Even if the access is there, can you justify access to mainstream channels in order to promote non-mainstream products? Things like TV advertising are always going to be expensive but can be justified for something with mass appeal. What's a technical death metal artist supposed to do? Of course, the specialist channels are just as crowded...
The inspiration for music can be completely unrelated to how people actually relate to it and the effect it has. However, a little inspiration does generally help if you're trying to create a masterpiece.
This looks suspiciously like the kind of post that can be backed out of claiming it was a 'joke', while still acting to further a harmful myth. Are you saying that miserable people cannot make wonderful music, or are you saying that the best music has to be positive? Or something else? There are just too many counter-examples out there but I'd hate to use the wrong one...
That's not really a great feat. A huge amount of study has gone into Bach's style over the years. Any music composition course can teach you how to emulate Bach.
(Of course, if Bach was around today he'd be working on something totally different. That doesn't mean the study is not valuable.)
It's not even that niche; it's common enough with professional/prosumer music software that a lot of manufacturers use the same dongle. This does avoid the problem of needing a couple of USB hubs just to authorise all of your plug-ins... Yes, it's crackable, and yes, you are screwed if you lose your dongle.
Sounds like a laugh. I was already considering starting a band called "Smile", which only plays songs with the title "Lily Allen". Should give somebody somewhere some fun ammunition...
Democracy should logically result in applying the will of the majority. If something only hurts a minority, it is entirely possible the majority will simply ignore it, however unjust. e.g. uk extreme porn legislation. In this case, the government could pass a clearly discriminating law for the sake of a few good headlines. That's not an 'implementation' issue.
Excellent point. Independent producers often develop their own sound, which may sound lifeless until you TURN IT UP on a reasonable system. Just because something doesn't sound commercial doesn't have to mean it doesn't sound good - just might take getting used to!
(what do you do when you decide you want some background sounds from a symphony orchestra? Use a synth? the record labels would pay out for the real thing if you wanted it).
Easy. You'd use this or this or this or even this. If it's just "background sounds" what makes you so sure you could tell the difference? Good arrangement is much more important than virtuous playing. More professionals are using this stuff than you think. A sensible producer would certainly think twice before booking an orchestra if it isn't going to add anything.
That was also my reaction to the video on Apple's front page. This is a device which is excellent for surfing the web and consuming content, but not so good for making a contribution. Seems to be building a divide in: "This is my device for creating, this is my device for consuming. Most people don't need the first one." There's a nice symmetry about a laptop where about the same amount of space is dedicated to input and output. I don't think they're planning to quit making conventional computers anytime soon, or that people are planning to stop using them, but it's a bit disheartening when you consider that Apple used to have a reputation as tools for creativity.
On top of that the playing technique for a slow synth pad (requiring anticipation) is considerably different from playing a percussive part, which is different again from playing a monophonic part. (Only one note can play at a time, but there is art to the style of legato playing and retriggering. I like to play with the rate notes are moving to each other as well, throwing in another factor.) Attempting to recreate instruments like guitar and flute on a synthesiser requires some understanding of the real instrument's playing techniques, and good use of controllers to incorporate these (such as applying pressure to keys to add vibrato.)
As a result of this I am a little exasperated every time somebody combines a few existing controllers, maybe with some software to tie it all together, and it is hailed as an exciting "new instrument". MIDI has changed what that means. Yes, this looks fun. I am suitably amused/impressed that it runs linux. Other than that it doesn't seem like a huge deal. I'd rather have this.
As long as you weren't wanting to give a guitar performance:
With this, the right hand gains options, and you actually lose options with the left hand. On a guitar the left hand provides fretting, bending, vibrato, harmonics, muting and probably more techniques that I don't know about. Triggering all the notes at the same time is also limiting as it rules out sweeping and slow strumming. To actually give a performance that's expressive in the same way a guitar is you're going to have to fill the touch pad with different regions controlling different kinds of expressive playing. Not ideal.
