Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MusOpen Releases Open Source Classical Music As Pro Tools Files

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the now-it's-yours dept.

Music 83

VVrath writes "Following Tuesday's story about MuseScore releasing its open source recording of the Goldberg Variations, the Musopen project has released ProTools files from its open source recording project. The final edited recordings are still being worked on but it seems we're living in very interesting times regarding open source classical music."

cancel ×

83 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cool facts about the human body (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171209)

Cool fact #46: Did you know that snot is called mucous? When snot degrades into "boogers," it is turned into fungus by a process called fermentation. When you sneeze and see green boogers, you are in fact sneezing fungus!

ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171253)

ProTools

  - Works only with other Pro Tools stuff
  - Ridiculously overpriced and lacking features compared to every single other piece of pro and semi-pro DAW software.

ProTools is so unbelievably lock-in, expensive, and closed, that I can't believe any open source proponent of anything would even touch it. Release raw audio and sample files, or with MIDI trigger files or something - anything but ProTools files.

It's like releasing a public domain book, and allowing anyone to edit it who has paid for the elite $10000 version of MS Office.

No thanks.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (4, Interesting)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171503)

ProTools

  - Works only with other Pro Tools stuff

  - Ridiculously overpriced and lacking features compared to every single other piece of pro and semi-pro DAW software.

.

You forgot:
- produces files that largely act as pointers to independent audio files.

The .WAV files are all right there for you to use in whatever tool you like. [archive.org]

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171613)

All DAWs do this (except I can't speak for Apple-owned Logic Audio), so what's your point?

If you can't edit the _actual project_, it's just audio with no context and no base layout to start with. Books are "just words", and movies are "just frames", but both need to be brought together and organized in a fashion that makes them meaningful.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171751)

Hm. Maybe you should have said something when you first helped fund the project.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (4, Informative)

VVrath (542962) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171757)

All the wav files I've downloaded so far are named sensibly enough that you can work out the instrument, take etc. which provides the context. They all sync up fine, so layout isn't a problem either.

I wouldn't say importing them into an open source DAW will be trivial, but they're not as worthless as you seem to think they are.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

plover (150551) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172225)

As I'm not an audio engineer, I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to properly mix them down. I know there are levels to be set, times to be synchronized, lefts and rights to be balanced, and probably a dozen other things that a trained ear would do that I wouldn't know to do, wouldn't know how to do, and as an amateur wouldn't do well. Even if I were to spend a few hours to get audio output from all these sources somehow mangled into the same pot, it would sound like crap.

At this point I can only sit back and wait for a professional to handle that not-inconsiderable task. So the files themselves aren't worthless, but in this state they're all-but-worthless to me.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (2)

VVrath (542962) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172281)

You won't be waiting long. FTA:

Please remember these are unedited raw recordings, so they will not sound nearly as good as the final music that will follow very soon.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (4, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172765)

I'm not much of a programmer, so the Linux kernel is all-but-worthless to me too.

Oh, wait, nevermind. I run the Linux kernel because a bunch of people who are way better programmers than me packaged it up into an idiot-proof finished product for end-users because the open source license permitted them to do so.

Be patient; the people who can give you the nice polished audio files you're hoping for, have just been given the tools they need to do that. And given the chance, they probably will.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (2)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176263)

You don't need Protools to edit it. Heck, even the guy doing the editing isn't using Protools, that's just what the studio used. From the comments on the release:

you do not need protools, these are wav files, i imported them into Logic Pro, but it takes some patience.

Now, I'm sure you wouldn't use Logic Pro either, but his point is that it should work with whatever you choose. The whole point here is that you get exactly the same thing that was delivered to the project, under a CC0 license. If you want to make it available under another format, feel free. Otherwise, wait for the project to do it for you.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171711)

What format would you prefer?

Sadly so perhaps, but ProTools is the de-facto standard for professional audio recording.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172251)

I was on board with the complaint until you said that, and I imagined someone releasing a visual work in Gimp format...

