Quantcast
A simple reason why we should not trust software plugins.. - Page 3 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
A simple reason why we should not trust software plugins..
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #61
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
But if you can't actual play the songs you put out, that's a whole other thing. Picasso actually DID paint his paintings.
I guess all those classical composers who create music they couldn't play themselves are right out too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...y-1824125.html
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #62
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve ➑️
I guess all those classical composers who create music they couldn't play themselves are right out too.

Great composer, shame he couldn't play - News - Classical - The Independent
They are COMPOSERS, hence the name composer, not PERFORMER.
Old 23rd January 2013
  #63
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
Picasso didn't throw some paint on the canvas, then scan it into the computer and spend hours editing it. There's nothing wrong with developing a song through multiple iterations and trying things. Use all the cheats you want to do songwring and section layout and to work out part interactions, and demo'ing. But if you can't actual play the songs you put out, that's a whole other thing. Picasso actually DID paint his paintings.
There's plenty of artists who do though - use digital manipulation I mean. They might not be as good a painter as Picasso, but does it make them any less of an artist? Surely it's the concept and result we should judge, not the method.

If you're rating the production, the end result is all that matters. If the artist can't pull it off for real, then that's a different judgment.

I have no issue with someone liking all of xx's songs and production without rating them as an artist - particularly in the pop world.

But - if that's musically not your thing, that of course is your shout.
Old 23rd January 2013
  #64
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
If they are open about the fact that they do these things, then I have no problem with it. I have to keep coming back to this. I don't dislike electronic music. I actually quite like some of it. It's openly created through very artificial means. My problem is the level of unacknowledged fakery that goes on.
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #65
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
They are COMPOSERS, hence the name composer, not PERFORMER.
Got it. So a modern day composer who cannot actually play parts, who relies on programming parts, is in the clear? What if it's a songwriter who can't keep pitch uses autotune to record the melodies? Complex formula of yours, it is.
1
Share
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #66
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
Actually, this has been discussed many times. Audio processing isn't really amenable to a parallel approach, because it's just not a parallel problem. It's a serial stream of samples, the processed value of each depends on the processed value of the one(s) before it. So you really can't easily apply parallel processing to this problem very easily. There are some specialized situations, such a convolution, but even that is a little ill suited to a parallel processing approach.

One one you might apply a CUDA approach to something like reverb would be to use it for semi-real time finite element analysis, to model the vibrations in a metal plate, for instance. In a situation like that, you can feed samples into it one at a time, with the results moving outward stepwise by way of each element I assume running some sort of filter over the state of surrounding elements or something like that.

That sort of thing would really take advantage of parallel processing. The actual sample in/sample out would be serial, but the modelling of the vibrations would be a very parallel sort of operation.
This is all wild guesswork in any case, but let me remind you that it was the OP that came with this "1000 cores, rough calculation" number. If he had said that he had calculated that we needed a 1 THz CPU to get there, instead of "1000 cores", I wouldn't have brought it up. If OP had a specific algorithm in mind that brought him to his calculation of 1000 cores needed, we'd be able to have a more detailed discussion about why he's full of it.

Note that I'm not saying that plugins are currently indistinguishable from real hardware. I just think we're much closer to the point that it doesn't matter anymore than people with huge emotional investments in analog outboard are willing to admit.
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #67
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve ➑️
Got it. So a modern day composer who cannot actually play parts, who relies on programming parts, is in the clear? What if it's a songwriter who can't keep pitch uses autotune to record the melodies? Complex formula of yours, it is.
Classical composers write music for other people to play. That's how it works. It doesn't matter if they write the notes on a piece of paper or a computer, they are still just writing down notes. They don't put out albums of their work and claim (implicitly or explicitly) that they played all the parts of the orchestra.

I have no formula, and if I had one it wouldn't be complex. My agument is very simple:
Learn to write, learn to play, attempt to make your music in as honest a way as possible, and always try to make it more over time. Don't put out music and represent it as your own if you can't actually play it. No one is waiting for another tuned, comped, quantized and sample replaced song on the internet, it's boring. Do something different, like be a real musician.
It's that simple. I have no interest in arguing infinite gradations of what's right or wrong with people, though that's almost the only response anyone ever gives to my ongoing pleas for honesty.
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #68
Gear Head
 
progtronic's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
...I have no formula, and if I had one it wouldn't be complex. My agument is very simple:
...Don't put out music and represent it as your own if you can't actually play it. No one is waiting for another tuned, comped, quantized and sample replaced song on the internet, it's boring. Do something different, like be a real musician.
Just... wow...
1
Share
Old 23rd January 2013
  #69
Lives for gear
 
