality (Wirklichkeit), not (nicht) and theory (Theorie)?
- jtxx000, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10What he's saying is that the ideal solution (an algorithm that splits any given audio source into monophonic parts) is impossible to create, but an approximate solution *is* possible.
Think about distorted guitar chords. Since distortion on chords creates many new strange and wonderful harmonics, to successfully deconstruct this type of sound, you would effectively need to undo the distortion, correct the pitch/timing, and then redo the distortion again. There are simply too many types of audio sources to be able to successfully separate all of them. However, they have apparently developed an algorithm that works fairly well for common sources, so their approximate solution is good enough for real-life situations. - anaesthetica, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1It's like Wikipedia: in theory, it would never work, but in reality, it does.
- TheCoreh, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9[citation needed]
- BetterOffEd, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Were bricks shat?
. - fred13snow, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1***** musicians and their drugs...
- shark72, on 04/18/2008, -0/+17Well, the fellow's German. There's a German word for stuff that works in reality but not theory: Arbeitenwirklichkeitnichttheorie. Remarkably compact language, that German is.
- moolaismyfriend, on 04/17/2008, -5/+15When I am in LA doing sessions it is really amazing how much engineers rely on Antares Auto tune. They don't use the auto function though. they switch it to expert mode which then you can tell it what key you are in and then it will analyzing the selected melody and place it on a grid map. You can then use a pencil tool and manually draw in the pitch, adding vibrato, keeping it slightly flat, or slightly sharp, and adding all sorts of "natural" vocal techniques that singer totally ***** up.
Everything you here on the radio has been Antares Auto Tuned in expert mode.
I for one am against this new development mentioned in this article. It will put me out of work because there will be no need for a session musician who has mastered his craft to be paid top dollar for a session when some audiophile with this new plug in can just change everything.- oxygen911, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9I am one of those engineers. I've tuned many a vocal that has been on top 40 radio that you would probably think was never touched by auto-tune.
It's not "expert mode" by the way, it is "graphical mode". The "auto-mode" is the one giving you the "cher effect" when it is turned on stun, also you can hear it in many contemporary hip hop and rnb songs being used as an effect. Literally almost every vocal you hear on the radio has been tuned. Back in the day before auto-tune, engineers would take a vocal, word for word, and put it into a sampler to pitch shift it, then bounce it back to tape.
You can't make someone sound good vocally (that would require changing the formants, although that technology is on it's way as well), but you can put them in key without the listener even being able to hear the tuning going on.
Listening to songs on the radio and thinking you're just listening to a band in a room is like watching a movie and thinking they just put one camera up and filmed everything that was going on. It's just the way it is.
One thing about any pitch correction software is that it works well with clean sources, try tuning a guy with a raspy voice or a distorted guitar and auto-tune/melodyne won't be able to track the pitch because of the 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion. Thats why they didn't highlight it in the video I presume. Still, a very cool step forward in this production tool.- Dubstep, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1You forget that there are people out there who can hear perfect pitches. A voice does not sound natural when it has been tweaked, maybe to the average listener, but to some that distinction draws quite a line.
- jdpalite, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1How does pitch shifting make the pitches any less perfect?
- Dubstep, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1You forget that there are people out there who can hear perfect pitches. A voice does not sound natural when it has been tweaked, maybe to the average listener, but to some that distinction draws quite a line.
- vfreak2, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1But what about changing vibrato notes? Melodyne wouldn't be ale to handle those.
These artificial electronic techniques will always be outside the realm of classical and jazz.
- oxygen911, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9I am one of those engineers. I've tuned many a vocal that has been on top 40 radio that you would probably think was never touched by auto-tune.
- destro713, on 04/17/2008, -3/+41The sound engineer in me says, "neat."
The music appreciator in me runs for his life.- moolaismyfriend, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4I have to agree. i love the tech *****, and all the cool tools you can use in Pro-Tools, but this kind of ability for a post production engineer to essential change the harmonies you played is kind of ***** up.
