Melodyne DNA — you've gotta watch this!

[zed]

Very, very exciting indeed. Aside from the obvious creative potentials, I instantly thought of some of my old rough demos where the guitar part may have been slightly out of tune, or perhaps I have since developed a change which requires chords that I never originally recorded. Being in love with the tone of those original demos, it was frustrating to think of not being able to match that exact sound when re-recording... but with this tool, it will be possible to ressurrect all sorts of scratch tracks (or sloppy performances) from my pile of unfinished material.

I actually DID believe that this was possible and was eventually going to become available. Just knowing that a recorded track containing 44,100 samples per second can store all the intricate details of pitch, tone, reverb, etc., etc., seemed to suggest that since each sample is really only storing one piece of information, that this kind of thing would be possible by being able to quickly extract whichever samples are responsible for the sound of a particular pitch. I don't really understand why the creator said that this is theoretically impossible. On the contrary, it has always seemed to be theoretically possible... just waiting for him to come along and figure out how!

And what a delight to see how he has done it. To visually watch those notes separating in Melodyne like this is simply mind blowing! Can't wait to start putting this plugin to good use.

I think Celemony does themselves a disservice and opens their product to ridicule, by presenting it as an alternative to wasting three precious minutes at the start of a session tuning the guitar .

I don't think anyone wants to go out of their way to record with an untuned guitar, but sometimes you record brilliant takes when your guitar has not been, or is no longer in perfect tune. At least now, you won't have to stop yourself when in the midst of a creative moment, with the worry that the track will be trashbin material due to a slight tuning oversight.

I mean, look at the crazy things they are able to do with CGI in movies these days. CGI used to look really conspicuously fake and now it can be so elegant and believable that it's breathtaking.

Well, there you go. I mostly wish they'd stop doing so much of that. It's really the same thing, people put an incredible of time and energy into making these movies full of effects and nearly always don't have anything left for the story, or any real creativity. It's all shiny objects.

You'd probably be surprised at the amount of CGI that is used in movies that is not so FX flashy. CGI allows clever ways to modify backgrounds or foregrounds to simply enhance what would appear to be a very ordinary shot.

[monkey man]

Where are the new Lennon McCartney?

The MonkeyLabs•„• Lennon/McCartney plug is in stage 2 beta; I've watched you humans and I think I've figured y'all out.

Hey, it was nothing. All I had to do was model the L/M writing and song construction processes whilst paying due respect to their characters through the use of the MonkeyLabs•„• Poosonality Reconstructor/Poondefecator•„•.
Whilst I acknowledge that I couldn't have pulled it off without the Poosonality Reconstructor/Poondefacator•„•, I'm still amazed that noboy seems to have given this a go.

[Shooshie]

I mean, look at the crazy things they are able to do with CGI in movies these days. CGI used to look really conspicuously fake and now it can be so elegant and believable that it's breathtaking.

Well, there you go. I mostly wish they'd stop doing so much of that. It's really the same thing, people put an incredible of time and energy into making these movies full of effects and nearly always don't have anything left for the story, or any real creativity. It's all shiny objects.

bb

Er... you ever hear of a little company named... Pixar?


Shooshie

[dogBoy]

kassonica wrote:

Where are the new Lennon McCartney?

I had worked for a music company that was developing software that would write music in the the style of various composers.
They'd make algorithms based on note choice, rhythm patterns, general harmonic sensibilities of a composer/songwriter etc. I remember this one guy transcribing a Coltrane solo into a MIDI file... that didn't end up sounding very Coltrane.
They're idea was to undercut all the competition (the other music houses), save cost by taking musicians/writers out of the process. The software was geared to appeal to video editors, who often make the music choices. You'd pop in a few adjectives like "soft","sad", "crap" and out would come a piece of music.

It was a fun company to work for, very successful writing music the conventional way. They did feature movie work and commercials. Well, I did a lot of the commercial work, they did the high profile movie stuff. I hated the idea of this software and quit. I mean it was design to put me out of work !!(I wouldn't transcribe anything for this software)

They got the thing working, give some of the software based music to clients. The clients said "this sounds like it was made by a machine". I heard later on that Disney was interested in some part of the software.