jrhager84's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
This thread hurts my brain...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #70
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
Learn to write, learn to play, attempt to make your music in as honest a way as possible, and always try to make it more over time. Don't put out music and represent it as your own if you can't actually play it. No one is waiting for another tuned, comped, quantized and sample replaced song on the internet, it's boring. Do something different, like be a real musician.
I basically agree with you,

and maybe somebody's already said this, but,

let's there's 2 artists,

one is completely honest, un-tuned, un-comped, un-quantized, un-sample replaced, but just lousy. Lousy lousy music,

and another artist makes music using all of those things, but is up there with Lennon-McCartney otherwise?

People want the first one?
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #71
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
Classical composers write music for other people to play.
For someone who doesn't have many rules, you have a lot of rules.

There is nothing inherently wrong with your rule BTW.... besides your obvious hypocrisy (classic rock "fixing," overdubbing, multitracking OK, but if you go beyond some undetermined line you are cheating).

There is lots of great music throughout the years that was made by people without much instrumental talent, from Dylan to Jackson. Those guys could afford to bring in the best players, vocalists, whatever they needed. Today that's not practical. So you get bedroom buys with programmed drums and autotuned vocals and cut and pasted guitar parts.

Wait... Is the SONG any good? You know.. the SONG?

Quote:
It's that simple. I have no interest in arguing infinite gradations of what's right or wrong with people, though that's almost the only response anyone ever gives to my ongoing pleas for honesty.
I would relate more to your "plea for honesty" if it also included a similar plea for honesty when it comes to pop music. Beach Boys records didn't include a disclaimer that they were not recorded in one pass... should they have? Is that the level of "honesty" you are talking about? Why is it only for contemporary musicians?
Old 23rd January 2013
  #72
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
I never said everything had to be recorded in one pass.
Dean, I did. I was making a clear analogy. Your point is somewhere there is a line where "cheating" is OK and there is a line where it is not. At the extreme end, playing together in the same room at the same time is the only pure recording.

You insinuate it was OK to fix some vocals and punch in some parts... but how much? That is what I'm trying to get at.

Back in the days BEFORE multitrack, there was NO punching in. TO THEM anything that was "editing" was cheating.

It's a slope... the line is always shifting. You don't realize it but your line is strictly a function of the generation gap. Because you were born in an era when multitrack and editing and comping were common, that is OK, but there is a line beyond that somehow.

My point is that your line is artificial, arbitrary, and driven by your cultural experiences... by your expectations. It's not a real line.

Those who grow up in today's world don't care about audio manipulation... indeed, in many cases they see it as another tool in the toolbox. That doesn't mean they will always like it. Mumford & Sons and the Civil Wars are popular, but so is Skrillex. Both are valid forms of art. You don't (obviously) have to like them both, but putting arbitrary limits on what is acceptable creatively is a bit silly, arbitrary, and hypocritical IMHO.

Quote:
The Beach Boys were so far ahead of modern music that it's an insult to even make such a comparison.
It's not an insult, it's an apt comparison if you are indeed interested in what you call transparency.
1
Share
Old 23rd January 2013
  #73
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
What's hypocritical is putting out music that you represent as yours, when you can't even play it. To try to make out like calling for more honesty in music is hypocritcal boggles my mind. It just shows how far gone music is.

And I'll say it for the thousandth time and if you are too stupid to read this paragraph, I'm done:

I'm not asking for any rules. I'm asking for more honesty. I'm asking for less manipulation that is purely intended to make the artist sound more competent than he is, nothing to do with artistic effects.

What about that can't you understand? How could you possible argue against such a thing?
1
Share
Old 24th January 2013 | Show parent
  #74
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Did The Beach Boys say (at the time) that they used session musicians for the drums and bass and most everything?

I was surprised by that.
1
Share
Old 24th January 2013 | Show parent
  #75
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray ➑️
Did The Beach Boys say (at the time) that they used session musicians for the drums and bass and most everything?

I was surprised by that.
I was under the impression that the label had a lot of say in that, and that they wouldn't have been allowed to do that even if they wanted? Back then labels had a lot of say on that front. Cost would have been a factor I guess. Look at some of those videos of them laying down live backing tracks, with a pretty substantial number of musicians. I'm not sure if the label would have been willing to pay for a young group to get to that point. But then the group would spend a lot of time working out the vocals to layer over that, and they were primarily known as a vocal group.

