Melodyne DNA — you've gotta watch this!

[bongo_x]

...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!)...
-Kevin

I'm neither pro or anti CGI, nor Auto Tune, etc. They are just tools. My thought is that many people get way too excited about the tools instead of the creation. Instead of thinking "I have this idea, what tool can I use to get it done?" the process for many becomes "I have this cool tool, I'll spit something out with it". This works for some people because the technology is new and unique, but once the newness wears off it may not fair too well.

I think the Lord of the Rings movies are a giant exception. They had the resources to do everything right. There are also, IMHO, few cases like that, were the piece could not be done without the technology. When people start saying "this is great, now I can create X", I wonder if it was really the lack of the proper tool stopping them from creating X before.

The new Melodyne will indeed be very useful for a lot of people. Depending on how well it works I may have to get it. Have to. I'm not "excited" about it anymore than I would be about a new screwdriver, less maybe because it's more expensive, mostly because I'm not seeing the huge creative possibilities that others are, any more than with Auto Tune or the original Melodyne. Auto Tune has saved me MANY hours of work. But this new Melodyne looks like something I might need once a month or two, maybe? I'm mean, how often do you have an out of tune chord that you couldn't just fly another chord from somewhere else in the tune?

As far as sampling and retuning other works, well that's still sampling and is not going to be any different. If you've got the money to license the recordings, I guess go for it. I will "steal" a sample if I mangle it beyond all recognition, but that wouldn't really be the case with this product. It's not going to be OK to use someone's recording just because you retuned some notes. Couldn't you just create a similar sound and do your own piece? Why does it need to be that specific sample?

I'm sure this is coming across the wrong way, but I assure you I'm not bummed out by the idea of this product. Most of my own music is "artificial", I use a lot of manipulated audio. I make about a third of my income tuning vocals with Auto Tune. I have no problem with the morality or the politics of it. I don't make much distinction between something played and something created on the computer. I just see this new Melodyne as a fixit tool and not much of a creative tool. I'm sure someone WILL do something creative with it, but that will be the exception, not the rule. Kids do creative things with toilet paper tubes, but that's not their main use.

It's a totally amazing technological breakthrough, I'm just not sure how much I need it.

bb

[zed]

I'm mean, how often do you have an out of tune chord that you couldn't just fly another chord from somewhere else in the tune?

Not if the whole track is slightly out of tune.

I am surprised by your lack of enthusiasm. I was in a state of bliss for hours after I watched that video. For a guy like me, this is a dream come true... even if used only as a correction tool, I have loads of unfinished material which include some sloppy performances that have tonal characteristics which I have fallen in love with. I know I could spend hours ripping my hair out trying to match those sounds and never quite get it again. But with this tool I can salvage those tracks and retain the signature tone that I previously created. I might still end up performing sections over again... but I would have the option to keep key sections from the former track (e.g. a cool intro or guitar solo, etc.)

And what about those times when you are recording a guitar or other string instrument part and you strum one of those fabulous rare strums where there is a special quality that you can't reproduce at will?... and then you accidently play a wrong note. Imagine that not being a problem!

And furthermore... the demo suggested it may be possible to remove instruments too. I have a few songs where I would love to extract the bassline from the guitar track and re-perform it. I'm really excited about getting this tool into my DP toolbelt.

It's gonna be a long spring and summer...

[kassonica]

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 ...

Damn it I'm gonna buy the company and never let anyone use it.

[beautypill]

As far as sampling and retuning other works, well that's still sampling and is not going to be any different. If you've got the money to license the recordings, I guess go for it. I will "steal" a sample if I mangle it beyond all recognition, but that wouldn't really be the case with this product. It's not going to be OK to use someone's recording just because you retuned some notes.

Where you see no distinction, I see a huge distinction. Retuning notes from a polyphonic source would seem to me to constitute a new composition. It's sampling, yes. But it raises new questions of authorship. Therein lies the vertiginous new intellectual property frontier we're all headed for.

I, for one, couldn't be any more excited about it.

- c

[bongo_x]

... even if used only as a correction tool, I have loads of unfinished material which include some sloppy performances that have tonal characteristics which I have fallen in love with. I know I could spend hours ripping my hair out trying to match those sounds and never quite get it again. But with this tool I can salvage those tracks and retain the signature tone that I previously created. I might still end up performing sections over again... but I would have the option to keep key sections from the former track (e.g. a cool intro or guitar solo, etc.)