I don't feel this has "much" to do with Melodyne. Just wanted to tell the story.

[Shooshie]

Interesting story, Dogboy, and I think I heard of that company a few years back. Actually, there are many such stories that I read about periodically, so it may or may not have been the same thing. I don't think of it with disdain, but I do wonder where it leads. Nevertheless, the human spirit is imbued with exploration, so if/when we reach a dead-end track where a machine steals away all the fun part, someone will come up with a creative use for the machine, and we'll all be back on track again.

Funny thing, though, how technical types are always trying to quantify the human spirit under the guise of making it "easier" or "cheaper" to churn out products.

Shooshie

[Matcher]

Yeah, a very interesting story. My friend is also studying and researching computerized composing among some other things related. I've listened to some "music" by computers, some pretty old, some pretty new, but let's just say the pieces didn't end up in my iPod.

I'm not sure the composing software can be as effective as services like www.taxi.com. There was a thread about this video in which some guys from taxi did a composition and recorded it in 10 minutes or so, for a short scene. In the future anything could be possible. For example this Melodyne 2 is the first one of it's kind, and surely it will be getting better and better. The research in brain and AI will also be crucial for composing computers.

I tried to find a video of Toyota's robot band but only could find these videos with single robots. Here's a violin playing one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9sirG0UEGg When the robot finishes the piece, and the audience traditionally applodes, there's an awkward moment IMO. Something nice, that we are used to receiving from a human being, has been presented by a robot, that "has no soul", that doesn't feel anything. It doesn't mind if people applode or not.

[Spikey Horse]

Sorry folks, been up working all night - high on coffee and writing this epic post while listening back to stuff ...

Remember when drum machines first appeared and people thought they would put drummers out of business?

Well, drum machines never sounded like real drums so they spawned new genres of music instead of replacing real drummers ... now suddenly they do sound like real drums and many studios are using BFD to at least replace the drum kits and perhaps the drummers too to some extent.

The end user (the audience) will never know what was "Melodyned" and what wasn't.

That is my concern, in a sense .... that eventually each generation of musicians and audience will be acclimatized to hearing manufactured, over produced, artificial sounds and 'mechanical performances' that (wince) 'sound just like the real thing..... '

The implied message from developers is always that these new tools are an acceptable alternative to the real instruments - or in this case to singing/playing in tune - anyone who has experience in the real world can hear the obvious limitations but as more and more users start out making all music in a 100% virtual realm I wonder if they will still be able to judge what sounds real and what sounds fake.

I mean production has changed a bit 60's>70's>80's>90's>00's but it's always 'normal' for those living at the time who are exposed to it relentlessly every day..... in the same way (repeated exposure) virtual and virtually manipulated audio may soon sound 'real / normal' to many people ...

I'm just throwing ideas out there - I'm not saying music is doomed (just that it could be!) or that we should hurl our sabots* at our macs (but have them ready just in case).

Is there some moral responsibility we have to not useuni these tools? We'd still be using analog tape machines and razor blades to edit if we subscribed to that.

No I don't think so at all. I would love to get this when it comes out! If we have a moral responsibility it is just to make incredible music- either with or with or without cutting edge technology.

My mantra I just made up:

Music technology is liberating but also constrictive... just as real instruments and lo fi production is by comparison constrictive but oh so bloody liberating

I mean, look at the crazy things they are able to do with CGI in movies these days. CGI used to look really conspicuously fake and now it can be so elegant and believable that it's breathtaking.

Well, there you go. I mostly wish they'd stop doing so much of that. It's really the same thing, people put an incredible of time and energy into making these movies full of effects and nearly always don't have anything left for the story, or any real creativity. It's all shiny objects.

bb

Exactly! the idea seems to be that CGI allows filmakers' imagination to create anything they like these days ... the same kind of philosophy as with all the new audio manipulation tools.

But in reality it is probably truer to say that 'anything is possible' only within a very, very narrow set of boundaries. IOW these films always looks like they have been made 'on the terms of the CGI techniques being used' .. (more often not just being used but being showcased)

Personally I find most modern CGI looks bloody awful! In fact the more so-called 'real' it looks the worse it looks.... Star Wars did and still does look fantastic - that recent movie about the monster tearing up NY (I honestly forget its name) looked totally dreadful.