But anyway, least up until they started doing stuff that was really beyond the ability to deliver reasonably live with the gear that was available back then, it seems like they were able to perform their songs live quite well, from footage I've seen. Of course back then with the sad PAs and such that were available, I'm sure that they had their off nights trying to do that stuff as well.
Old 24th January 2013
  #76
Lives for gear
 
jrhager84's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Stop being so cantankerous, Dean! :-P

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777
Old 24th January 2013
  #77
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
It just bugs me, man. I appologize to Nuthin for getting overly snippy with him.
Old 24th January 2013
  #78
Lives for gear
 
jrhager84's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I get you, Dean. You are a wealth of information, and come from a different time, when things were better (in a plain matter of speaking). I can totally understand your frustrations, but unfortunately we live in an ever-evolving world. That said, the way people create and perform music is vastly different than it was some years ago. I say embrace your roots, and hope that people will see the honesty from a well-recorded track in mono, in one take, while being simultaneously cut to vinyl. :D
Old 24th January 2013 | Show parent
  #79
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
What's hypocritical is putting out music that you represent as yours, when you can't even play it.
So you keep saying, but as I've pointed out, lots of artists can't play the music they create. Call them composers if that makes you happy Dean.

If I recall correctly from Zappa interviews (please correct me if I'm wrong), Zappa put out a few things that were sequenced that he could not play live.

Quote:
To try to make out like calling for more honesty in music is hypocritcal boggles my mind.
Dean, that is not at all what I was saying. It's funny that the ones screaming the loudest about other people misunderstanding are the same ones who miss the point.

Quote:
I'm not asking for any rules. I'm asking for more honesty. I'm asking for less manipulation that is purely intended to make the artist sound more competent than he is, nothing to do with artistic effects.
Again, if you were asking for more honesty, then you would take artists to task like Tears For Fears who had studio created guitar solos. Or the myriad of groups who comped together vocals prior to the advent of a DAW. Comping vocals and even running words and phrases through pitch correction predates the DAW. What about the Kinks who brought in guitar players to do UNCREDITED solos on their songs? Heck, why not call the Beatles to task for "Why My Guitar.." when they brought in uncredited Clapton?

You are being hypocritical Dean.

Again, I kind of agree with your bigger point, but I just don't share your vitriol against those who lack the musical ability to play the music they create.

Again, what about music that was scored with sequenced strings by someone who in NO WAY could EVER perform the music live? I just don't understand your hangup Dean.

Do you think there should be a disclaimer on any recording that employs compositing of instruments?
Old 24th January 2013 | Show parent
  #80
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray ➑️
Did The Beach Boys say (at the time) that they used session musicians for the drums and bass and most everything?

I was surprised by that.
Exactly. Hypocritical.
Old 24th January 2013
  #81
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Forget it. I'm wasting my time arguing with you. No matter what I say you are going to continue to try to justify ever lessening musicianship.
Old 24th January 2013
  #82
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
And, BTW, one of the things that really bugs me is that you continue to just completely rewrite my position. I have no 'vitriol' against anyone. I'm trying to argue for people to become better musicians, and to put out music that they can actually create. Everyone has to start somewhere, I'm just trying to argue that people shouldn't stay there. They should get better, and not at using Autotune or quantizing.
Old 24th January 2013 | Show parent
  #83
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
Forget it. I'm wasting my time arguing with you. No matter what I say you are going to continue to try to justify ever lessening musicianship.


Quote:
And, BTW, one of the things that really bugs me is that you continue to just completely rewrite my position.
Interesting, how you find it OK to rewrite mine though?

To be clear, I have nothing pro or con to say about "ever lessening musicianship." I think Bob Dylan was great in his early days, maybe in part because he was a simple guitar player, and the same goes with a lot of songwriters. For me the end result is what matters, not pulling apart each element and determining whether the element meets some unspecific criteria of authenticity.

So it wouldn't bother me if a young Bob Dylan today would choose to add a piano part to his song that he couldn't play live. Or if he autotuned his backing vocals. Or if he comped his vocals.

It doesn't bother me that Dave Davies couldn't play the solo on "You Really Got me." It doesn't bother me that someone uses Autotune like Jen Scaturro to create new melodies that she might not have been able to sing. It doesn't bother me that Skrillex couldn't play his music live, that it's a studio creation. I think it's all (well, a lot of it) good/interesting stuff.