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (2, Insightful)

geekd (14774) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172495)

That is the exact situation. An an amateur audio engineer, Pro Tools is my tool of choice. I'd much rather have the files be in Pro Tools format than any of the open source audio tools' format.

Also, to compare with the Photoshop - Gimp analogy, Pro Tools is cheaper than Photoshop. $699 full box, $295 full box Student Version (same as regular). You no longer need to use Digi hardware - it works with any audio interface these days.

The student version can be found on Ebay, no student needed. :)

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174691)

There are plenty of people out there running a JACK setup with a far more customizable digital audio workflow, sure the combinations aren't standardized and you can mix and match sequencers/synths/mixers etc, but this flexibilitty is a feature not a bug.

Of the relatively few people i know that use pro tools, most have never ending trouble with having it actually function (at least on windows). Extra cost, plsus lock in, and lack of flexibility (comparatively) in workflow. I can see why people take issue with releasing something as 'open source' in a format that is hindering to the cause.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40183337)

Of the relatively few people i know that use pro tools, most have never ending trouble with having it actually function (at least on windows). Extra cost, plsus lock in, and lack of flexibility (comparatively) in workflow. I can see why people take issue with releasing something as 'open source' in a format that is hindering to the cause.

Even on Mac. I used to have to use it regularly, and you would still run into headaches. The worst part is, if you have issues, the stock response from (then DigiDesign, now) Avid is, "Alright, try deleting your DigiDesign Databases (easy step, quickly rebuilt by the application) and your preferences." I'm sorry, but if your solution is that I need to delete my preference files (which generally takes a good period of time to set up properly), I'm going to take issue with that, especially because it seems that it's getting corrupted by the software itself. After doing it once, I decided to save a backup of them right after they were configured.

Of course, the only other option is OMF/AAF, which, ironically, last I checked was not officially supported in Ardour [ardour.org] , but is supported by pretty much everything else. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Of course, if all that's going on is WAV files with no edits/comping/automation, than get off your lazy ass and spend fifteen minutes importing them. Anyone who works in audio, should know how to import however many wav files comprise the actual recording process, and it'll probably suit your mixing style better than someone else's layout.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172059)

ProTools is so unbelievably lock-in, expensive, and closed, that I can't believe any open source proponent of anything would even touch it.

There is no DAW software as good as Cockos Reaper. It is priced so anyone can afford to use it, any VST or DX effect or instrument works in it without a hitch, and it can offload effects processing, rendering, sample streaming etc to a remote Linux box. And when I say "any" VST or DX plugin works great in Reaper, I do mean ANY. VSTi's that are fussy in ProTools or Sonar or Live or Cubase will be smooth as silk in Reaper.

There is no other DAW that comes close. I started with ProTools years ago when there really was nothing else, worked extensively with Logic, and have completed high-level projects in Sonar, Cubase, Ableton Live and others. Nothing compares to Reaper. The community that supports it is more helpful han professional support from any of the other companies.

Also, Reaper will run on practically anything with a processor. 32 bit, 64 bit, Linux, OSX, whatever. I teach some DAW production, and I tell all my students to get Reaper, so any project will work on any platform.

If you have any interest in making music with a digital audio workstation, you can get a fully functioning, non-time limited demo of Reaper for free. I'll bet you end up buying a license ust because it's so good and so worth it.

Now, regarding the MuseScore project with the Bach performances, this is really great news. MuseScore is terrific and mXML is terrific and I'm looking forward to all the future projects that will use these open source recordings as source material.

The fully OSS community hasn't yet put out a really great DAW, but boy, have they ever made an important contribution to the world of making music.

I would love to see projects like the Bach project with other composers. I'd love to see more enlightened contemporary composers embrace this open source approach.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

yourlord (473099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172911)

The fully OSS community hasn't yet put out a really great DAW

http://ardour.org/ [ardour.org]

I've been hard pressed to find anything I can't do with it.

