| Author |
Message |
|
| TMTC |
 Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:11 pm |
 |
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 1494
Location: The Hall of the Mountain King
|
http://www.gold.ac.uk/news/pressrelease/?releaseID=956
Just came across this. So basically what it does is mess with the parameters of the track to lead to a unique listening experience every time. Interesting in theory but I'm just wondering who's gonna jump on this first, I can see some of the post metal/atmospheric bands jumping on it as a gimmick.
The main worry is if they apply it to classic albums to give them a bit more selling power. I'm perfectly happy with how Number of the Beast sounds now I don't want it to sound different every time.
Anyway opinions? |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Emphyrio |
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:59 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2011
Posts: 1196
Location: Limerick
|
TMTC wrote: http://www.gold.ac.uk/news/pressrelease/?releaseID=956
Just came across this. So basically what it does is mess with the parameters of the track to lead to a unique listening experience every time. Interesting in theory but I'm just wondering who's gonna jump on this first, I can see some of the post metal/atmospheric bands jumping on it as a gimmick.
The main worry is if they apply it to classic albums to give them a bit more selling power. I'm perfectly happy with how Number of the Beast sounds now I don't want it to sound different every time.
Anyway opinions?
definitely gimmicky but I'd still be very curious to hear the results. Does this mean a shit RnB song might actually end up sounding good? Still skeptical of that to be honest. Don't think Nikki Minaj will ever sound good no matter what was done to it, unless she was shakin her giant ass in front of me. I'd take some amusement from that perhaps. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| StandupPaul |
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:21 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 2117
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
|
I really, really don't see the point.
Either it changes dramatically (which it says it won't in the article), and becomes something that's already been invented - a remix... or it changes subtly and 90% of mainstream music listeners don't even notice.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| StandupPaul |
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:23 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 2117
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
|
TMTC wrote: I'm perfectly happy with how Number of the Beast sounds now I don't want it to sound different every time.
This also.
I want to hear the songs how they were written.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Worthless Recluse |
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:04 pm |
|
|
Joined: 26 Apr 2008
Posts: 1949
Location: Underground Church
|
Some of you seem to think this means that you'll never be able to hear your favourite records as they are again...
Presumably what this does is allow some aspects of a track to randomly change within certain parameters. Could be interesting when applied to certain styles but I don't think you need worry about The Man forcing you to listen to a dub remix of Vol 4 against your will. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| thejuice |
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:41 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 3315
Location: Dena Lagu
|
Quote: Verses drifted in and out of view, while synthesizer phrases and drum loops were pulled apart, sustained and reconstructed from one play to the next.
Some sounds were recorded in a conventional studio, while others are generated in real time by the programme, which knows vital information about the tempo, structure and key of each song. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
