 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Copland
Date: 2008-04-10 00:42
Absolutely amazing... if it works as well as it appears to.
I myself have wondering about this concept and wished I could do this, but I've always dismissed it as impossible.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jkelly32562
Date: 2008-04-10 01:08
If this works with bands, we don't really have a need for good musicians just people great with technology. Now that is scary.
Jonathan Kelly
jkelly32562@troy.edu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hatten
Date: 2008-04-10 01:30
Imagine that we could just play one long note, and the studio could make it into the Mozart Concerto:o
Or you could make a fool out of anyone listening to your socalled "auditiontape"!
You can also use it in a good way, is you miss a tone in a piece, and wish to god that you could just play it one more time, and get it right. These are strange times.
Any more insights in this?
BuffetCrampon RC, Vandoren B45, Vandoren v12 #3's
A & Bb clarinets
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johng ★2017
Date: 2008-04-10 01:53
Amazing - how can we trust a recorded audition anymore? Just have the right technology and you can be the most accurate player ever. Huh.
John Gibson, Founder of JB Linear Music, www.music4woodwinds.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2008-04-10 03:45
this is a really neat looking program, although i think you need another program to process the sound track. there's a youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q1mtpsVzTQ&feature=related
where this producer uses pro tools to get the sound, then melodyne to correct rhythm and pitch.
i do agree, this is pretty freaky stuff, DEFINITELY for the pros or hobbiests.
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2008-04-10 06:04
"If this works with bands, we don't really have a need for good musicians just people great with technology. Now that is scary."
Not really. Until there is software that can read my (or anyone's) mind it is not going to sound like me (or anyone). When someone plays they play their ideas and people (at least me) want to hear how they play. If they correct things on recordings that's fine with me, but the software can't think about the ideas for them. At least so far (though who knows what will happen in the futre) still only the person opperating the software can control what it does, so it is still a different person, with different ideas, so it will not sound the same as another person playing.
It was funny in the clip how they "corrected" the b6 to 5 when actually (to me at least) it sounded much better with the b6 that resolved to the 5, much more interesting.
Nitai
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2008-04-10 06:11
the next generation: "musicians, behind the desk"
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2008-04-10 09:38
The monophonic version has been around for years for correcting dodgy singers. Cher made an instrument of it in that 'Do you believe in life after love?' song, by feeding it glissando and letting it square off the notes to give a cool processed voice effect... but the first I ever heard of the technique was the allegation in the 80's that the lead singer of T'Pau couldn't actually hit the high notes she was singing on the record, 'China in your hand'. Frequency shifting is a cool technique - I've heard it can be used in a more subtle way in PA systems to prevent feedback. This editing of complete recordings advertised here is new to me, but I guess it's just a new kind of studio fairy dust like all the rest. Keep music real, a'ight?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-04-10 11:34
>>Amazing - how can we trust a recorded audition anymore?>>
Since when were recorded auditions ever trustworthy anyway? When I studied piano in the 1960s, my teacher made a big point of telling his students that his kids got into places like Juilliard honestly because he made his students record their own audition tapes--his way of pointing out the open secret that his main local rival recorded her students' tapes for them. Common practice then--and I doubt that much has changed.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2008-04-10 22:23
Note correction technology has been around for many years.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Avie
Date: 2008-04-10 22:52
We cant stand in the way of technology although a good musician will know the differance.![[up]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley24.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hatten
Date: 2008-04-10 23:31
Should there be a producing law, where it says whenever that product has been altered in a studio or on a computer before sale? It's a bit fony to give out a cd which is perfect, but altered? don't you guys think so?
Did you understand my question?:P
BuffetCrampon RC, Vandoren B45, Vandoren v12 #3's
A & Bb clarinets
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-04-10 23:53
Hatten wrote:
> Should there be a producing law, where it says whenever that
> product has been altered in a studio or on a computer before
> sale?
Almost every CD or recording has been altered in a studio, even those labeled "live".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-04-11 02:56
What is terribly interesting about this thread is that we as performing musicians who have worked for years to produce sound and learn repertoire have been in competition with ourselves for perhaps 30 or more years. Speaking of the orchestra, everything has changed because of electronic reproduction, getting better and better until it has influenced our playing. We strive for a huge sound and we play most parts loudly, louder than the written dynamic. (OK, maybe not you, but most do....because they have to, in order to be heard and to please the conductor)
This has evolved because of the perfection of recording, getting so perfect that there are never any mistakes on a recoring and the orchestra is so carefully mixed that every solo sound like a solo on the record.Then the public attends a symphonic concert and the listner wonders why the clarinet solo is not as full and penetrating as it is on his recording, which as stated has been mixed and really tampered with in order to be attractive to the buying public. If you continue the point, you may say the this electronic competition has contributed to the gradual demise of many orchestras. How in the world do I compete with that gorgeous clarinetist who maks no mistakes (yes, they are all taken out), and has such a big sound.
