Recreating Daft Punk's Da Funk with Overtone and Leipzig(overtone-recipes.github.io) |
Recreating Daft Punk's Da Funk with Overtone and Leipzig(overtone-recipes.github.io) |
https://youtu.be/W4PEAKNtbVw?t=184
A good explanation how it works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdN43xfwV2U
Slightly better played
I don't think it's the MS-20 as it does come close but the MS-20 is slightly more nasal. Lots of moments I play with it and I think "this sounds ALMOST like The Funk" because with a big resonance on two filters it distorts pretty bad/good :). But perhaps if I try it with the same feedback technique it might get fuller.
I think you mean "dense and efficient".
Musical keys are "mathematically" interchangeable. The physical keys that correspond to notes not in the key of C major (alternatively, A minor) are colored black for practical reasons. That is, for knowing one's place while playing the piano.
Fortunately I sorted this out in college, and I've enjoyed making music for my own enjoyment since.
I wish we had pianos with slightly thinner keys (to allow for the same reach) but with same-level black and white keys.
It would make piano playing normalized (like e.g. bass playing is), and make learning scales, transposing, etc childs play.
It would probably still need some color or small "bump" on C to know where our hands are, but that would be it.
Of course there are also several hexagonal etc keyboards with similar normalized layouts, but they also haven't caught on.
Take a tune, and now arrange some graph paper like the "note pattern view" in a sequencer, with one difference. Instead of arranging the pitches in the normal way, arrange them by the order they come in the tune. (so the first note of the tune will be the "lowest" pitch, second note the second "lowest" and so on.
You might see some interesting things that you didn't hear!
Probably Mozart would be a good target to do this with, and pop music would not, but I could be wrong on that. Possibly this is over your head, but possibly not.
Then if you want to add a ton more formalism, read a little about serialism, and apply this technique to a twelve tone piece. You will be rewarded for your efforts, as a previously difficult to follow piece makes much more sense. Doesn't mean you'll find it pleasing to listen to though.
Homepage: http://composerssketchpad.com
I've been a Mac user for almost ten years now, but the lack of FLStudio for OSX makes me question that decision every six months or so.
But apart from that, you can do the same things (although less builtin tooling for electronic music, but still enough) with Garageband, and, if you don't have invested in VSTs/AUs, Reason.
Nothing has been "denied to you". You just haven't spent the time it takes to learn. Have foreign languages been "denied to you", too?
What, precisely, is ridiculous about music notation? It represents time, on the x axis, and pitch, on the y axis (on a basic level). Seems reasonably logical, to me.
Where is this coming from? It's pretty clearly G minor to me. The bass is playing G. The main phrase starts and ends on a G.
> This 1.334 is a ratio of adding 5 semitones in hertz. This should sound like this.
This harmonic overtone kills it for me. I know there are some overtones in the original, but not like this. 5 semi-tones is an interval of a perfect fourth. I think maybe a perfect fifth would work (7 semi-tones) but this overtone pretty much destroys it for me.
I know it's wrong and working on these improvements:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/4dl454/recreating_...
Right now it is the early stages of these kind of musical tools for live music coding. I really look forward to the near future for these new tools. I know that we have had programming for music for decades but this is a different genre at least to me.
Here is a video of Overture going over live coding from 3 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imoWGsipe4k&nohtml5=False
He has set up a Patreaon page [0] for those interested in contributing his live coding, development of Sonic Pi and Overtone.
If anyone is interested on working on this drop me a pm/comment (it's just for fun)
I was hindered by not having any idea what I was doing but here's what I came up with:
http://www.aphall.com/random/audio-test/ (clicks weirdly in firefox, no idea why.)
Libraries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sdtOpE_3aQ
And the follow up:
Do people really compose this way?
The daft version is loud and has a bite. This version just sounds lethargic and boring.
The idea is not to perfectly replicate the existing production, but to showcase the use and possibilities of the systems used.
There were lots of glossy trade brochures lionizing the founders and how great they were but it was apparent that they went public to cash out and were riding the growth roller coaster to drive the stock price at the expense of capable employees who can sustain the company long term.
This works beautifully in the composition first paradigm of lisps/clojure. The APIs are a bit hard to wrap your head around if you intend to use Overtone for the entire production process but I've had lots of fun with using it as the mother of all synthesis engine
Commercial studios have racks full of boxes that start from $2000 each that fatten up and sweeten the sound, and a commercial track will patch every element through multiple boxes during mixing. The mixing desk itself will add its own sound.
Most of the boxes have analog circuitry inside them. Modelling it is not easy, and good models can use so many cycles it's no longer possible to listen to their output in real time (at least, not without using external hardware acceleration).
None of the mainstream music code environments - Overtone, SuperCollider, Csound, Max/MSP and so on - pay much attention to this. They mostly come with trivially simple DSP models which don't sound all that great.
Surprisingly, they also make it hard to use more complicated models even if you know what you're doing. Mostly you can't just add the model in user land - you have to add it as an external, and rebuild.
Commercial software from Korg, Yamaha, NI, UA, Access, and most pro and semi-pro VST makers puts more effort into sounding good, but the high quality models are somewhat proprietary and the code isn't often open sourced - although sometimes the models appear in papers from (e.g.) the ICMC.