For you, apparently this means I can't ALSO like music created by talented, trained instrumentalists, and that's just silly beyond comment. I DO appreciate your affinity for this type of music, and I share it. I think what is important is the WORK... not the "how." I care about how something moves me. THAT is what music is about... for me.

I think it's ridiculous for you to rail against ways of creating music, especially when you have already opened the door to audio trickery by admitting that multitrack recording and some editing are OK. There's no question, it's just a matter of degree, and you haven't provided any rhyme or reason for where you draw the line.

It's sad that (apparently) you were hit so hard by cognitive dissonance that it appears your brain exploded. OK, I joke, but really. If you're going to bring it up, don't get all uppity when people point out the glaring holes in your philosophy.
Old 24th January 2013
  #84
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
OMG, you are clearly incapable of reading English.
1
Share
Old 24th January 2013 | Show parent
  #85
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
OMG, you are clearly incapable of reading English.
You're clearly incapable of responding logically.

What is absolutely clear is, to you, the playing of "real instruments" is sacred. For me, the only thing sacred is how it moves me. Two different camps. "Talent" to me is someone creating art that means something to me, whether with two turntables and a microphone or a piano.
1
Share
Old 24th January 2013
  #86
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
If you had actually read what I've been writing, I've said it I don't know how many times. Nothing is 'sacred' to me. I'm just saying that if you are going to call yourself a musician, you should try to become a real musician. If you are going to put out music that you can't play, you should be honest about it.

It completely boggles my mind that you can continually try to pervert that into all the BS that you keep try to make me out to be saying.
1
Share
Old 24th January 2013 | Show parent
  #87
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
I'm just saying that if you are going to call yourself a musician, you should try to become a real musician.
I'm saying I think a real musician is one who makes music that I find important/moving/etc. That's it. I couldn't care less whether someone has music on their CD they are incapable of playing.

You can't run and hide from yer own words.
Old 24th January 2013 | Show parent
  #88
Here for the gear
 
P Basie's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve ➑️
I'm saying I think a real musician is one who makes music that I find important/moving/etc. That's it. I couldn't care less whether someone has music on their CD they are incapable of playing.

You can't run and hide from yer own words.

So the performance aspect of "real musicians" is of no value to you... and what's only important is whether or not their cd moves you?

What type of music do you listen to?
1
Share
Old 24th January 2013
  #89
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
I find it amazing to see two people bumping into eachother in looking at this issue in a completely polarised, black & white way. It seems to me that both the underlying music/production _and_ the performance of a performing musician are elements that can make a great piece of music. It's just that neither are necessary elements when it comes to finding music that moves (some) people. Electronic genres, for instance, have nearly no performance aspect, yet I dare you to say that this music doesn't elicit feelings among the people that appreciate it. On the other hand there are genres where nothing really interesting or new can be found in its instrumentation, or even its harmonic movements. But where the performance captivates people on its own merits.

Being snobbish about what is 'true art' is a completely useless venture anyway. Chances are, Mozart would think most 20th century 'honest' pop music the result of the musings of a couple of musically illiterate hacks. As a species, we know that what Mozart did was brilliant, and it was there, so we moved on and looked for other ways to enjoy the musical landscape. That's just how things go. The fact that Deadmau5 exists doesn't invalidate the enjoyment an old rocker can get out of his Zeppelin albums. Stop bickering and enjoy music. Please.
Old 24th January 2013 | Show parent
  #90
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by P Basie ➑️
So the performance aspect of "real musicians" is of no value to you... and what's only important is whether or not their cd moves you?
I understand why you may have taken that from what I wrote, but that's not really true. I listen to a lot of music that has "real musicians" playing their instruments. I'm a big Prince fan for example. I love a good singer songwriter as well... Suzanne Vega for example. Kathleen Edwards. Civil Wars. Tracy Thorn. Fiona Apple. Swell Season. First Aid Kit. I also like a lot of guitar rock, funk. Black Keys, etc.. Even choral stuff like Eric Whitacre.

Then there's the other side... I enjoy listening to non "real musicians" like hip hop, avant garde music with found objects or handmade one of a kind "instruments." Plus stuff like Phillip Glass. Steve Roach. Somebody like Danger Mouse who really isn't a great musician, but writes great songs and makes great records IMHO.

I think we are in a strange time... it is no longer necessary for music to exist as a performance, a real moment in time captured by a recording. Now there are prefab moments that, for me, can be really great!
Closed
Topic:

Forum Jump
Forum Jump