Do you ever feel guilty when making simple loops?

[tape smoke]

i think matching drums and making it sound fat can be just as hard as making a song from scratch. making it swing fat ect.

sometimes you just cant desecrate the classics .

[hurlingdervish]

sorry nyquest, you have made a valid point, but valid doesnt equal true...

look up AAS technology and ableton live tension. completely new style software synths. listen to the synth NI Massive. you need a dual core to run it without crashing, it wouldnt be possible even 5 years ago. love it or hate it, autotune couldnt have existed before the time it did. new sounds and instruments pop up all the time.

[nyquest]

if I had here,
my massive list of numbers that made up every combination of number-strings possible (lets say, strings long enough for just 1 minute, at 44.1khz sample rate. Since most music is somewhat repetitive, its quite reasonable to assume there are no single sounds longer than 1 minute

any sound that any new invention made, would already be somewhere in my list of numbers. Along with every word of every language, accent etc etc..

new synthesis techniques, yes they are around, but doesn't mean they hold the ONLY means of creating a particular sound. . technically any sound could be made from a bunch of pitched sine waves, it'd just take longer.

Interfaces are improving - and sometimes the synth dictates the 'kind' of sounds that will come out of it - but that doesn't change the fact that all possible sounds are already available.

Also, back on the topic of logic, if you believe my argument is untrue, one of the premises must be false.. which one?

[hurlingdervish]

technically any sound could be made from a bunch of pitched sine waves, it'd just take longer.

we can synthesize molecules, so why cant we synthesize a universe? it would just take longer?

the valid point is that we need computers to make some of these sounds. the untrue part is that the original technology was powerful enough to do with it what we can do today.

no one is saying you need this to write good music, just making a point that new sounds keep coming, you cant stop that. new instruments will constantly be invented. and no synth dictates the kind of sounds that come out of it, unless you use presets

[nyquest]

I dont think you understood what I meant,
never mind though.

[Les Braun]

I might get a sampler where you can press the pads while recording and the samples are spread equally to each pad and shit(do you call those velocity pads?). What samplers have that feature?

What samplers can do this?

[hurlingdervish]

you mean auto slice? the 505 or 606 has it i forget, the mv 8800 has it. mpcs have it.

[Les Braun]

you mean auto slice? the 505 or 606 has it i forget, the mv 8800 has it. mpcs have it.

Cool...I'll think about getting a 505, or possibly even an MPC...

[hurlingdervish]

really though you dont need auto chop... you could also try chopping it up on your computer and then putting it on your card

[Chuck]

So you're feeling guilty about using loops but you wouldn't feel guilty about using lazy ass auto chop?

[hurlingdervish]

So you're feeling guilty about using loops but you wouldn't feel guilty about using lazy ass auto chop?

ziiiiing!

[iG9]

I know what you're saying, but some music I think is so ill I couldn't bear to chop it. There's a vibe there I gotta respect, not mutilate just so I can feel like a "real musician". Plus I play "real" instruments too, sax and keys, so I don't feel like I have to prove anything.

You gotta remember though not everybody loves beats like we do. Someone who listens to a lot of hip hop has trained their ears to discern and enjoy different sounds than an alternative kid, for instance. Realize too that to some people samplers will always be cheating. Even if you cut it all into one hits you still aren't playing the original instruments. I've rocked loops with only minor embellishment and been ragged on for it. At the time it kinda hurt but in retrospect fuck all that. If you dig it, feel good about it had fun making it fuck all the haters.

[Les Braun]

So you're feeling guilty about using loops but you wouldn't feel guilty about using lazy ass auto chop?

Yeah, that's right.
Just because it takes longer on the 404 doesn't mean it makes you a better producer. I feel that auto-chopping could be a great help to me. But of course there are some samples that are better when chopped manually.

[nyquest]

I'm surprised there isn't a bigger movement of people saying 'you're not a musician unless you grew your own trees, cut them up and turned them into instruments, etc...'

and then theyd have to prove that it wasn't just their father/mother that caused the creation by having a kid.. or their parent's parents. or their parent's parent's parents

[modulr]

a recording of music can be represented digitally as a string of values.

bitrate/samplerate.

beyond a certain bitrate/samplerate, it becomes impossible for a human to discern the difference between that and higher qualities.

Which string of numbers is not possible to produce on a computer?
None of them... a computer can produce 16, 5, 2, 8 just as easily as it can produce 6,8,5,7

Every sound that we can envisage can be produced using a computer.

There is no more invention required to unlock more possibilities.

Someone could start a number-string-generating program at '0' and make every combination of values that took up say, 5 minutes of time at a samplerate of 44.1khz.

Wouldnt take tooo long on a reasonable supercomputer. You'd have every piece of music ever invented that went for 5 minutes or less included in with all the other possibilities of 5 minutes of sound..

I dunno. Sound at 16bit would create 65,536 possible values for every one sample.

65536 values x 44100 = 1 second of audio.
65536 values x 44100 x 60 x 5 = 5 minutes of audio.
that's roughly 867,041,280,000 values in 5 minutes of audio.

Now since those five minutes of audio can be anything, you'd need to try every possible combination from 0 to 65536 in that 5 mins of audio.

65536 x 86704128000 = 56,822,417,326,080,000 possibilities.

fifty-six quadrillion,
eight hundred twenty-two trillion,
four hundred seventeen billion,
three hundred twenty-six million,
eighty thousand.

Then it would have to create the audio for all that. Then you'd have to listen to it all to extract the music from the white noise. If it were really that simple to do, some team of professors would have knocked this out already. Who wouldn't want to synthesize some classic work purely by letting the computer run thru all the possibilities.

The real point is, the computer is only capable of creating what it's programmed to. Sure the potential might be there, but that can't be confused with what it actually creates, what's tangible to our ears. People create instruments that generate new number sequences all the time... and that coupled with our interaction is what creates such endless possibilities.