That's not to say this doesn't look like a great toy, a cross between instruments being used by a couple of well-known bands at the moment.
An interesting debate, but I don't think Rage Against The Machine are a great example. The music is partially driven by their technical virtuosity - you really do have to be able to play guitar and use effects like Tom Morello to come up with some the elements of their songs. The actual sounds are pretty important for this style. And there aren't many metal bands that happen to have a singer that can rap. While the band can certainly do a good cover (see their version of "Maggie's farm"), it requires considerable creative input. While there is nothing wrong with having good songwriters and good performers, music would be considerably poorer if we didn't encourage people to pursue both.
The best thing for a good songwriter who isn't a performer is to team up with a strong performer and write material that will suit them. See Guy Chambers/Robbie Williams. It's far from unheard-of in rock for the main songwriter in a band to hide behind some keyboards or a guitar; let the frontman and lead guitarist do the flashy stuff.
They are already compressed to a maximum volume. The result is that the amplitude of the waves is higher on average, so they SOUND louder. I sincerely doubt the actual peaks are any higher. You would have to regulate based on an average amplitude (root mean square is good), and then they'd just start clipping the signal at key moments. The flip side is that when you do turn down something that's been heavily compressed/limited, it sounds much worse than if they'd just left it at something sensible, so if this could be implemented the previous techniques would really backfire on advertisers,:-D
I can't resist the urge to combine both of those points! Please mod me off-topic as appropriate...
Yesterday (I think) they played a song called 'Monster' by a band called The Automatic. Thanks to the joys of loudness-war mastering, followed by the massive amount of compression applied by radio stations, the enormous exciting chorus was made noticably quieter than the verses. This completely killed what is, for me, the song's main strength. However, for the last chorus they go one better, and have an a cappella (voices only) drop just before the last (huge) chorus. The reason you briefly drop the instruments is to allow the listener to appreciate the magnitude of the chorus when it all comes crashing back in. This line of unsupported vocals was the loudest part of the song, and the chorus sounded timid by comparison. You go, radio engineers!
An intriguing idea, but if the sole purpose is to block out background noise, I expect earplugs would be sufficient. I don't like the idea of 'tiring' my ears with constant noise all day at a higher level than surrounding noise.
I like the idea of using repetitive dance music, as that can be very listenable and of good 'quality' without having too much distracting complexity.
To be honest I find find something slightly perverse and insulting about the concept of 'background music'. I imagine painters feel the same way about people putting meaningless soothing abstracts in office corridors. It's not there to discuss or appreciate, just there because it seems appropriate and keeps people happy.
Of course this affects everyone differently. (I'm an engineer, not a programmer, but much the same issues should apply.) I actually can't really 'tune out' music any more: maybe I could in the past, but since I started writing and producing in my spare time I can't help but analyse EVERY piece of music I hear. Regardless of its actual merit. One long day of working in a lab with Radio 1 on in the background pretty much made me hate the world. Even at my desk where I can listen to my own choice of music, I only listen to music if doing something repetitive and mundane - I can't solve problems when I'm thinking about how well the bass part fits around the drums. It's a bit of a curse: similarly, I know enough about the art of magic that I don't enjoy bad magicians any more, but enjoy the good ones all the more!
That said, I think I can make my own decisions about what will distract me and what won't, and be responsible for the quality of my work. Some people will be more distracted than they think - I guess the danger is that it's difficult to tell if this is the cause of somebody's poor productivity. Tricky one.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the access is there, can you justify access to mainstream channels in order to promote non-mainstream products? Things like TV advertising are always going to be expensive but can be justified for something with mass appeal. What's a technical death metal artist supposed to do? Of course, the specialist channels are just as crowded...
Fair enough.
The inspiration for music can be completely unrelated to how people actually relate to it and the effect it has. However, a little inspiration does generally help if you're trying to create a masterpiece.