It's not just the CGI itself but the way films need to be shot and even conceived in order to accommodate it. What happened to the art of cinematography !? You can't uselight in films any more because CGI doesn't like light. So it has to be overcast, or night time, or raining or a thunderstorm or just nondescript bland 'daylight' that won't cause any problems.

This is the point I am making - and it can be true for both music and film - that the tools are fine, very useful .... truly amazing in fact - but they have a tendency to turn the creative process and the finished article into something utterly banal, clinical, soulless ... totally lacking in uniquness, humanness ... lacking 'performance'.

To argue about if we should have or use these tools or is besides the point really - it's more about attitudes and mind sets ....

Using CGI does not force you to make awful films but it sure seems to encourage it! How many films have come out over the last 10 years full of bad actors playing essentially no more than extras to the CGI...

Nothing in that NY monster movie (including the monster) impressed me visually, or made feel anything or care .. by way of (OK a slightly unfair!) comparison, the other film I saw recently was The Conformist - every shot was a visual/aural feast. Delicious! A supercomputer working for ten years could not come up with anything as sumptuous or striking. A shot (or audio take) captured the old fashioned way - set it up, get it right, capture a performance and that's it, no more mucking about! - captures the feeling of the moment, and seems alive ... those 'amazing' 10 second CGI/action hybrid shots that take 3 months to stitch together appear totally limp by comparison.

As for Pixar - it is more like animation though surely? Animation has produced wonderful films over many decades and pixar is just continuing that.... I don't see it the same as CGI used it conventional movies. Pixar is like Kraftwork! - it's an intelligent artistic celebration of what the technology does best + good material.

* Does anyone know what a sabot looks like? Or if you can still buy them anywhere, I'd quite like a pair!

[Shooshie]

This whole thread got me thinking about a magazine article I wrote about 14 years ago. I was busy chronicling the wonders of the computer revolution back then and wrote for a number of magazines -- all of which are now defunct as far as I know. This particular article, however, dealt with subjects parallel to the ones we're currently discussing. It's rather long, but after rereading it, I decided to post it because of the numerous parallels , interesting in light of the fact that 14 years later we're still having similar discussions. Read it if you like. Be aware that my writing style was a slow build with several loose-ends tied at the finish, but the article is rather long. My articles were usually the feature articles in the magazines to which I contributed, so they actually encouraged me to write to my heart's content. (not always a good thing!)

Who's In Charge, from Macrocosm, July 1994.

Shooshie

[IAMLFO]

That is my concern, in a sense .... that eventually each generation of musicians and audience will be acclimatized to hearing manufactured, over produced, artificial sounds and 'mechanical performances' that (wince) 'sound just like the real thing..... '

We are already there! But that is just half the story. There is plenty of good musicianship out there too. The choice is ours to decide if the glass is half full or empty.

I'll give an example. I'm not picking on anyone, I don't even remember whot the poster was so this is not personal in any way. Someone gave CGI as an example of how technology is ruining movies. Another chimed in that plots have been pushed aside (or something similar) in lieu of shiny CGI movies. Aside from the many CGI only movies like Toy Story that have both plot and technology, we would not have movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. There is a *ton* of CGI in the movies. Does it distract some people? Yes. But damn, we wouldn't have the movies if it weren't for CGI and other technologies like massive!

So the question is, would you rather have technology progress so you can have your Lord of the Rings or not have technology so you never see Cloverfield? (The NYC monster movie.) I'll take the former, thank you. (And a *huge* plug for the reinvented Battlestar Galactica. Plenty of CGI and the deepest character development, plots and subplots TV has ever seen!)

It is fascinating to see resistance to change. I'm guilty of it. I would not change from my beloved PC to a Mac for years. When I finally did I slapped myself in the head for not having done so long ago.

The point is, technology advances like Melodyne pave the way towards the future. Both good and bad will come of it, just like everything else. The only influence we can have is how we use it.

Honestly, hearing the varied opinions on this thread increases my respect of everyone on this forum a hundred fold. I've not been here long and I am hoping I will fit in. Keep up the opinions and the healthy discussions! I believe that they are as important to advancement as technology itself.