And what about those times when you are recording a guitar or other string instrument part and you strum one of those fabulous rare strums where there is a special quality that you can't reproduce at will?... and then you accidently play a wrong note. Imagine that not being a problem!...

That's why everyone's different. I don't get like that for the most part. I always figure I, or you if we're working together, can do it better most of the time if given a chance. I don't fall in love with parts, that only leads to heartbreak and is a form of self torture. Just play it again, it's rarely as magical as you think it is.

bb

[bongo_x]

As far as sampling and retuning other works, well that's still sampling and is not going to be any different. If you've got the money to license the recordings, I guess go for it. I will "steal" a sample if I mangle it beyond all recognition, but that wouldn't really be the case with this product. It's not going to be OK to use someone's recording just because you retuned some notes.

Where you see no distinction, I see a huge distinction. Retuning notes from a polyphonic source would seem to me to constitute a new composition. It's sampling, yes. But it raises new questions of authorship. Therein lies the vertiginous new intellectual property frontier we're all headed for.

I, for one, couldn't be any more excited about it.

- c

The recording is still copyrighted. Talk to The Verve about it.

bb

[beautypill]

The Verve was sued for use of the composition, not the recording.

The sample was not of a Rolling Stones recording (it was actually a recording of some obscure, cheesy orchestral cover of a Stones' song), but the band was sued by the Rolling Stones because of use of the notes.

The notes.

The song is now credited exclusively to Jagger/Richards.

Sampling case-law has always focused primarily on recognizable compositions, not recordings.

There is no precedent for being sued for adapting an existing recording beyond compositional recognition.

This is new terrain, friend.

- c

[bongo_x]

The Verve was sued for use of the composition, not the recording.

The sample was not of a Rolling Stones recording (it was actually a recording of some obscure, cheesy orchestral cover of a Stones' song), but the band was sued by the Rolling Stones because of use of the notes.

The notes.

The song is now credited exclusively to Jagger/Richards.

Sampling case-law has always focused primarily on recognizable compositions, not recordings.

There is no precedent for being sued for adapting an existing recording beyond compositional recognition.

This is new terrain, friend.

- c

I'm not sure what you're saying, but you seem to think that recordings are not copyrighted. If that's the case you're wrong. It is not only compositions that are copyrighted. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea.

For instance, you can't sample a clap from "We Will Rock You". Or the Wilco suit over "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot". You can't sample someone's recording of a public domain song without their permission.

I may be wrong, but I know I'm not going to try it on anything I put out.

bb

[David Polich]

I can think of a project that I worked on last summer that could have been helped with this new version of Melodyne. The project ( a really cheezy Marc Anthony style latin rock power ballad) had been through four producers and four different DAW's (Cubase, PT, Logic, and DP)over the course of three years. When I got it it was 23 GB for a three minute song - there were literally hundreds of tracks. The "excecutive producer" (i.e., the guy that
had paid for this hopeless song) had just kept every take ever recorded on the tune. There were 65 tracks of electric guitar and 35 tracks of acoustics.
Sampled horns, real horns, sampled strings, real strings, four different
drumkit tracks, sampled drums - an unbelievable mess. Not to mention
the 30 lead vocal takes, all of which were in sore need of pitch correction.

To add insult to injury, ALL of the electric guitar tracks had been recorded
with guitars that were out of intonation. It was too late to go find the players and re-record the guitars. The players were long gone.

I ended up just chucking everything except the lead vocals, which I had to retune using Melodyne plug-in. The rest of the track I reconstructed from scratch using things like BFD for drums, Trilogy for bass, etc.

I'm not sure which would have taken longer - redoing the tracks for the tune myself, or using Melodyne's new version to fix the out of intonation parts (if it had been available at that time). It would have really been nice to have had the Melodyne option at that point, though.

Then again, Melodyne might have helped, but it wouldn't have saved the
tune itself from being a lousy piece of crap.

[beautypill]

I'm not sure what you're saying, but you seem to think that recordings are not copyrighted. If that's the case you're wrong. It is not only compositions that are copyrighted. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea.

For instance, you can't sample a clap from "We Will Rock You". Or the Wilco suit over "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot". You can't sample someone's recording of a public domain song without their permission.

I may be wrong, but I know I'm not going to try it on anything I put out.

bb

I do understand that there are rights attached to recordings. That's what the "P" in the circle is about. It's called a phonoright. It is a separate matter from composition.

All I'm saying is that so far, lawsuits have been over recognizable samples. The Wilco suit was about a recognizable (not mangled) recording.