This is the exact same sort of sound you'd get if you picked up any DAW or hardware studio and tried to recreate the song in a few moments.
It's almost certainly possible to create something true to the original, but there's no way it would be suitable for a "recipe" for showing people how Overtone/SuperCollider works.
Also, just comparing them by ear. Over each note, the copy builds up and then builds down in volume in a <> shape. The original has a sharper attack and then fades gradually, which looks more like a > shape.
I think the copy also has an unnecessary reverb effect, but I'm not sure.
This is all malleable of course. None of this is the fault of the software. It's just a difficulty inherent to reverse engineering.
Da Funk's lead can be reasonably approximated with cheaply available modeling software, or moderately priced analog synths. Here's someone getting decently close with Massive, which is around 200 dollars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1_JxbT_1s
The article's sound is just still too simple. I've not used Octave, but I'm sure that with some work, it could achieve quite a bit more.
I've understood that for a large category of adult learners, when starting on an instrument for the first time in their life, it's the staff notation that creates an usurmountable barrier. So, yeah, it's not definetly 'easy' for most beginners.
Most other DAW's have caught up with their piano roll implementation but I still like FL's the most. I think what makes it unique is its toolset -- as in, the toolbar up top -- as its modal editing workflow lets you add, delete, and then transform notes incredibly quickly. Most of these modes have a shortcut to get to them, and its easy to flip between them. It even has a chord option, which functions much in the same way as that hook tool. Other DAWs take a modal approach but in many cases they complicate their implementation.
It's also worth noting that FL is pattern-based, whereas most DAWs are not. ("Pattern-based" means you generally write music phrases/patterns and repeat them throughout the track, this is helpful for electronic dance music.) A repeating bassline pattern in FL is more akin to a series of symlinks back to the original file, whereas in Cubase and Logic, each of these repeats would be copies (unless you specify otherwise, but I found the implementation convoluted and troublesome.)
Most of the other DAWs I've worked with are much more fiddly and require messing with technical details and audio routing to get a good result. FL also requires this, but again the implementation is seamless, has sensible defaults, and stays out of your way until you need to mess with it. (In the middle of a good flow I have very little patience for routing.) I do not find this to be the case with Live, Cubase, or especially Logic... I put in an effort to learn each of these at some point and ultimately left to return to FL.
I've noticed DAWs tend to optimize around performances (Live), MIDI orchestration (Cubase, Logic), recording (ProTools, Reaper) or 'in-the-box' production (FL). All of the above have tools for composing by mouse but FL's workflow is optimized for this specific use-case.
"In the morning on an empty stomach"
"Hypocritically"
"With a lot of difficulty"
“With conviction and a rigorous sadness”
“With a healthy superiority”
“Don’t eat too much”
“Shake like a leaf”
“Do not cough”
“Go away”
“Like a nightingale with a toothache”
x.ugly_hack=blah <- “With conviction and a rigorous sadness”They all allow different amounts of precision and interpretation of the performance. Staff notation is open to interpretation on the performance level. MIDI is an exact recording (or programming) of a performance.
With staff notation you can mark eighth notes and say "staccato, lag behind the beat", and there's an infinite number of subtly different ways to play it, even within the own composers interpretation. With MIDI, it would represented as "Note on A3, 12 pulses after first quarter note, velocity of 87. Note off A3, 54 pulses after first quarter note, velocity of 0. Note on C3 (etc....)". MIDI is great for computers (or routing signals during live performance) because it's exact.
MIDI is a pretty exact specification. If a sequencer is changing the timing of anything, the underlying MIDI structures are not the same then. You can have different amounts of swing or different PPQ values, but then I wouldn't consider that "the same MIDI".
You can feed it to different sound generators of course, different drum machines, synths, a laptop, what-have-you, (most sequencers have both builtin together) but that's different from the MIDI itself.
Given a specific MIDI file, with specific applied quantization, they should absolutely play the same way -- the only exception is the timing resolution they offer and smallish latency issues (which in practice should be 100% transparent).
Most classically trained players do too.
Besides we have much more control over step sequences than you probably think, e.g.
http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/technologies/vst_express...
Plus, of course, tons of CC, etc.
Compared to the possibilities for expression in step sequencing, something like a piano, which basically just has velocity and sustain/dumper is not even close.
[1] Great studio guitarist Glen Campbell supposedly couldn't read music at all, just went along with what he heard and made it work; Tommy Tedesco by comparison could read sheet music upside down.
Joni Mitchell apparently didn't even use regular tab notation. She'd detune her guitar and annotate the relative pitch shift per string, e.g. D-2 G+1, etc or similar.
But of course, up to a point, lowering barriers is always a good thing for beginners.
Here's a screenshot I took of a random song in TuxGuitar (a GNU licensed tablature editor/viewer). You can see the rhythm fairly clearly, as well as the difference between pull-offs and slides.
There's a huge jump in the complexity of how you need to reason about translating the music to the instrument with staff notation. Tabs solve this by explicitly telling the musician what fingering to use.
Guitar players should still learn to read music because it's useful, but anyone who wants a guitarist to play their music (especially by sight) should use a notation similar to tabs, but with rhythm indicated as well. Good software to convert between the two could be generally useful, but I imagine there is a bit of nuance to what fingerings sound the best.