It's GPL so if there is something you can't live without, write it and contribute!

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

equex (747231) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173737)

A Message From Paul a picture of Paul Davis, Ardour's lead developer Hi, I'm Paul Davis, Ardour's lead developer. Last month, Ardour failed to even get close to the monthly target income, and things look equally dim this month. Over the last seven days, just 83 people paid for Ardour (an average of $10 each), out of a total of 185 downloads. Unfortunately, this means that for the rest of this month there are no cost-free downloads of pre-built versions of Ardour.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (2)

ClickOnThis (137803) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174035)

A Message From Paul
a picture of Paul Davis, Ardour's lead developer

Hi, I'm Paul Davis, Ardour's lead developer.

Last month, Ardour failed to even get close to the monthly target income, and things look equally dim this month. Over the last seven days, just 83 people paid for Ardour (an average of $10 each), out of a total of 185 downloads.

Unfortunately, this means that for the rest of this month there are no cost-free downloads of pre-built versions of Ardour.

Rather than copy/paste something like this (which makes it look like you wrote it yourself) would you please provide a link to where you found this, or at least a bit more citation context, including, oh say, a date?

From what I can see on Ardour's support page, the goal of $4,500 for this month (now ending) has not been reached, but at over $3,900 received so far, the donated amounts are not that far off.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

voidphoenix (710468) | more than 2 years ago | (#40177351)

It's the message you get when you try to download for $0 and you're not logged in. Try it.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

equex (747231) | more than 2 years ago | (#40179869)

Sorry I didnt notice that the picture ALT text came with it. I thought it was obvious where it came from, like the sibling post here.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40183385)

So go to the news and download the betas for Mac OS X, or go to your package manager and install it. Unless you're a Windows fanboy, in which case, you're SOL, Ardour doesn't exist on Windows.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174071)

ProTools is so unbelievably lock-in, expensive, and closed, that I can't believe any open source proponent of anything would even touch it.

Can it load a DXi plugin?

About once a year, I make another run at an all open source music project. I try to support Ardour and many other open source DAW and audio-related projects. They're getting closer, but it just isn't quite polished enough yet to be able to establish a nice workflow and produce a really refined end result. I hope it will get there, though.

Now, there's a good chance that a lot of my inability to use Ardour and a fully-OSS music workstation is because I'm just not that good with Linux. I get flummoxed trying to get my audio interfaces and MIDI controllers working properly, I get hung up on little things that I don't have to think about on Windows or OSX.

I absolutely want at least one Linux machine in my setup though. Using Rea-Mote to off-load effects processing and rendering and other processor-intensive tasks is something I can't work without. I no longer have to fret about having half a dozen convolution reverbs and 20 instances of Waves limiters and compressors popping in and out any more. Because of my Linux box(es) I don't even think about limitations any more. So, there's a place for Linux in my studio, but not as my main production workstation yet.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40183439)

Seeing as it's not functional on Windows, DXi plugs are really a tough call. There's ways around it and running some in WINE works, but it's a bit of a difficult trick to try, last I checked. I left it up to a Gentoo install to get it working, and then my HD start failing smart status, so I have to put that project on hold for now until I can get that HD duped and replaced.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

Alimony Pakhdan (1855364) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176301)

>There is no DAW software as good as Cockos Reaper. Shades of a GIMP advocate!

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#40195411)

There is no DAW software as good as Cockos Reaper. Shades of a GIMP advocate!

Reaper and GIMP don't have a lot in common.

Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 2 years ago | (#40177359)

I dropped Protools for Reaper as well, way more solid, versatile, and way more advanced than Protools will ever get. I'm noticing features all the time that I didn't know it had, like recently I found an ultra low latency setting that does under-the-hood stuff like run it on only one processor core. I never would have thought of that.

ProTools (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171263)

What open source software reads Protools files?

Re:ProTools (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171357)

Possibly Ardour, but I doubt it.

Re:ProTools (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171605)

No.