People sample the clap from "We Will Rock You" every day in hip hop. And they get away with it. It lasts for less than a second. It is a thing of wonder, yes, but it's just a clap. People sample drum sounds from existing recordings every day. Single drum sounds. Little moments. One of the most celebrated, brilliant and influential records of the last 20 years was built entirely on uncleared samples of this nature. Nobody gets sued for this stuff. You get sued when the owner of the original recording feels that you are making money off of the reference to the original property.

But what happens when you reshape the original recording to the point of not being recognizable?... or, more pointedly, compositionally new?

We don't have case law yet that addresses these circumstances. That's all I'm sayin' here. It's new terrain.

As someone who loves collage as an art form (I love 1920's Dada cut-and-paste art and I am also a huge fan of the artist Romare Bearden), I am excited about where this Melodyne technology could lead.

I'm even excited about the intellectual arguments it will provoke. Some of those arguments will happen in court, no doubt...

- c

[IAMLFO]

...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!)...
-Kevin

I'm neither pro or anti CGI, nor Auto Tune, etc. They are just tools. My thought is that many people get way too excited about the tools instead of the creation. Instead of thinking "I have this idea, what tool can I use to get it done?" the process for many becomes "I have this cool tool, I'll spit something out with it". This works for some people because the technology is new and unique, but once the newness wears off it may not fair too well.

I think the Lord of the Rings movies are a giant exception. They had the resources to do everything right. There are also, IMHO, few cases like that, were the piece could not be done without the technology. When people start saying "this is great, now I can create X", I wonder if it was really the lack of the proper tool stopping them from creating X before.

The new Melodyne will indeed be very useful for a lot of people. Depending on how well it works I may have to get it. Have to. I'm not "excited" about it anymore than I would be about a new screwdriver, less maybe because it's more expensive, mostly because I'm not seeing the huge creative possibilities that others are, any more than with Auto Tune or the original Melodyne. Auto Tune has saved me MANY hours of work. But this new Melodyne looks like something I might need once a month or two, maybe? I'm mean, how often do you have an out of tune chord that you couldn't just fly another chord from somewhere else in the tune?

As far as sampling and retuning other works, well that's still sampling and is not going to be any different. If you've got the money to license the recordings, I guess go for it. I will "steal" a sample if I mangle it beyond all recognition, but that wouldn't really be the case with this product. It's not going to be OK to use someone's recording just because you retuned some notes. Couldn't you just create a similar sound and do your own piece? Why does it need to be that specific sample?

I'm sure this is coming across the wrong way, but I assure you I'm not bummed out by the idea of this product. Most of my own music is "artificial", I use a lot of manipulated audio. I make about a third of my income tuning vocals with Auto Tune. I have no problem with the morality or the politics of it. I don't make much distinction between something played and something created on the computer. I just see this new Melodyne as a fixit tool and not much of a creative tool. I'm sure someone WILL do something creative with it, but that will be the exception, not the rule. Kids do creative things with toilet paper tubes, but that's not their main use.

It's a totally amazing technological breakthrough, I'm just not sure how much I need it.

bb

Hey Bongo,
I think what you have to say is completely valid. For some people this is a fixit tool and that is how they will use it. How excited can one get about a fixit tool? Not much I'm sure.

I see it as a creative tool, plus I just get excited about new cool stuff. I am the perfect sucker who will buy something just because it is shiny. In this case however I can see some really practical uses, so I will feel warm and fuzzy when I spend the cash.

I don't know about Melodyne, but in the case of CGI films like LOTR could not be made as they were until the technology was invented. There were tons of innovations made because the movie needed them to get Peter Jackson's vision on film. For instance, special Linux clusters had to be put together so that rendering the CGI scenes would not take years to render. All sorts of modeling tools for muscles, hair, etc. were vastly improved. Fascinating stuff. In the case of LOTR the movie drove tool development. In the case of Melodyne the tool will drive fixability / creativity.

Hopefully Melodyne will provide a demo so you don't spend cash on something that could ultimately not be useful for you.

For what it is worth,

-Kevin

[zed]

I don't fall in love with parts, that only leads to heartbreak and is a form of self torture. Just play it again, it's rarely as magical as you think it is.

I hear what your saying, and most of the time I would agree with you. But there have certainly been times in the past where I have matched a sound as closely as possible and performed the part again and then gotten used to it... only to listen to the orginal demo at some later date and hear the magic of the original recording and feel frustrated that I failed to reproduce it adequately.

But the "magical" element is probably pretty subjective.