It's like you go in and you like to have allot of parallel fourth movement in your voicings when you playing piano. And then the engineer is like "***** I can't stand these non resolved chordal movements" and he goes in and drops them all down to thirds!
Just think about the ***** implications of THAT!- Metasquares, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2There's a good chance that would change the harmonic function of most of the chords, though. If you take an F major chord in first inversion and drop the fourth between C and F to a third, you're now looking at an A minor chord in root position. That can completely screw up the piece if you just do it willy-nilly.
One thing that is very possible, of course, (due to all of the rules) is to auto-harmonize using an algorithm, so if you could run an algorithm that does that in conjunction with this thing, you could essentially reharmonize the piece for better voicings. That might be interesting.
- Metasquares, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2There's a good chance that would change the harmonic function of most of the chords, though. If you take an F major chord in first inversion and drop the fourth between C and F to a third, you're now looking at an A minor chord in root position. That can completely screw up the piece if you just do it willy-nilly.
- BrendanSheehan, on 04/17/2008, -2/+8Exactly! Give me Johnny Cash and a ***** six string any day.
- moolaismyfriend, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Why because its real?
No no no. let me take that ***** six string and get you a nice 7000 dollar Martin, and record it through my new Neumon, that I have running through a Neve preamp, and a 1176, thats going through my 24 bit 96 Hrz A to D converters, and then when you get done playing I can go into pro-tools and loop the best parts.
- moolaismyfriend, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Why because its real?
- moolaismyfriend, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4I have to agree. i love the tech *****, and all the cool tools you can use in Pro-Tools, but this kind of ability for a post production engineer to essential change the harmonies you played is kind of ***** up.
- FukUrCouch, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6This is for some people that are not good at playing instruments but think they can create good music. For those who say this is cheating or having less talent well how about you guys try to make music. I guess we have famous composers here on digg that are masters at making music that's why you call it cheating.
- ZiggyPlayedG, on 04/18/2008, -4/+3If you can't play well, then you practice, you don't cheat.
- Dubstep, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Your point might be valid if in fact people used it for that purpose. They don't, for the most part.
- Robbothehood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0Using software to create a guitar sound in stead of using a guitar is cheating, but the composition skills are very real. It just depends on what you really care about.
- Metasquares, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1You can create music without an instrument, and in fact, most people who still refer to themselves as composers do exactly that. (For some reason, the improvisers seem to prefer the term "Songwriter").
- MattL920, on 04/17/2008, -2/+6This has no application to fixing vocal tracks (the technology is already there to make even Paris Hilton sound like she can almost sing, unfortunately). This tech is the same principle for polyphonic instruments (guitar, piano, etc) which previously couldn't be fixed in the same way in post-production. Say what you want about it, it's technically amazing and used well could be an amazing tool for engineers
- Dubstep, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1If used appropriately, however, I fear that too many people are out there to make a dime.
- gregm11, on 04/17/2008, -2/+13Talent is in the CREATION of music. Technology can't replace human creativity.
- Berkana, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Creation of music as in composition, or the performance? Technology can't replace human creativity for composition, but it sure has replaced the need for skill in performance.
- Vorin, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6no it hasn't. live performances today are just as difficult as the past.
- HouseofEl, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1That's under the assumption that they are still performing "live".
- Vorin, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6no it hasn't. live performances today are just as difficult as the past.
- Chordonblue, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Yet...
- Berkana, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Creation of music as in composition, or the performance? Technology can't replace human creativity for composition, but it sure has replaced the need for skill in performance.
- runmaximus, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3The dude in the video is nerdy Jerry Garcia!
- beloitpiper, on 04/17/2008, -4/+6Half of music is the performance of it. What's the point if you can't do it live?
I guess that the plus side is that now pop artists will have more time out of the studio, killing themselves on drugs and drunk driving. - FasmTrout, on 04/17/2008, -1/+10"Hey this demo tape is pretty good. Care to play it live?"
"Wow, gee look at the time. I must get going!"
"But... I..."- Aleman360, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5If you know what the sound is supposed to be, and you have a fast enough processor, you could theoretically do this in real-time (assuming your sound is being electronically amplified).