Re:ProTools (1)

VVrath (542962) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171375)

Given that ProTools projects aren't containers (they merely link directly to PCM WAV files), pretty much any Open Source audio editing tool will read these files.

Re:ProTools (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171467)

Sure, any tool will read the audio files, but not necessarily the project files (mixdown, effects, layout, etc.) and that's kind of the whole point.

Re:ProTools (1)

VVrath (542962) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171551)

True, but as the raw audio files are available there's nothing stopping any suitably talented person from creating their own edit/mix in the software of their choice.

I've spent the last half hour having lots of fun playing with the recordings of the Egmont Overture in Audacity. Sadly I'm no audio engineer...

Re:ProTools (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171641)

Exactly.

Re:ProTools (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172073)

My friend and I were just discussing this very thing last night over beer. There needs to be an open source multitrack audio container format that supports DAW settings and operations. I suggested he talk to the engineers at Reaper

http://reaper.fm/ [reaper.fm]

and CC the archivists at the Internet Archive

http://archive.org/details/audio [archive.org]

Re:ProTools (1)

VVrath (542962) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172313)

OMF [wikipedia.org] is a rudimentary version of that. There are successor formats (e.g AAF MXF) but they don't seem as widely supported.

Re:ProTools (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176291)

There's nothing useful in the project files yet (as evidenced by the fact that the person doing the editing is not using them), this is just the raw recordings. The actual editing is being done in Logic Pro, these are only available in case you want to do your own.

Re:ProTools (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171623)

None.

Pro tools and open source (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171363)

Is this like sweet and sour? Oil and vinegar...

Re:Pro tools and open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171549)

Oil and vinegar...

You meant snake oil and wine, I suppose, this is /.

Re:Pro tools and open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171565)

...more like Glen Beck and reason, or Republican and science.

Open Source Analogy (1)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171367)

I was wondering if the Open Source analogy is correct and then I had this idea.

If we're talking about free collaboration, which is what Open Source is supposed to mean (rather than copyright-less or public domain works) then could we have say an entire orchestral piece played one instrument at a time by individual musicians. When you put all the tracks together, excluding weaker performances and always including stronger performances (based on individual tastes, of course) then... isn't this the ideal Open Sourced Music method?

This would probably be a cool idea...

Re:Open Source Analogy (2)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171533)

I've wondered about this, and I don't know. My guess is that it would give a result that's better than mediocre orchestras but not as good as a top tier orchestra, but that's just a guess.

The problem is that if you record instrument-by-instrument you lose a lot of feedback in terms of how to balance different volumes and sounds and articulations and stuff like that. And the problem would become even worse if you just passed out sheet music and a click track and said "go record this" because then you're losing the overall interpretation of the conductor and section leaders as well.

Now on the other hand, there are definitely commercial recordings that aren't done all together; I've got a recording of the 1812 overture with some added chorus parts where the orchestra, cannons, and chorus (maybe even two choruses) were all recorded separately. But that's still far from recording each instrument, and still has someone with an overall vision.

I suspect to get really good results from something like that you'd have to have a strongly iterative process: everyone records revision 1, some de facto leader or small group of leaders distribute those recordings with comments and additional instructions, everyone records revision 2, etc. and repeat for a few more cycles.

Re:Open Source Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171803)

Having heard a lone trumpetter practice his parts with no accompanyment, it is hard to see a symphony in a single instrument. Yet many of the more trained musicians know their part, and can play it to a proper tempo regardless of surrounding. I can see some mixed benefits and drawbacks of the GP's proposition.
Pro:
- each musician submits the track they are most pleased with
- no need for everyone to restart a section if one musicians makes a mistake
- the composer can determine how to weigh the tracks and what artificial geometry to employ
Con:
- heavy responsibility on the final composer
- increased chance of different timing between each track, making a clean merge impossible

I'm sure there are more pros and cons, but those are the ones that come to mind as I think about the idea.

Re:Open Source Analogy (4, Interesting)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172063)

Yet many of the more trained musicians know their part, and can play it to a proper tempo regardless of surrounding.

