Slashdot Mirror
Dictionaraoke - Fair-Use meets Karaoke
stu42j writes "NPR's On the Media today interview's David Dixon from Dictionaraoke.com where 'A group of fair-use artists have created songs using the spoken pronunciation guides of words in online dictionaries. The result is an entertaining blend of computerized music and monotone singing.'"
A much better project would be a neural network system that takes the entire works of Led Zeppelin and J.R.R. Tolkien as input, and provides us with some amazing new fantasy rock as output.
I have determined that every Led Zeppelin tune can be interpretted in terms of Tolkien's Middle Earth with little difficulty. Please post challenges here.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
here's the official list of mirrors
http://dictionaraoke.mirrors.gweep.net/
.cig - what you do after winning a good flame war
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious = Super+california+fragmentation+holistic+expiration +alien+doctor+ferocious?
Ceci n'est pas une sig
The result is an entertaining blend of computerized music and monotone singing.
Can you spot the word that doesn't belong?
I have been pwned because my
Oh yeah, I remember hearing one of their computerized, monotone songs a few years ago. They did get all the pronunciation right but they messed up on the grammar a bit. I think they called it "All Your Base."
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
The thought of monotone lyrics made me think of redoing the complete catalog of music from a particular subset of musicians and call the results "Boy Blands" but I can't find MMMM-BOP in the dictionary.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Or does this sound like William Shatner "singing"?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Sorry, I tried a song (at the mirror!) but the result comes nowhere near The Mighty Stephen Hawking.
I'm surprised nobody's really picked up on this -- the radio interviewer even disregarded it ("Putting aside the politics, insert smarky comment here").
It does call into question the nature of copyright, once you break something down to its core elements. The reason why MIDI was used? Because it's a mathematical representation of a string of notes, rather than a copy of an actual copyrighted performance of those notes. The reason why dictionary samples were used instead of a better synthesizer? Well, think about this: are the sampled words copyrighted? The dictionary sites they were lifted from could claim copyright, but do they really own the rights to a sound bite of a proununciation of an english word? What if I recorded myself saying it? What if you take their recordings and make sentences, who owns the rights then, the composer/assembler or the dictionary or what?
I LOVE how jumbled the legal issues get surrounding this. Of course, I'm sure the RIAA will get them shut down ASAP to prove they own the right to every aspect of our culture, including our own commentary upon that culture.
Actually, there are two copyrighted elements which need to be considered. The original sheet music which lists the notes that make up the song will have a copyright and separate performance right, which is probably violated by making a MIDI file and distributing it without consent ("reverse engineering" them from another performance won't exempt you). The original lyrics are also copyrighted and can't be reproduced for wide distribution (even as a vocal transformation) without consent.
www.lyrics.ch ran into this problem a few years back. They were shut down for a year or more as they sought permission from the various copyright holders and repackaged the lyrics in a "secure" format.
I don't think the legal issues are really all that jumbled. It's just a question of whether a parody of this form qualifies as a "fair use".
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
First, computer-generated singing from MIDI files can be done better. Listen to Festival Singer, from the Oregon Graduate University of Science and Technology, which is in turn based on a speech system from the University of Edinburgh. It's still not that great, but progress is being made. They're approaching the garage-band level.
More components are needed to make computer-generated music more human-like. Some of that work has been done. The Media Lab system for Expressive Performance Extraction takes in a MIDI file and an audio recording of piano music, and builds a model of the performer's expression. This model can then be used with other MIDI files to mimic the specific pianist.
The next big step is to do that for singers.
The goal is to have a system where you put in a MIDI file, lyrics, performer and singer models, and push start. Out comes a performance that sounds like a good backup band.
Because the music industry likes to have the option to replace performers, copyright law doesn't prevent doing this on popular music. You only have to pay a modest statutory royalty to the original songwriter.
Once this works, it could make a real dent in the music industry. Performers could go the way of orators. People would still go to live performances, but we could dispense with much of the recorded music industry.