By the way, the video only says he doesn't play drums or piano. I watched another video of his, and he credits himself with the guitar and harmonica playing in the background. So he's not some freak of nature that never played an instrument before and then one day, out of nowhere, composed a piece of classical-sytled musique concrète on video.
He does use the hi-hat. And he has an excellent ear for music - sure, it has a choppy sound as a result of being, as you say, micro-sampled, but there are harmonies and chord progressions in there that are prettier than what a lot of "real" musicians come up with in their entire lives. To top it all off he displays a self-effacing sense of humor about the whole thing.
So, this is a HUGE step beyond player pianos. We can replicate old recordings and (GASP!) re-record them using modern methods, saving old lost tapes, making old recordings available in SACD and DVD-Audio.
I don't know if this is how these "replications" will be presented to the public, but it's not correct to refer to them as if they are restorations of old tapes. Certainly it's a lot closer to a restoration than, for example, bringing in someone else to play the material, because of the exactly matched timing and dynamics. But there are obviously going to be slight timbral differences, and significant phase difference, between the sound of the instrument originally recorded, and the instrument producing the sound in the present.
That said, once something is marketed a certain way, people begin to accept the new definition of the word. Remember when "3D" meant stereoscopic? Or when "remix" meant mixing again from the original multitrack tape?
Kind of like when Casio did a line of synthesizers for the pro musician market. I'm, like, one of the ten people that ever bought them, and I found myself covering the name brand up with various stickers... you just could not break that association with little toy keyboards for grandma with built in speakers and one finger accompaniment.
I don't think the "look vs. music" thing is the problem; music has always been associated with visual imagery in one form or another (think album covers, etc.)... I think there's just an enormous aesthetic gap between great and creative things that active audiences seek out, and the stuff that push-marketers devise to shove down the collective throat of the larger passive audiences.
Then the way to really bring this to a boil is to create a programming language identical to common human speech, such that any comment your next door neighbor utters can be interpeted, compiled, and executed by a computer.
I'm sure this will be every bit as successful and popular as the brilliant plan back in the late 80s to apply a notch filter (in an *audible* frequency band, no less) to all commercial CDs, and then have all DAT machines automatically stop recording whenever that frequency is *not* detected. Not only would the sound of all commercial music be affected, but if your own privately-made music happened to lack energy in that frequency band your DAT recorder would automatically shut off. Nice, eh?
My definition of "tolerance of other cultures" does not include tolerance of a government's INTOLERANCE (oppression) of its own people. Those of you repeatedly posting "we should respect their right to live the way THEY want" don't seem to realize that maybe the women don't WANT to be murdered. If a country is not free, then how can you consider its laws to be an extension of the mindset or culture of its people?
Government and culture are not the same thing.
It may not be difficult for a given individual to take the initiative to tune out the noise, so no, on that level you are correct. The problem comes in when you are trying to market something and need the attention of a buying public. The problem is worsened when the society around you is rewarded (with attention) for being tacky and scandalous while those innovating and performing great deeds are ignored.
To a certain extent, we need to be able to attract other people's attention in order to survive. Some people are addicted to other people's attention, and do everything possible to attract far more of it than they need, which means those of us merely trying to survive will have to fight harder. Think of the obscene extremes to which we would have to go to compete with Microsoft, Hollywood, the "big five" record labels, and so on; for most of us this prospect is like cleaning the Eiffel Tower with a toothbrush.
*You* can just mute the TV and walk away. *I* can just mute the TV and walk away. But how does it affect you that everyone else won't?
You're correct that it's impossible to increase *actual* resolution, but in the cases of art and music it's often quite desirable to *simulate* increased resolution. Much is done with lo-fi music to enhance the perceived high frequencies to make it more pleasing to the ear, though this doesn't restore actual high frequency information lost from the original performance.
I would assume similar principles are applied to visual art in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who can't technical, legal.
;)
Yes, I verbed two adjectives in that sentence. Lawsuit me.
He's just not a skilled instrumentalist.
By the way, the video only says he doesn't play drums or piano. I watched another video of his, and he credits himself with the guitar and harmonica playing in the background. So he's not some freak of nature that never played an instrument before and then one day, out of nowhere, composed a piece of classical-sytled musique concrète on video.
Sorry if that sucks some of the magic out of it!