This looks suspiciously like the kind of post that can be backed out of claiming it was a 'joke', while still acting to further a harmful myth. Are you saying that miserable people cannot make wonderful music, or are you saying that the best music has to be positive? Or something else? There are just too many counter-examples out there but I'd hate to use the wrong one...
"Death Plays BrokeNCYDE"
There has to be an upper bound to this...
That's not really a great feat. A huge amount of study has gone into Bach's style over the years. Any music composition course can teach you how to emulate Bach.
(Of course, if Bach was around today he'd be working on something totally different. That doesn't mean the study is not valuable.)
Great. On top of everything else, record contracts now offer "protection".
Please elaborate on the farming methods which could achieve this, and how long that energy supply would last.
It's not even that niche; it's common enough with professional/prosumer music software that a lot of manufacturers use the same dongle. This does avoid the problem of needing a couple of USB hubs just to authorise all of your plug-ins... Yes, it's crackable, and yes, you are screwed if you lose your dongle.
Perhaps, of the two, he preferred the tape recorder? I would.
Sounds like a laugh. I was already considering starting a band called "Smile", which only plays songs with the title "Lily Allen". Should give somebody somewhere some fun ammunition...
Democracy should logically result in applying the will of the majority. If something only hurts a minority, it is entirely possible the majority will simply ignore it, however unjust. e.g. uk extreme porn legislation. In this case, the government could pass a clearly discriminating law for the sake of a few good headlines. That's not an 'implementation' issue.
Awesome. That makes this pretty much as old as recorded sound; and I'm sure somebody found it with a tuning fork long before that.
Excellent point. Independent producers often develop their own sound, which may sound lifeless until you TURN IT UP on a reasonable system. Just because something doesn't sound commercial doesn't have to mean it doesn't sound good - just might take getting used to!
(what do you do when you decide you want some background sounds from a symphony orchestra? Use a synth? the record labels would pay out for the real thing if you wanted it).
Easy. You'd use this or this or this or even this. If it's just "background sounds" what makes you so sure you could tell the difference? Good arrangement is much more important than virtuous playing. More professionals are using this stuff than you think. A sensible producer would certainly think twice before booking an orchestra if it isn't going to add anything.
It got messy.
That was also my reaction to the video on Apple's front page. This is a device which is excellent for surfing the web and consuming content, but not so good for making a contribution. Seems to be building a divide in: "This is my device for creating, this is my device for consuming. Most people don't need the first one." There's a nice symmetry about a laptop where about the same amount of space is dedicated to input and output. I don't think they're planning to quit making conventional computers anytime soon, or that people are planning to stop using them, but it's a bit disheartening when you consider that Apple used to have a reputation as tools for creativity.
Didn't realise there was a 64Gb iPhone...
Of course. As far as I'm concerned any MIDI controller + any synthesiser patch = a new instrument. Different weights of keys demand different playing technique, as well as 'alternative' controllers such as the haken continuum, axis series (based on harmonic tables), MIDI theremins, electronic wind instruments, various silly keyboard/guitar hybrids, guitars with hexaphonic pickups, pad controllers, handheld wands and all manner of magic touch surfaces.
On top of that the playing technique for a slow synth pad (requiring anticipation) is considerably different from playing a percussive part, which is different again from playing a monophonic part. (Only one note can play at a time, but there is art to the style of legato playing and retriggering. I like to play with the rate notes are moving to each other as well, throwing in another factor.) Attempting to recreate instruments like guitar and flute on a synthesiser requires some understanding of the real instrument's playing techniques, and good use of controllers to incorporate these (such as applying pressure to keys to add vibrato.)
As a result of this I am a little exasperated every time somebody combines a few existing controllers, maybe with some software to tie it all together, and it is hailed as an exciting "new instrument". MIDI has changed what that means. Yes, this looks fun. I am suitably amused/impressed that it runs linux. Other than that it doesn't seem like a huge deal. I'd rather have this.