- geneticlone, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2"example can be heard in Cher’s 1998 hit, 'Believe,'"
noooh :'( cheir is hack, now what do i do with all these cds? - samuraivanity, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4I can't wait to use this with my beamz Music Performance System!
- Cymrubeats, on 04/17/2008, -2/+17The people who criticise tools like this, obviously don't have the first idea about what music production entails.
OK, it'll mean in the pop world that image can take even more of a forward position, over 'talent', but it has always been that way, for the past few decades at least, and it's the consumers who are at fault, no one else. Anyway, garbage in, garbage out, as has already been said...the people who are already creative, will take a tool like this and blow your f*cking mind apart, and i am so looking forward to it! - jaihu, on 04/17/2008, -2/+10While I am the first one to say that *****, TALENT IS UNNECESSARY... i think the video (although edited straight out of the LIFE EXTENSION ad from "Vanilla Sky") is showing very mundane uses for it. Sure "correcting" a guitar is killing the need for talent. But technology like this will breed a new form of talent where amazing artists will be able to use this technology to create ***** you can't even fathom... sounds that wont have any pertinence to reality, but instead take advantage of the technology to take music in a whole new direction. Still, the idiots will kill music's soul by fixing all their mistakes... but somewhere, someone will be making something CRAZY awesome with it. (i.e. auto-tune = britneyspears, but similar technology is involved in vocoding which = daft punk)
- PaulRay, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Best argument I've read here. I showed this vid to a friend of mine who's a pro Jazz musician, he was horrified, but I find myself torn. I think what you're saying makes sense. Daft Punk is a good example, or Gorillaz, Moby, The Mutaytor. Fat Boy Slim.
The tool doesn't make the art, the artist does. Sure people will make crap with this, but people make crap with the tools we have now. It just makes good music that much more precious. - Peynis, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Does this mean people will use computers to electronically create sounds that sound nothing like any acoustic instrument there is?
What an exciting new concept!
- PaulRay, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Best argument I've read here. I showed this vid to a friend of mine who's a pro Jazz musician, he was horrified, but I find myself torn. I think what you're saying makes sense. Daft Punk is a good example, or Gorillaz, Moby, The Mutaytor. Fat Boy Slim.
- hmac, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3They claim that you "couldn't tell the difference" in terms of sound quality, and while that may be true, as a guitarist, some of the "edited" chords would be impossible to play with the human hand, and therefore I would have trouble listening to anything like that as a musician. I'm sure I'm not alone.
- Aleman360, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3The idea applies to more than just guitars.
- Cymrubeats, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3You aren't alone, as it shows you don't have an open mind (just as the majority here don't either.)
- SatansSpatula, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3I think it probably goes more to show the difference between highly skilled, highly attuned people, versus the rest of us. I have great ears, but I don't know jack about playing music, so I'll never notice an "impossible" chord. But I can appreciate how wrenching it might be to the musically trained ear of a long-time guitarist.
An ex-gf was a life-long pianist and it simply wasn't possible for her to listen to music in the background. Her mind would *always* be processing and analyzing anything musical around her. It was pretty badass. Annoying as hell, but badass.
- SatansSpatula, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3I think it probably goes more to show the difference between highly skilled, highly attuned people, versus the rest of us. I have great ears, but I don't know jack about playing music, so I'll never notice an "impossible" chord. But I can appreciate how wrenching it might be to the musically trained ear of a long-time guitarist.
- Metasquares, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1If it's outside of the range of the instrument, sure, it sounds weird, but simply being too much of a stretch doesn't faze me. What about pieces with more than one of the same instrument? They already employ such things.
- CrimsonFlash, on 04/17/2008, -1/+8This is the girl that did the music for the video. Nina Deli.
http://www.myspace.com/ninadeli- Linh, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1blast myspace, she doesn't have it set to download.. nor anything on her site.
- ZiggyPlayedG, on 04/17/2008, -9/+3And till the end of time, this day will be remembered as the day music died...