It's not just a matter of tempo; that's easy to fix (though I really do think it'd be hopeless without either a standardized click track or, later on, using recordings from previous iterations). Similar with raw dynamics; you can change the volume of a recording pretty well.

What I'm... concerned?... about is stuff like phrasing, articulations ("how staccatto is this stacatto?"), breaths/bowings, swells, string fingerings, etc. There's a [i]lot[/i] of interpretation possible even within the confines of a written score, especially in some kinds of classical music. (Broadly speaking, the older a work is the less spelled out is the score. Nowadays you'll see specific tempo markings ("quarter note = 90"), but in Beethoven's time you'd just see "moderato" or whatever.)

I feel like even if you took the score and wrote pretty detailed instructions (e.g. notated most of the bowings explicitly) throughout, gave out a click track, etc. but didn't go through the iteration process I mentioned before, the result you'd get would be technically good but musically mediocre.

But like I said, this is just speculation.

Re:Open Source Analogy (1)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173635)

So, a system that can do this would also deliver more information than just the tempo. And in addition, there may be further information that's required by the concert master, or other leaders of other sections. Actually, this may require special people who can conduct without hearing the music first. And that may not be an easy thing to do, although it doesn't sound like an unsurmountable challenge.

In any case, whether this turns out as Frankenmusic or good music, we won't know until we try it. And then perhaps fix it.

I've heard enough poor student orchestras or even extremely famous conductors screw up so badly I have a feeling I wouldn't mind listening to something like this.

Re:Open Source Analogy (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185557)

It would have to be closer to having a Star-Trek quality hologram of, at the very least, the conductor. It's virtually impossible to do this without having people meet. As a (wind band) musician, it's virtually impossible for me to know exactly how to play my part without hearing the guy next to me, the girl in the flute section, the oboe, the percussionists, and seeing the conductor. Music is an art that, admittedly, blends some science in (theory is rather scientific), but it's still primarily an art that requires many individuals.

Re:Open Source Analogy (1)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#40186355)

Hmm... I'm familiar with this having played first and second violin in at least one very good orchestra as well. The idea being that the conductor is there to alter the performance as he sees fit. I remember us being told not to rush, or to play other passages in a certain way. However, the whole reason for doing this was that we were going to put forth a live performance, where we had only one (per performance) chance to play it as close to as directed.

However, what I'm proposing is slightly different. Think of it as instead of a theatrical performance, it's a movie, where people can do as many takes as necessary and you can actually do each take slightly different and the director can put it together differently later. (Or even worse, alter your performance with CG! heh) In this way, you could perform once and screw up, and then submit a better performance (or partial performance) later. It would be a continual iterative process, and thus the Open Source analogy.

I think we sort of already do this though, especially with those boy bands who can't sing; they get auto-tuned until it sounds in tune. You can get better music with less skill. As awful as that sounds... 8) Maybe it's better to say that we can extend the skills of even the best of us and allow people to choose.

By the way, in terms of remote conducting, they did already try this with a Russian conductor in Vancouver conducting an orchestra in Moscow Red Square in real-time during the closing ceremony of the Vancouver Olympics. http://mariinsky.rt.com/news/gergiev-orchestra.html [rt.com] I don't think it worked out just 'okay' but it would be interesting to explore how technology can continue to influence something like classical music.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion from everyone. This has been very fascinating.

Re:Open Source Analogy (1)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172071)

By composer, you mean the guy who compiles the ensemble, rather than the more traditional meaning of composer, right?

I imagine that over time the performance would continue to get better with people's contributions. So indeed an initial musician can play the entire part, but someone can come in and re-edit his performance. Or cut in parts where other people have played it better. This does feel like Frankenmusic to me when I first think about it though, but I believe the continuous improvement (assuming there's enough interest) should help.

I would think that the composer part is the same too. People would create 'ensembles' from the various tracks and other people would vote or create their own. It's all about crowd-sourced, open and continuous improvement.