He does use the hi-hat. And he has an excellent ear for music - sure, it has a choppy sound as a result of being, as you say, micro-sampled, but there are harmonies and chord progressions in there that are prettier than what a lot of "real" musicians come up with in their entire lives. To top it all off he displays a self-effacing sense of humor about the whole thing.
-an actual musician.
So, this is a HUGE step beyond player pianos. We can replicate old recordings and (GASP!) re-record them using modern methods, saving old lost tapes, making old recordings available in SACD and DVD-Audio.
I don't know if this is how these "replications" will be presented to the public, but it's not correct to refer to them as if they are restorations of old tapes. Certainly it's a lot closer to a restoration than, for example, bringing in someone else to play the material, because of the exactly matched timing and dynamics. But there are obviously going to be slight timbral differences, and significant phase difference, between the sound of the instrument originally recorded, and the instrument producing the sound in the present.
That said, once something is marketed a certain way, people begin to accept the new definition of the word. Remember when "3D" meant stereoscopic? Or when "remix" meant mixing again from the original multitrack tape?
I mistook the title to mean "Linux has fewer bugs than it has rivals" ...
While children with more limited access to computers are more forced to get there work done and get off
I don't think they're forced to do that!
Never underestimate how knowledgeable you can become by watching a movie. ;)
If the unicorns are invisible, then how can they be pink?
Kind of like when Casio did a line of synthesizers for the pro musician market. I'm, like, one of the ten people that ever bought them, and I found myself covering the name brand up with various stickers ... you just could not break that association with little toy keyboards for grandma with built in speakers and one finger accompaniment.
This is, hands down, the worst "+4" I've ever seen.
I don't think the "look vs. music" thing is the problem; music has always been associated with visual imagery in one form or another (think album covers, etc.) ... I think there's just an enormous aesthetic gap between great and creative things that active audiences seek out, and the stuff that push-marketers devise to shove down the collective throat of the larger passive audiences.
If you were paraphrasing Pink Floyd it would have been something like "Ought I to have faith in the government, mom?"
I can't imagine enjoying trying to type on something I can't feel.
Then the way to really bring this to a boil is to create a programming language identical to common human speech, such that any comment your next door neighbor utters can be interpeted, compiled, and executed by a computer.
I'm sure this will be every bit as successful and popular as the brilliant plan back in the late 80s to apply a notch filter (in an *audible* frequency band, no less) to all commercial CDs, and then have all DAT machines automatically stop recording whenever that frequency is *not* detected. Not only would the sound of all commercial music be affected, but if your own privately-made music happened to lack energy in that frequency band your DAT recorder would automatically shut off. Nice, eh?
My definition of "tolerance of other cultures" does not include tolerance of a government's INTOLERANCE (oppression) of its own people. Those of you repeatedly posting "we should respect their right to live the way THEY want" don't seem to realize that maybe the women don't WANT to be murdered. If a country is not free, then how can you consider its laws to be an extension of the mindset or culture of its people? Government and culture are not the same thing.
It may not be difficult for a given individual to take the initiative to tune out the noise, so no, on that level you are correct. The problem comes in when you are trying to market something and need the attention of a buying public. The problem is worsened when the society around you is rewarded (with attention) for being tacky and scandalous while those innovating and performing great deeds are ignored. To a certain extent, we need to be able to attract other people's attention in order to survive. Some people are addicted to other people's attention, and do everything possible to attract far more of it than they need, which means those of us merely trying to survive will have to fight harder. Think of the obscene extremes to which we would have to go to compete with Microsoft, Hollywood, the "big five" record labels, and so on; for most of us this prospect is like cleaning the Eiffel Tower with a toothbrush. *You* can just mute the TV and walk away. *I* can just mute the TV and walk away. But how does it affect you that everyone else won't?
You're correct that it's impossible to increase *actual* resolution, but in the cases of art and music it's often quite desirable to *simulate* increased resolution. Much is done with lo-fi music to enhance the perceived high frequencies to make it more pleasing to the ear, though this doesn't restore actual high frequency information lost from the original performance. I would assume similar principles are applied to visual art in this case.
Whether you use a computer or not is irrelevant. The art comes from the person.
I don't quite get the "pac-man" analogy, but Bill and his boys are definitely space invaders.