- Berkana, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3No, it will be the day skill in the performer died; skill has been outsourced to the after-processing team. This is the day music was re-born.
Now, any idiot can be a pop star, at least in recordings. Live performances will attain a new level of appreciation and value. (Or if not, they will simply be ignored for the superior recordings.) - CTK14A, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5I believe that was February 3, 1959.
- Berkana, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3No, it will be the day skill in the performer died; skill has been outsourced to the after-processing team. This is the day music was re-born.
- chall85, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3Now pop music can be even more boring!
- ArthurSucks, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2"Thank you NASA!"
- Jibberish, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1"yvan eht nioj"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OORs9IQolQ
- Jibberish, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1"yvan eht nioj"
- powatom, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Yes, people will use this to be lazy. Just like they use Auto-Tune now. And if you don't like the music produced with it, don't ***** listen to it. Go out and see a band. I'll still be making my own music. If you buy me a drink I might even sing you a song. It is still incredible technology, and will improve other areas of sound engineering / production / whatever than just music.
- jmob, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5I'm very excited about this. I'm actually more excited to see how it interprets full tracks. I'm guessing that the mistakes the program makes will sound awesome.
- Starch, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I can't even wrap my mind around how this is even possible. If (and that's a BIG if) this software works as promised it won't bring down the music business, it will simply save time in the studio.
- mattmy, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2i look at sound as an artform rather than music.... atleast what i do; as a non-musician this opens up my editing to a completely different level of *****
- edocronian, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2"Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
- subterfuge, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3the future of remixing
- JMulert, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2Now I really won't feel guilty when ( I mean If) I download music. I have no problem forking out for a live show, but when someone walks into a studio and all they have to do is read through the piece in monotone! You gotta be kidding me, no way would I pay for that! On the other hand I could really cut back on expenses if I make all my violins now with just one string.
- freezeout, on 04/17/2008, -7/+2I've played around with this software and no, it will not completely change music, in fact it won't change anything at all.
- vibrate, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1agreed
most of the people whining in this thread have clearly never dabbled in music production.
All this does is let you be more creative - it removes restraints. It doesnt help you have ideas, or give you a good ear, or aid in song writing, mixing or mastering. Its just allows composers to do things which previously would have required more studio time, or time-stretching / pitch shifting in samplers, which usually sounds very obvious. People complained when Cubase was first released saying it meant anyone could make music, and before that the four-track was viewed with suspicion. Move with the times people. Good music will still be good music, no matter how it's made. - BSeffrood, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6yeah I'm sure you've "played around with this software" considering it is not even available yet
- Peynis, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Given this software works properly, it'll allow you to extract any sample, any instrumental track and any vocal track from any song ever released. How could this NOT change anything at all?
- vibrate, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1agreed
- epithius, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6Let's see what it can do with a Slayer song; THEN I'll be impressed
- CTK14A, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3If this thing can turn Slayer into bossa nova, I will definitely be impressed.
- joeanon, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1Hopefully musicians don't resort to EVEN more artificial sounds.
Bands like Slayer use tube amplifies not the popular and cheaper digital amps that many hobbyist musicians use.
Same goes for recording, digital is easier, but analog still sounds better.
- joeanon, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1Hopefully musicians don't resort to EVEN more artificial sounds.
- squigglycircle, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0In order to pick out the pitch in a song, the song would have to have pitch first. At least the growling will be pretty hard to decipher for this sw...
But in any case, I was jaw-dropped. The possibilities, oh, the possibilities...
- CTK14A, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3If this thing can turn Slayer into bossa nova, I will definitely be impressed.
- jimmoses, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3I wonder how it works. It's extremely impressive. I am half inclined to think it's a hoax.
- hawk3210, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Nope. It's real. It is simply a more in-depth and sophisticated version of single note "auto-tune."
- cloneenolc, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Fast Fourier transform:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFT - DigitAl56K, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Melodyne has been around for a long time, as have some similar apps, like v-Vocal. Last time I tried Melodyne though it crashed like there was no tomorrow.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by