Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 7th Sep 2010 10:25 UTC
Multimedia, AV Every so often we publish here at OSNews articles about copyright, about the war of the "old media" establishment against everyone else. Many, myself included, have argued that the way to get out of this mess -- short of changing the law -- is to have more artists release their work under a Creative Commons license. However, after a few years it became obvious to me that CC would never be able to change the industry all by itself. Offering a Free license, and having 30,000 albums released under it, was still not enough. Until the Summer of 2009, that is. Update: Added audio samples.
Thread beginning with comment 439647
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Computer generated music
by xiaokj on Tue 7th Sep 2010 10:53 UTC
xiaokj
Member since:
2005-06-30

I mostly listen (almost only) to classical pieces.

The best system out there for typesetting music is lilypond. Since the music is already typeset electronically (a bit like LaTeX), why not simply convert that, via the computer, into midi?

Those who have heard lilypond renditions of classical pieces, you are entitled to weep now.

However, I heard that they are having much progress in the area of human speech synthesis. It sounds so good in songs it actually can fool the observer. I hope whatever genre you mean is going to be at least as good as that, not the generated sounds lilypond->midi makes.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Computer generated music
by Eugenia on Tue 7th Sep 2010 10:58 in reply to "Computer generated music"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

These are different genres. Different genres requires different instrumentation and human interaction. For classical, you must have a human play the instruments. Just like for classical painting you had to be super-precise, and paint in photographic-quality

But for chillwave, just like with Impressionism, it's the overall impression that counts. With enough filters you can hide the fact that it's a computer that made that music, and make it sound natural (for the genre).

Reply Parent Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I don't mean to sound rude, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

Electronic music isn't about trying to accurately synth real instruments. If a artist needs a real guitar then they'll bring in a session guitarist to record. The point of electronic music is that it doesn't sound like a traditional pub band or classical orchestra. If you want that kind of music, then listen to any one of the millions of bands struggling to make a name or any number of up and coming musicians that play free performances at your local church / cathedral or town fate. There's plenty of quality music out there that's not electronic music and is also free to attend.

Now lets address my issues with your article:

While software to synthesize music has existed for many years, either its actual audio and production quality was low, or the created music had little musical value. Techno and trance music for example had remained a Euro-thing mostly, and never took off with most music critics. Besides, techno/trance was also very commercial in nature from the get go.

Yes, Scooter and Ian Van Dahl are pop, but that's not to say that techno and trance are commercial. Quite the opposite in fact.
And more over, being a DJ and producer of (and for want a better term) "underground" dance music, I can safely say there is a lot of highly advanced production going into techno and trance. Take Speedy J for example - his stuff dwarfs anything played on the radio. Sure, his sound wont be to everyones taste, but that only goes to further prove my previous point about dance music not being a commercial sound.

You also talk about dance as if it's just your new fangled genre and techno and trance. It really isn't. Theres, breaks, DnB, electro, house, hardhouse, hardcore and about a million varieties of music within each of those. Theres IDM which gives you the likes of Aphex Twin and Squarepusher. Again, anything but commercial yet hugely technical music. In fact Thom Yorke credits Squarepusher and Aphex Twin as two of his influences in Radioheads sound post OK Computer. These artists also pioneered many of the sounds used commonly in music these days (such as the digital glitching effect)

Chillwave on the other hand is different. It's a new genre, with a nostalgic, somewhat sad sound. It's grass roots, sprouting after audio software has matured in the recent years. Nothing like this existed before, and so the music blogs took notice! Within a few months they hailed chillwave as the next big thing in music.

Having been an audiophile for a great many years, it's very very rare that I hear a "new" genre. Usually it's just taking an old sound and modernising it a little. Unfortunately I can't view the clips you loaded (I assume they were clips) as the embedded pages in your article are blocked at work. However I am highly skeptical that you're new discovery isn't just a re-branding of an existing genre as happens on a regular basis within dance music. I'm interested to hear what this brings to the table that isn't already done by any of these 10+ years ago (suggested bands in brackets):
* IDM (Boards of Canada, Royksopp),
* Trip-Hop (Portishead),
* Chillout / Leftfield (The Orb, Leftfield)
* Brokenbeat (not really to familiar with the artists in this genre)
* EBM (Front 242, Nitzer Ebb)
* Electronica (Love and Rockets later stuff, Radiohead's Kid A and Amnesia)
* Electro (Kraftwork)
* or more recently, Dubstep.


I get sick and tired about hearing people passing comment about a massive scene of music when they clearly have little exposure to the music.

</rant>

Edited 2010-09-07 13:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

For classical, you must have a human play the instruments.


I wouldn't count on it:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Broadway_sings_blues_over_synthes...

I welcome this development - it should make it considerably cheaper to create large productions, bringing more "live" art music to the masses.

Reply Parent Score: 2

SteveNordquist Member since:
2007-05-04

>Classical ...requires human players

What bunk! This music stuff is well understood, but a pain to keep in mind, competitively with foodie and news and various crafts. As if computers couldn't be relied upon to apply styling to a score, or Sony Acid Studio (I think Vocaloid--humanlike singing--is a separate IP unit) doesn't have that in there, or the classical remixers who participate on OCRemix.org won't let their studio tools participate in the play and orchestration?

Separately; what's this contract stuff and to-do? I understand it kills the band members (until an ad finally works,) and often appropriates the work, but doesn't everyone casually look for iTunes promotion?

Glo-fi or drone stuff like Warren Ellis promotes is the new genre?

Reply Parent Score: 1