Soft Sell: New Software Makes Guitarists Obsolete
A while back we had a little discussion here on Cream about Auto-Tune, the pitch-correcting software that can make bad singers sound a little less bad and good singers sound a lot better. (Dork alert: This post might get a little technical-sounding, but in a way it's really about whether or not we care about "real" performances.)
As you may have heard, there is another of this kind of software on its way, called Direct Note Access (DNA—clever), that can, according to this Wired blog post, "dissect a chord into individual notes so that the chord can be re-formed into something new." Basically, if someone plays a chord on a recording, the software can take the recording, analyze it and separate out each individual note in the chord. Neat.
But hardly the revolution (or apocalypse) some people are claiming/fearing.
Of course, people are already cutting and pasting on a micro scale, creating entire albums from small pieces of music. For instance, the Deerhoof album Milk Man was recorded without anyone in the band ever playing a single chord—everything was edited together digitally from individual notes. Basically the DNA process in reverse. Similarly, David Andrew Strackany aka Paleo (the guy who recorded 365 songs in a year) records long sessions and then cherry-picks certain segments and digitally stitches them together. This new software will just make this sort of thing much easier to do, since it can instantly transpose the notes of a chord into various modes. But does it matter? After all, virtual singers have been around for a while. Everyone thought that was going to change the world, maybe, but it didn't.
Anyway, read the whole article if you're so inclined. It's pretty nifty software overall, but likely will only be useful to pro studio people who need to correct a small part of a performance that, for whatever reason, they are unable to get the original performer/instrument/amp. Or people who just really like doing things the hard way. Or people for whom actually playing a piece of music on an actual instrument is the hard way.
Which leads me to my next question: If you play, say, a B major barre chord on a guitar, it has a certain tone and timbre taken as a whole. Depending on the type of guitar and amp, it will have a very distinctive sound—which is quite different from the sound you'd get playing each note individually. Since guitarists tend to be picky about their hair killer tone, how do the notes sound when they're separated out artificially by a computer?
Because sheeit, computers have a way to go before they're very good at recognizing music.
Comments
This shit being designed was only a matter of time, but it sure ain't the end of the world. The instrument tone is affected by how out of tune the instrument was. The more out of tune the guitar, say, the more of the effect you're going to hear. It works the same way with vocal tuning. As as making guitar players obsolete, nah. Maybe on pop/popcountry records, but are there any fucking real instruments left on that shit anyways?
Posted 08/12/2008 at 10:28:10 AMWhen I get new products such as this, I like to push them way out of their intended applications and use the crackles and farts that come out, instead of the crappy "songwriter-wishes-they-could-play-like-a-musician" stuff they were intended for. For instance, audio restoration software is great for completely fucking up some perfectly good audio.
Posted 08/12/2008 at 10:56:00 AMyeah, i'd imagine this will sound pretty mediocre... a neat idea for changing chord voicings when trying to demo or write a song or something but, in professional use... i just don't see it... not to mention that the timbre of the instrument will be affected by so many variables (like mentioned above) but also, tracking that many notes in any individual chord and then trying to retain harmonic interaction between the strings and the resonance of the guitar's body...
hell, even autotune (or even graphically tuning in the program, manually) sounds pretty bad on an instrument on top of the mix unless its such a smidge...
that being said, maybe it'd be a really cool thing for non-traditional use like creating chords out of noise clusters or something.
Posted 08/12/2008 at 11:42:51 AMno history lesson, but that's the kind of the point new technology. just see if you can break it. look at the TB-303 for instance. it failed terribly at what it was intended to do, but inspired a generation with what it actually could be used for.
Posted 08/12/2008 at 12:23:01 PMactually, i'd call that a "side effect" of new technology... the actual point of the new technology, at least in the eyes of its creator or programmer, is probably the specified (or marketed) usage.
but it is why this shit can still be fun instead of just another crappy sounding prosumer piece for people who can't play, i suppose.
Posted 08/12/2008 at 12:42:33 PMi can't argue with that. i guess i've just always seen the "side effect" as being more important than what it was originally intended for in regards to the greater scheme of things.
Posted 08/12/2008 at 12:54:02 PMand i can't agree with you more on that. i, too, enjoy the side effect more than the intended use, typically...
it's like ky... supposed to help for sex but have you ever slathered a baby in it and used it like a bowling ball cos it's so much faster, has a larger spread than your typical ball, and includes sound effects?? side effect wins!
Posted 08/12/2008 at 01:04:35 PM"but have you ever slathered a baby..."
Brilliant.
Another great example is the CD/hardrive turntable. I play in a group with a guy who uses these. Of course they pale in comparison to manipulating a real vinyl record, but my bandmate figured out a way to trick the machine into running at two different speeds, which it does not enjoy doing. The sounds that come out of that thing when it gets confused are unlike anything I've heard, and obviously far outside the original application of 'scratching' some lame sample off a CD.
Posted 08/12/2008 at 01:45:00 PMI wonder what would happen if you recorded a large room full of people all talking at once, and then had the DNA software separate the "chord" (or "noise cluster," to use Jeremy's term) into notes.
Posted 08/12/2008 at 02:42:15 PM@ burrito
what make/model?
Posted 08/12/2008 at 03:50:26 PMI'm not sure, but I'll find out for you. I think they're by Numark. Nothing too expensive. I can tell you that the CD table unit is black, while the hard drive unit is a gray chrome, and is a newer addition to the line. I'll call the guy and post what he tells me...
Posted 08/12/2008 at 03:56:25 PMNumark CDX for discs. $400ish. Numark HDX for hard drive. $600. Not the most roadworthy things, but lots of fun in a controlled environment.
Posted 08/12/2008 at 04:15:34 PMFinally, I can turn my Les Paul into a MIDI guitar!
But seriously, did you guys watch the demonstration video (linked to my name)? I'm as skeptical as anyone about recording technology and was at first very skeptical about this, but after watching the video, I must say it looks incredibly easy to use and sounds transparent. I imagine most hip hop producers and anyone else who does a lot of sampling will be itching to get their hands on this software as well as your pop-country sect.
Posted 08/12/2008 at 05:01:46 PMI still think it's a harbinger of doom...
Posted 08/12/2008 at 05:15:16 PM"But seriously, did you guys watch the demonstration video (linked to my name)? "
IT'S BLACK MAGIC!! fucking weeeeird... (though people who use pitch correction software have told me melodyne is pretty amazing sounding).
Posted 08/13/2008 at 02:45:15 AMsuper meat! my all time favorite is plugging stomp pedals with stereo outs into themselves, particularly the cheap multi-effects kind
Posted 08/13/2008 at 04:24:18 PM