Re:Open Source Analogy (1)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171903)

I was just thinking about this problem too. And I think the solution is that the 'Conductor' would also be one of the 'pieces' that are required to put together the entire ensemble. This would essentially be the framework with which all the other performances can time themselves to; by watching a video of the conductor at work.

Now this would be a bit harder than real conducting; either the conductor would have to listen to another performance and 'conduct' or conduct while imagining the music. The video doesn't have to be continuous; it can be spliced together too, nor does it even have to have any semblance of prettiness, only that the timing is plainly obvious. In fact the conductor doesn't even need to be human; it could be a bouncing ball, with some words to indicate who and where people should play with what flavor.

The open source analogy would be a framework with which other developers can use, but I think a more appropriate analogy would be the use of an animatic while making an animation. (Or some movies these days also use it.) An animatic consists of the entire movie compiled together but with rough draft or even quickly sketched scenes. The scenes are slowly replaced with the finals until the movie comes together. In this way, the director can already see how the movie will play out, especially with respect to time. (A storyboard gives a good indication to story, but gives no indication with time. That would be like just having the sheet music, for example.)

Re:Open Source Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172619)

One of the primary qualities of good musicians playing in ensemble - whether small chamber group of large orchestra - is the ability to *listen* to each other.

There is IMHO no appropriate Open Source analogy for "classical" music, which is generally *not* a collaborative process for any group larger than about half a dozen.

And I cannot imagine wanting to listen to a recording of an orchestra produced in this fashion. Hell, even recordings are no substitute for the real thing.

What is the definition (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171573)

What is the definition of "Classical" music? I thought that the works composed by Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and so on were out of copyright anyway..
If somebody composes something nowdays can it be still called "Classical" ?

I can understand that other genres of music can change over time (Like Pop , Rock and Country) but I thought that "Classical" was a period definition.

Heres a car analogy - a car manufactured on or before 1918 is defined as a "veteran" and from 1919 to 1930 is "Vintage"

Re:What is the definition (2)

VVrath (542962) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171683)

The pieces are out of copyright, but (until now) there weren't any copyright free recordings of performances of these works.

Regarding musical periods, "classical" was me playing a bit fast-and-loose: Bach was a late Baroque composer, Beethoven is arguably Late Classical/Early Romantic. Still I bet you'd find their work in the classical section in your local record store.

Re:What is the definition (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172017)

Ok...lets hurry with the classical stuff, and get to open source versions of stuff that matter...blues rock...!!!

:)

Re:What is the definition (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185577)

Hire a composer to write the stuff as copyright free...

Re:What is the definition (3, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171719)

The strict definition of "Classical" music is music produced between 1750 and 1820. That includes Mozart. Bach is in the "Baroque" period - 1600-1750, and Beethoven (certainly his later works) is in the "Romantic" period 1820-1910. A slightly looser definition of Classical includes all three.

Re:What is the definition (1)

prime_implicant (654819) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173713)

Beethoven belongs firmly to the "classical" style, including his later works. There is no way you can include him with the romantics. Schubert is the first "romantic," though still with one foot in the classical style.

Re:What is the definition (3, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171741)

What is the definition of "Classical" music?

There are actually 2 -

classical music
noun

1. Serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition

2. (more specifically) Music written in the European tradition during a period lasting approximately from 1750 to 1830, when forms such as the symphony, concerto, and sonata were standardized.

Re:What is the definition (1)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174445)

iirc definition 2 was originally supposed to relate to "classical" in its primary definition of the time--"relating to Classical Civilization", i.e. ancient greece and rome (cf. classical architecture). i think the idea was that this music was a simplification from the baroque period that preceded it.

Re:What is the definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171801)

on that point, where are the definitions of "recording", "edited" and "file". When will the spec for this project be released?

Re:What is the definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172109)

I thought that "Classical" was a period definition.

It is, but it is also used generically to refer to a particular type (or rather, many types) of music.