[pcm]

Having extensive experience with Autotune (I've been a licensed user since 1999), as well as pitch automation in DP, and also Waves Tune, I can tell you that these tools often do great and useful things, but there are situations where the results sound artificial, or there are unacceptable artifacts. Realize that Melodyne is no different, and that even in the demo, artifacts are clearly noticeable. This new tool is not going to be the free lunch it purports to be. There will be plenty of times you will want to use it, but find you can't. So let's be realistic here.

On a similar note, note in the demo that you are not watching a real user sit at a real computer using this thing, you are watching a compiled video, showing you just what they want you to see. You don't see analysis or processing times, and you don't see if fail or falter. What you are seeing is more akin to a Powerpoint presentation. The fact that it won't be released until the fall (assuming they are not "late") should tell you what kind of state this thing must be in right now. So I think it is a bit premature to assume that it will work (exactly) as advertised, or indeed, even work in a useful manner at all.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I just want to remind you that you need to be a little realistic about this. Personally, I find that their not-so-subtle push to get people to buy into version 2 with the promise of a free (or is it reduced?) upgrade highly suspect. It tell me that the reason for announcing this so early is to get a cash infusion. Why else would they tip their hand and risk other developers trying to get there first (moon race, anyone?). There are several possible scenarios that might explain this strange business choice, and they are all highly suspect to me.

[David Polich]

Wow, pcm, that's an odd post. Why wouldn't anyone want to make money with a new product? C'mon, that's the point of new products - to make money.

I have sound libraries for Yamaha synths available for purchase at motifator.com. There, I said it, I promoted my products, I hope someone here will read this and go buy my products.

There's nothing shameless or suspect about Celemony's "intentions". Of course they compiled a video. You always try to show a product's good side. Why would anyone do a "fair" promo that showed off the negative aspects of a product they're trying to sell? That makes no sense at all.

Leave the real-world shootuts to the reviewers for publications like Mix and Sound-On-Sound. They'll be honest enough and not afraid to dig at the downside.

You've made some excellent points and valuable contributions to the forum, including my favorite which was how to a record a direct real-time mix in DP using CueMix's "Mix 1-2 includes computer output" feature. But this post has me scratching my head.

[beautypill]

Having extensive experience with Autotune (I've been a licensed user since 1999), as well as pitch automation in DP, and also Waves Tune, I can tell you that these tools often do great and useful things, but there are situations where the results sound artificial, or there are unacceptable artifacts. Realize that Melodyne is no different, and that even in the demo, artifacts are clearly noticeable. This new tool is not going to be the free lunch it purports to be. There will be plenty of times you will want to use it, but find you can't. So let's be realistic here.

On a similar note, note in the demo that you are not watching a real user sit at a real computer using this thing, you are watching a compiled video, showing you just what they want you to see. You don't see analysis or processing times, and you don't see if fail or falter. What you are seeing is more akin to a Powerpoint presentation. The fact that it won't be released until the fall (assuming they are not "late") should tell you what kind of state this thing must be in right now. So I think it is a bit premature to assume that it will work (exactly) as advertised, or indeed, even work in a useful manner at all.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I just want to remind you that you need to be a little realistic about this. Personally, I find that their not-so-subtle push to get people to buy into version 2 with the promise of a free (or is it reduced?) upgrade highly suspect. It tell me that the reason for announcing this so early is to get a cash infusion. Why else would they tip their hand and risk other developers trying to get there first (moon race, anyone?). There are several possible scenarios that might explain this strange business choice, and they are all highly suspect to me.

I don't know why any of this is "highly suspect" to you. Let me attempt to make it a little bit less sinister.

1. The technology is in its infancy, it's not yet ready to sell.

2. They have had some lab breakthroughs, but there are still some challenges to overcome.

3. There is a lot of coding to do. This is new terrain.

4. They recognize all of the above but they have enough confidence in their trajectory to announce what they have discovered.

5. They want to announce this now because (a) they are excited, (b) the designer is proud, (c) it's extremely difficult to keep a discovery like this under wraps in 2008, so it's better to control the release of the information yourself (d) they are applying for patents and thus want to make clear to all of the international patent offices they have to deal with that they arrived at this concept first; the smartest way to do this is to announce it publicly in a manner which cannot be denied later.

6. The video is designed to advertise the product and so, yes, they are only showing the product in its best light. It makes sense for them to show the product working successfully. No conspiracy here. It's called capitalism.

7. The product will have limitations and artifacts. Some of these will disappear over time as the product gets refined. Celemony knows this and presumes that any smart consumer knows this as well.

There's nothing highly suspect about any of it.

- c