It further interests me that the thread is even here in a forum where most play an instrument that is more than 300 years old, and instrument with a very old tradition where we are even finding recordings of the past to emulate sound and phrasing.
The thread seems to me to be about artificial ways of creating sound.My business has been to recreate sound that was played many years ago in works which were written then.
And then if you wish, we come to sampling. Is everyone aware that many of us compete against ourselves by going into a studio and recording a chromatic scale for union scale. Then those sounds are recorded, applied to a keyboard and you can hear a commercial with you playing with exquisite velocity, but it is not you, but a keyboard or some reproducing electonic instrument taking your sound.
I am impressed by Mr Bloombergs idea, and respectfully feel it may have interest but only to try to attempt to avoid buying into this self-competition. Any time a sound of music is produced artificially, we are competing with ourselves.
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2008-04-11 11:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2008-04-11 02:58
Reference the Joyce Hatto affair. Over a hundred bogus cd's released that were actually other peoples' recordings. Many were cleverly modified to help mask the rip-off.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-04-11 10:59
We who use this site share a perspective not shared by those in the general audience who don't play musical instruments. When we listen to a live performance, we know better than to expect the heavily-edited perfection of a CD. We expect live to sound...alive. We expect to hear moments of unexpected brilliance, but we also expect some unbalanced sounds and some notes rolling around on the floor. We expect to see even the world's best clarinet players perform lightning-quick emergency reed changes between movements after some wonky-sounding notes.
For me, this sort of thing doesn't diminish the pleasure of a live concert any more than occasional substandard grammar diminishes the pleasure of conversing with someone in person instead of via carefully-edited snail mail. I wonder what the concert experience is like for people who don't empathize. Do they think the live peformance is "bad" if the acoustics aren't quite balanced or if one of the musicians sneezes or has audible reed trouble?
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johng ★2017
Date: 2008-04-11 13:08
This reminds me of a comment my college teacher made 40 years ago about my saxophone hero, Paul Desmond. He said Paul would not sound like Paul without a microphone because he mostly played pretty softly to get that tone quality. Musicians have been tied to electronics for a long time in one way or another.
Yes, I am aware that studios could change bad notes and that even in the days of mechanical tape splicing, you could do enough takes to get a more perfect recording. Lelia is right that some live audiences are disappointed when things go sour in a live performance, and I think we musicians are put under greater pressure now than ever before to play perfectly. If you listen to old recordings you can hear some bad sounding times with great orchestras, and yet people still enjoyed the music.
John Gibson, Founder of JB Linear Music, www.music4woodwinds.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-04-11 14:36
johng wrote:
> Yes, I am aware that studios could change bad notes and that
> even in the days of mechanical tape splicing, you could do
> enough takes to get a more perfect recording. Lelia is right
> that some live audiences are disappointed when things go sour
> in a live performance, and I think we musicians are put under
> greater pressure now than ever before to play perfectly. If you
> listen to old recordings you can hear some bad sounding times
> with great orchestras, and yet people still enjoyed the music.
That's like when you scrutinize a painting from too close so that you see the odd misplaced brush stroke yet fail to feel the overall atmosphere of that picture. (eg closely look at protagonists' faces in Edward Hopper's paintings...)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2008-04-13 18:09
What was once considered cheating is now routine.
When it was revealed a few years ago that Milli Vanilli lip-synched their "live" performances, they were branded as fake, even though they had actually sung and recorded each song.
Scandal quickly became routine. When Ashlee Simpson appeared on Saturday Night Live, everyone knew that she wasn't actually singing. She flounced off when she started synching one song but the sound track played another. This was merely amusing, and nobody expected anything different. Still, she presumably could and did perform her material.
Now, actual performance is no longer expected at any point. I've been told by people in a position to know that Britney Spears sings in a monotone. Every note is shifted in production. Nobody cares.
It's the way we live now.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-04-13 19:21
Ken Shaw wrote:
> When it was revealed a few years ago that Milli Vanilli
> lip-synched their "live" performances, they were branded as
> fake, even though they had actually sung and recorded each
> song.
Not correct, Ken. The scandal was that Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus hadn't recorded any of the songs! The vocals were by Charles Shaw, John Davis, Brad Howell, and twin sisters Jodie and Linda Rocco. Lip syncing has never been a problem for pop groups - in many cases, if you watch the choreography, you'd realize that there's no way anyone could dance those routines and sing simultaneously.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