However improper purists feel it to be, "classical" is used by many to refer to any symphonic music, concertos, solo pieces on certain instruments (cell, viola, violin, piano, etc), and so on, regardless of era. Often it's a matter of "I can't describe it, but I know it when I hear it".

Re:What is the definition (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172901)

As someone who's written what's sometimes called "Classical" music, here's the complexity of it:
1. As sibling posters have pointed out, it strictly speaking means basically music produced in and around the 1700's.
2. Another definition would be more cultural: Classical music is the stuff where if performed live by professionals, they'll be wearing tuxes or elegant dresses and using primarily acoustic instruments, possibly with a guy in front waving his arms around but not performing. There's a strong tendency towards unnecessary poshness.
3. A third definition: Classical music features each performer having a carefully written part in advance which they learn and execute to the letter. This is in contrast to jazz (improvization is typical), folk (often no written part, and often not followed if there is one), or pop songs (again, not written down by the performer)

Re:What is the definition (2)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174557)

What is the definition of "Classical" music? I thought that the works composed by Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and so on were out of copyright anyway.

the problem is that the vast majority of recordings of classical music are under copyright (to the orchestra or whatever). anything old enough to be public domain by sheer age is going to sound terrible (mono 78s at best, and almost certainly recorded "acoustically" through a horn) and there's not going to be much because of the format limitations of the time. (10-inch 78s hold 3min a side, that's about right for a piano etude. hard to put a symphony on those....)

there's a similar issue actually with sheet music--most of the good sheet music for those same pieces is under some degree of copyright control. i wonder if anyone's looking at doing the same thing there? you could transcribe whole swaths of the canon to MusicXML or ABC and release them under CC-SA or GFDL pretty cheaply, i'd think.

Re:What is the definition (2)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174817)

there's a similar issue actually with sheet music--most of the good sheet music for those same pieces is under some degree of copyright control. i wonder if anyone's looking at doing the same thing there? you could transcribe whole swaths of the canon to MusicXML or ABC and release them under CC-SA or GFDL pretty cheaply, i'd think.

There is a very large collection of scans of existing pieces at the International Music Score Library Project [imslp.org] . The Mutopia Project [mutopiaproject.org] has a relatively small collection of scores, but theirs are typeset using Lilypond with source freely available.

Re:What is the definition (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176309)

In addition to what EvanED listed, the same people doing these recordings are doing scores as well. [musopen.org]

Re:What is the definition (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176577)

What is the definition of "Classical" music? I thought that the works composed by Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and so on were out of copyright anyway.. If somebody composes something nowdays can it be still called "Classical" ?

Yes. Composers like Maurice Durufle are considered 20th century classical, which is often characterized by the tasteful use of discord, not so commonly found in early classical. Check out Durufle's Requiem, an extremely difficult choral piece. A 21st century classical style has not formed yet to my knowledge, but there are many classical composers still at it, many working on film and stage soundtracks, John Williams among the more notable.

Re:What is the definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40177661)

So no classical music has been written since the 1930's.
Amazing.

There is a difference between the 'classical period' , which is, as you say a period definition and the general term 'classical music' which is a term used for music made in the european tradition.

Pro tools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171575)

Seriously? Why?

Re:Pro tools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171721)

I've been wondering this myself for years, and it always comes back to the same answers.

People in professional studios use Pro Tools simply because it's the most expensive and they automatically assume that makes the most pro and the best. Other people use it because they want to look pro, and still more people use it because everyone else does and that makes it the best for sharing projects.

Absolutely no one uses it because it's actually the best tool out there. It's actually one of the worst, when you can get Cubase/Logic/Sonar/Others which all have more features, equal quality, and are a fraction of the cost.

Chicago Piano from 1886 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171669)

My grandmother purchased an antiquated upright baby-grand piano for my sister and I to learn to read/play music with. Pretty sure it cost more than ProTools.

