On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:07:18 +0100 Fons Adriaensen <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 06:43:54PM +0100, Hartmut Noack wrote: > > > > The second is why one would reduce the natural > > > rythm of any piece of music to a regular beat. > > > > 1.: every music has a rhythmic structure, though many great pieces do > > not work with a straight 4/4 beat. So, if a detection tool is able to > > analyze the rhythmic essence of say: Wagners overture for the Rheingold, > > it could help to produce a very interesting musical comment to this > > piece of music without destroying its initial qualities. > > Heiaha weia! Woglinde, Wellgunde and Flosshilde will deal > with such a person, who will disappear into the Rhine, > never to be seen again ! > > It would a be difficult one for any beat detector I'd say, > and any beats would totally destroy it. There's enough life > in it with just the three Rheintöchter. This is really an argument about semantics. Surely it's easier to more clearly define what you mean by good music than it is to fight over who best embodies the meaning of the original word which is by now utterly bastardised. There are many different factors that contribute to a person deciding that a given piece of music is good. If you want to exclude any of them then you should define those exclusions from the outset, if only to avoid the controversy that will arise as a result of that omission. pete. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
