On Wednesday 11 February 2009 17:21:21 Hartmut Noack wrote: > Fons Adriaensen schrieb: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:30:32PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: > > > > The second is why one would reduce the natural > > rythm of any piece of music to a regular beat. > > Good question and most of those, who do the above-mentioned > beat-adding to gregorian chants etc do not ask > that question. Or they come up with answers > like: because the cd-buyers may like it... > > But there *can* be better answers to this question I could think of. > Such as: to destroy and distort a music in order to create a very new > one. I never heard a successfull experiment like this performed with > gregorian chants though... > > > One reason can be that this is an aesthetic > > feature in itself. There are some musical > > genres that are firmly based on this idea. > > > > Another reason - without wanting to comment > > on the OP's musical abilities which I don't > > know - is just incompetence - the inability > > to handle a piece of music unless it has a > > simple regular rythmic structure. > > I too will not question the abilities of all those, who ask for such > assitance but I dare to estimate, that 9 out of 10 users of > beat-detection-automatisms do not use such tools to widen their own > atistic horizons but to narrow the horizon of the music they'd like to > use as an accompainment for their playing. > > > What would you think if someone were asking > > 'is there any program that can simplify the > > harmony of a song so I can play a three-note > > bass line to it' ?? > > I can play a 3-note bassline to *any* piece of music - and I do not need > any assistance by any software to do so ;-) > > Seriously: to have some comforts and automagic is cool and can have a > very positive impact on a musical work. A sofware for beat-measurement > can help to analyse a give piece of music to find ways to add something > constructive to it. But all that "Get our 20000-loopsample-DVD/our > 200-prograde-preset Guitarampemulation/ our easy-klick-your-hit > sequencer and become a big star in no time and whithout any > learning-trouble!" is emberracing nonsense made for consumes, not for > artists. > Basicly everything, that makes decisions, an artist should make > him/herself is a toy, not an instrument. I was wanting to stay out of this for a number of reasons. I just disagree with this on so many levels. It makes me think of someone saying that someone should not bother to program unless they do so in machine language or perhaps if we have to accept it, in assembler. They are just working with different tools and on different levels. And perhaps for very different reasons. In then end, with music, we can each make our call based on what we hear and "where we are" when we hear. Such endeavors may be a necessary path for some to take to get elsewhere. For others, it may be their preferred destination. Can one not produce an artistic picture using an autofocus camera? Is it not art unless you have set your aperture, and shutter speed and such manually? Would you be happy with this altered statement: Basicly everything, that makes every decision, and leaves none for the artist to make him/herself is a toy, not an instrument. I want to say more but am running out of time. > > best regs HZN all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
