171–180 of 198 posts
I think web3 will disprupt a lot too. Whole new streaming services based on the Blockchain will evolve, with easier distribution and payment.
Hahahahaha I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, all offers considered
I think web3 will disprupt a lot too. Whole new streaming services based on the Blockchain will evolve, with easier distribution and payment.
Maybe one about tries, those are cool
When I read this, I was trying to map "record labels" and "music" onto "big 5 publishers" and "books." The Big 5 are not quite there yet, but you can almost feel it gestating in the minds of those executives: "publish your book yourself, and if it's a hit, then we'll reprint it and do your next one." In the other article by Ted Gioia (the talk with Rick Beato), Ted said, back in the old days, half the people in the r…
What he said in the interview was that back in the day the criminals that ran the industry actually liked music. Now it's owned by Chinese technology companies, hedge funds, and regional telephone monopoly conglomerates and run by musically deaf accountants that only care about next quarters numbers.
Unlike Spotify, where the ideal customer subscribes but never listens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a musical genre, a sound, it has many definitions depending on context. It isn’t just a literal abbreviation of the word “popular”, not since about the 1950s anyway.
No that's exactly what it is. It used to be if it was on the radio, it was pop. Now I guess it would be if it goes viral on Tiktok or trending on streaming platforms. But if you are going to claim its an actual genre, like I've seen many do, then you will need to provide a description of the style that manages to include what people generally consider pop while excluding what they don't. And I've yet to see someone s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No that's exactly what it is. It used to be if it was on the radio, it was pop. Now I guess it would be if it goes viral on Tiktok or trending on streaming platforms. But if you are going to claim its an actual genre, like I've seen many do, then you will need to provide a description of the style that manages to include what people generally consider pop while excluding what they don't. And I've yet to see someone s…
It's not a traditional genre as much as a characterization, but it definitely has hallmarks that you can identify without reference to its popularity. From Wikipedia: > Identifying factors usually include repeated choruses and hooks, short to medium-length songs written in a basic format (often the verse-chorus structure), and rhythms or tempos that can be easily danced to. BTW, Wikipedia also draws a distinction bet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not committing suicide - it's just fighting over the rights to the tide pool where the water receded entirely unaware of the tsunami barreling towards them. When the software world can convincingly create new songs that sound like the hit songs people like, but sufficiently different to dodge copyright law, then it's game over. We don't blink an eye at efforts to do things like complete one of Beethoven's sympho…
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I don't believe this will happen, and unless I'm mistaken, there's absolutely 0 evidence for it. People are usually attached to the artist when it comes to music. You buy a Bowie album because it has his name on it. You learn about them, look forward to their future work, maybe go see them live, etc. Will computers replace EDM and elevator music? I don't know, maybe, who cares?
It seems like the formula for an acceptable song is well understood. With the necessary push provided by Spotify these songs get streams in the millions easily. Perhaps it's cheap enough to have this music produced that they don't even have to move on to machine generation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
>Digital is cold and thin compared to analog. Claude Shannon emphatically disagrees. When sampling at twice the highest audible frequency they are mathematically equivalent.
The "cold and thin" vs warm and thick lies on the nonlinearities, the subtle saturation you get on tape/vinyl, the patina, even the tactility. The ease of skipping makes it even worse.
And that's before we've got to the cultural changes in attitudes towards music between the vinyl/tape and the cd/streaming eras (where music, which was king, is now just another passtime for teens), nor the changes in musical content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed - and after quantization nothing reproduces the signal before quantization. So claiming Nyquist-Shannon proves the OP wrong is incorrect. >It's then passed through an ADC and stored as a sine wave. After an ADC it is not stored as a sine wave. It's stored as quantized values, thus the 'D' in Analog-to-Digital-Converter. >cause no one is mastering inaudible square waves on a reel for kitsch value Pretty much al…
Up to the Nyquist limit, a digital signal will completely recreate the original signal, with no square wave steps. Digitisation does not result in square wave output anywhere in the output chain. Chris Montgomery (of Ogg / Speech / xiph.org & RedHat) did a series of videos going into this in considerable depth. I encourage you to watch them. https://xiph.org/video/
Again, in different words:
Nyquist assumes infinitely precise samples. It's math, not computer sampling. This never happens, since samples are quantized. Having samples at the proper number of Hz is useless unless enough precision is there, and non-infinite precision implies the original signal is never reconstructable. We're dealing with computers, not the real numbers.
Take a pure sine wave. Sample it mathematically. Quantize those values. Now what sin value reproduces those quantized values? None. Never. They are rational numbers - it is mathematically impossible to fit a single sine wave to them, since sine is a transcendental function. End of story.
Sine is a transcendental function, so rational inputs (other than 0 in the case of sin) do not (except for input 0 for sin) give rational output. So you cannot sample it to perfection with a digital device. You can approximate it. That approximation matters. Digital sampling takes rational input deltas (sampling rate) and necessarily obtains imperfect samples, since you quantized the actual value of a sine wave. So Nyquist fails.
Yes, for a bandlimited signal of a given frequency, Nyquist lets you reconstruct that frequency given infinite precision. This NEVER happens in practice, since it assumes infinitely precise samples. Montgomery ignores this (and a host of other issues - he's at level 2 of a 100 level tower. People at level 0 see his videos and assume there are only 2 levels to the tower). Bitdepth matters. Nyquist does nothing about amplitude quantization, which is needed. It ignores the path to reconstruction - Nyquist only applies to a perfect (not floating point or integer) reconstruction of the signal. Nyquist does not deal with the fact that the quantized values, when pushed to any physical device used to reconstruct audio, is more like stairsteps than pure sine waves.
Most physical devices performing playback are more stairstep than smooth sine values, so they are not reconstructing the input signal - another issue that matters. Input signals are (nearly, up to quantum level) infinitely precise in amplitudes - output devices tend to be more quantized.
Please read the thread I wrote and think through it. I posted a link to a good discussion, I posted a simple experiment or two you can do, I posted (here) a simple mathematical exercise showing that Nyquist fails for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Digital is cold and thin compared to analog. Claude Shannon emphatically disagrees. When sampling at twice the highest audible frequency they are mathematically equivalent.
Not quite - Nyquist-Shannon's theorem states the original signal can be reconstructed, but it usually isn't in reproduction. Digital playback does not reproduce the full original signal - it plays it back on whatever output device it has, which does not generally recreate the original waveform. That theorem also has some technical constraints that actual noise does not match, such as band limited and Fourier transfor…
I'm pro analog, but the above is a common misconception, usually caused by the bad "popular science" articles on digital reproduction and sampling, which show quantization as little pixelated waveforms etc.
The waveform produced from a sampled digital signal recreates the original perfectly (for the target frequency), you can verify that on an oscilloscope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I don't believe this will happen, and unless I'm mistaken, there's absolutely 0 evidence for it. People are usually attached to the artist when it comes to music. You buy a Bowie album because it has his name on it. You learn about them, look forward to their future work, maybe go see them live, etc. Will computers replace EDM and elevator music? I don't know, maybe, who cares?
I read an article recently that claimed that for major genres most of the songs suggested by Spotify are from "fake artists". There are people making music for Spotify for a fee which allows Spotify to keep the cut that would otherwise go to a non-Spotify entry. It seems like the formula for an acceptable song is well understood. With the necessary push provided by Spotify these songs get streams in the millions easi…