As long as you weren't wanting to give a guitar performance:
With this, the right hand gains options, and you actually lose options with the left hand. On a guitar the left hand provides fretting, bending, vibrato, harmonics, muting and probably more techniques that I don't know about. Triggering all the notes at the same time is also limiting as it rules out sweeping and slow strumming. To actually give a performance that's expressive in the same way a guitar is you're going to have to fill the touch pad with different regions controlling different kinds of expressive playing. Not ideal.
That's not to say this doesn't look like a great toy, a cross between instruments being used by a couple of well-known bands at the moment.
Depends on your production values. We've been trained to demand expensive special effects and audio mastering. It may be easier to change our demands.
An interesting debate, but I don't think Rage Against The Machine are a great example. The music is partially driven by their technical virtuosity - you really do have to be able to play guitar and use effects like Tom Morello to come up with some the elements of their songs. The actual sounds are pretty important for this style. And there aren't many metal bands that happen to have a singer that can rap. While the band can certainly do a good cover (see their version of "Maggie's farm"), it requires considerable creative input. While there is nothing wrong with having good songwriters and good performers, music would be considerably poorer if we didn't encourage people to pursue both.
The best thing for a good songwriter who isn't a performer is to team up with a strong performer and write material that will suit them. See Guy Chambers/Robbie Williams. It's far from unheard-of in rock for the main songwriter in a band to hide behind some keyboards or a guitar; let the frontman and lead guitarist do the flashy stuff.
They are already compressed to a maximum volume. The result is that the amplitude of the waves is higher on average, so they SOUND louder. I sincerely doubt the actual peaks are any higher. You would have to regulate based on an average amplitude (root mean square is good), and then they'd just start clipping the signal at key moments. The flip side is that when you do turn down something that's been heavily compressed/limited, it sounds much worse than if they'd just left it at something sensible, so if this could be implemented the previous techniques would really backfire on advertisers, :-D
I can't resist the urge to combine both of those points! Please mod me off-topic as appropriate...
Yesterday (I think) they played a song called 'Monster' by a band called The Automatic. Thanks to the joys of loudness-war mastering, followed by the massive amount of compression applied by radio stations, the enormous exciting chorus was made noticably quieter than the verses. This completely killed what is, for me, the song's main strength. However, for the last chorus they go one better, and have an a cappella (voices only) drop just before the last (huge) chorus. The reason you briefly drop the instruments is to allow the listener to appreciate the magnitude of the chorus when it all comes crashing back in. This line of unsupported vocals was the loudest part of the song, and the chorus sounded timid by comparison. You go, radio engineers!
An intriguing idea, but if the sole purpose is to block out background noise, I expect earplugs would be sufficient. I don't like the idea of 'tiring' my ears with constant noise all day at a higher level than surrounding noise.
I like the idea of using repetitive dance music, as that can be very listenable and of good 'quality' without having too much distracting complexity.
To be honest I find find something slightly perverse and insulting about the concept of 'background music'. I imagine painters feel the same way about people putting meaningless soothing abstracts in office corridors. It's not there to discuss or appreciate, just there because it seems appropriate and keeps people happy.
Of course this affects everyone differently. (I'm an engineer, not a programmer, but much the same issues should apply.) I actually can't really 'tune out' music any more: maybe I could in the past, but since I started writing and producing in my spare time I can't help but analyse EVERY piece of music I hear. Regardless of its actual merit. One long day of working in a lab with Radio 1 on in the background pretty much made me hate the world. Even at my desk where I can listen to my own choice of music, I only listen to music if doing something repetitive and mundane - I can't solve problems when I'm thinking about how well the bass part fits around the drums. It's a bit of a curse: similarly, I know enough about the art of magic that I don't enjoy bad magicians any more, but enjoy the good ones all the more!
That said, I think I can make my own decisions about what will distract me and what won't, and be responsible for the quality of my work. Some people will be more distracted than they think - I guess the danger is that it's difficult to tell if this is the cause of somebody's poor productivity. Tricky one.