Music requires instrumentation. Be it as simple and free as a human voice, or as complex and closed as a Stradivarius. Complaining about the cost of a specific piece of equipment seems disingenuous.

If you don't like the cost/quality of the equipment known as ProTools you're free, as in beer, to whistle Dixie. Assuming you were born with a pair of lips and at least one lung...

Re:Chicago Piano from 1886 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171943)

I wouldn't complain about the cost of ProTools if it was actually worth it.

For a car analogy, ProTools is like a ten thousand dollar rusty old pinto on a used car lot, sitting next to a brand new Ferrari for just one thousand.

Forgive me for poking fun at the sucker who chooses the rusty pinto.

Would you buy a $3000 cello when you can get a much better one for $800?

Re:Chicago Piano from 1886 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172389)

"Would you buy a $3000 cello when you can get a much better one for $800?"

I asked musicians. They said, "Yes."

Re:Chicago Piano from 1886 (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172293)

I can't whistle =(

Re:Chicago Piano from 1886 (1)

ClickOnThis (137803) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173089)

My grandmother purchased an antiquated upright baby-grand piano for my sister and I to learn to read/play music with.

There is no such thing as an "upright-grand" piano, baby or otherwise. The action (i.e., key/lever mechanism) hammer directions and string orientations are completely different on an upright and a grand. These differences create a distinct experience when playing and pedaling them. They're both good, although IMHO a grand is better. Of course, the "best" piano is the one that is available when you need it. :-)

Sorry ... I'm sure that you and your sister learned a lot with that piano and enjoyed it. But it was an upright, not an upright-grand.

Re:Chicago Piano from 1886 (2)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173155)

Re:Chicago Piano from 1886 (1)

ClickOnThis (137803) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173265)

Yes, I know about such pianos, but they're still uprights. My guess is that the term "upright-grand" was invented by a piano manufacturer for marketing purposes. It's still an oxymoron, albeit perhaps a useful one in this context.

Performances are not "source". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172165)

A recorded performance can either be copyrighted, or free-as-in-beer.

It is not really modifiable.

(Okay you can sample it and use a mash-up in your hip-hop project.)

Re:Performances are not "source". (2)

VVrath (542962) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172373)

It's modifiable in that you have access to all the individual channels as they were recorded. This makes it much easier to extract individual instruments, put together your own mix, add or even replace parts with your own recordings (this recording of Eroica needs more cowbell...)

ProTools sucks donkey ballz (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172869)

The last I heard the new version won't work with old hardware. Nice. Spent $20k on a system three years ago, and now it's $20k of JUNK if I want to use the new features of the new software. Dear Avid: Fuck. You.

Re:ProTools sucks donkey ballz (1)

pinkj (521155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40183259)

The last I heard the new version won't work with old hardware. Nice. Spent $20k on a system three years ago, and now it's $20k of JUNK if I want to use the new features of the new software. Dear Avid: Fuck. You.

Not true. We're using an 888/24 interface with ProTools 10.2 in our studio and it works fine. Avid simply doesn't help you with the hardware if you're having trouble with it which is a little disheartening, but there are a large number of Pro Tools users on a number of forums who will help. Just because they say they don't support a piece of hardware it doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Plus, since Pro Tools 9, you can finally use practically any non-Digidesign/non-Avid audio interface; even your internal soundcard.

Open source? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173467)

I have followed this project a little bit, and yeah, it's a bit of a mystery why you would use a very closed source recording system like Pro Tools to do the recording and mastering. I know people with professional recording setups using Ardour, and I can't imagine why this wouldn't be up to the task. Was there any effort to make use of this? It sure would have been a chance to promote the whole score editing-publishing-performance-recording-mastering workflow as a complete open source continuum.

Aaron from Musopen.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197491)

Great to see all the discussion. Sorry we haven't been able to release 100% of the finished music yet, but we are very close. If anyone has any questions or comments for me, I will reply here or respond by email at aaron [at] musopen.org

-Aaron
Musopen.org Founder

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>