For what it is worth,

-Kevin

[David Polich]

CGI isn't always huge scenes of robots or monsters smashing New York or thousands of Persian ships arriving off the coast of Greece. It's also used to fix little things that people would never notice. Things like scenes where an actor turned just slightly out of range of the lighting, or a ball rolled down a driveway the wrong way, or a car chase where one of the frames had telephone wires in the shot and were distracting and needed to be removed.

I know a guy who does film editing and CGI is constantly used for little stuff
that you don't really notice. Even on boring chick flicks or soaps.

Personally I've always loved movies that focus on special effects and the look of things. Sometimes I don't really need a story line or great acting. The visuals are enough of a treat for me.

But I digress. Anyone can scoff at Melodyne, but I'm gonna buy it, and I'm gonna use it.

[beautypill]

But I digress. Anyone can scoff at Melodyne, but I'm gonna buy it, and I'm gonna use it.

The hilarious thing is: I suspect every last person on this thread is going to buy it. Including (and maybe especially) the detractors. Buying it is not even a question.

The smartest among us are buying stock in Celemony right now.

For me, I couldn't care any less about correcting mistakes for clients. What I'm excited about are the collage potentials. Taking an existing piece of sound and contorting into a new, previously inconceivable musical shape. As I said, I can't wait to mess with the strings in Etta James' "At Last."

That's where the fun is going to be.

What this means to intellectual property laws (already under siege from every angle) is beyond the scope of my expertise.

- c

[nickysnd]

Apart from the fact that it is technology that has provided us the ability to record and "mold" audio recordings, let's not forget that everything about musical instruments is technology. A drum set is technology, so is a cello and a synth. How can musicians be against technology? Technology opens opportunities, so one just have to jump for the good ones and use them their own ways. If someone else does stupid things with it, that's his/her own business.

OTOH, this CGI analogy is quite inciting. Imagine a film shot with real actors moving around, doing their art, walking, making gestures with their limbs, body language and all. After shooting, imagine everything turned into digital, and CGI wizards taking over: making those digitized bodies do crazy things, jump, fight, do dangerous movements, swim, fly, whatever. Everything done in a way that those characters never lose their real-life look. Like animation with live shots (rather than drawings). Kind of a Matrix virtual world.

Now, imagine an orchestra playing a symphony, then everything turned digital, and then each instrument isolated and controlled as the above actors were. For instance, imagine a trombone playing things that are impossible to play in real-life, doing impossible trills and crazy glissandos, playing in impossible high ranges, etc. Doing "stunts." Why not? I can already do some of these with sample libraries. What if one day I can do that, and more, with a LSO recording of a Prokofiev symphony? Maybe Melodyne 28.7 will enable me to turn the recording of Sergey's symphony into my own score for a SF film, by making those players "play" some crazy stuff. Again, why not? It seems to be a long way till then, and some things seem impossible, or silly-sounding, today, but let us not give up hope!

[monkey man]

... The hilarious thing is: I suspect every last person on this thread is going to buy it. Including (and maybe especially) the detractors. Buying it is not even a question.

The genie's out of the bottle though, BP.
I'll wait for MOTU to implement similar technology in, oh, 100 years or so.

Seriously, you can make that "everyone in the thread except that silly ape".

[dogBoy]

beautypill wrote:

... The hilarious thing is: I suspect every last person on this thread is going to buy it. Including (and maybe especially) the detractors. Buying it is not even a question.

I've decided that I'd buy it , then Never Use IT !!! that will show um ...

[dogBoy]

nickysnd

OTOH, this CGI analogy is quite inciting. Imagine a film shot with real actors moving around, doing their art, walking, making gestures with their limbs, body language and all. After shooting, imagine everything turned into digital, and CGI wizards taking over: making those digitized bodies do crazy things, jump, fight, do dangerous movements, swim, fly, whatever. Everything done in a way that those characters never lose their real-life look. Like animation with live shots (rather than drawings).

I think it was called Beowulf, sort of. Plus it was in 3d.
I asked for two tickets, the guy said "$27.00". I said "no two tickets" he said "$27.00". The new 3d glasses were $7.00 each. I told my daughter we're not getting any popcorn at this movie.