Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

New Musopen Campaign Wants To "Set Chopin Free"

timothy posted about a year ago | from the don't-lose-your-composer-just-give-us-the-money dept.

Music 142

Eloquence writes "Three years ago, Musopen raised nearly $70,000 to create public domain recordings of works by Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Schubert, and others. Now they're running a new campaign with a simple but ambitious objective: 'To preserve indefinitely and without question everything Chopin created. To release his music for free, both in 1080p video and 24 bit 192kHz audio. This is roughly 245 pieces.'" Adds project organizer aarondunn: "His music will be made available via an API powered by Musopen so anyone can come up with ways to explore and present Chopin's life."

cancel ×

142 comments

Get ready (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780355)

They are going to release things at a sampling rate that makes a bunch of wackos go nuts because it "loses so much". I'm getting my popcorn ready.

Re:Get ready (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780801)

neil young visits slashdot?

19th century HD recordings found! (3, Funny)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year ago | (#44780369)

They found an old trunk belonging to George Sand and in it were several Blu-ray disks she made of Chopin performing his career works. Awesome find!

Re:19th century HD recordings found! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780639)

Those of us who are able infer that they are recordings of top artists performing Chopin's works. Those of us with nothing better to do post comments like yours. Those of us who are have nothing better to do and are asleep at the switch mod up comments like yours.

Re:19th century HD recordings found! (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#44780997)

Those of us who are able infer that they are recordings of top artists performing Chopin's works. Those of us with nothing better to do post comments like yours. Those of us who are have nothing better to do and are asleep at the switch mod up comments like yours.

And those with no clue of history post anonymous comments like yours. You could've googled George Sand, but I assume you had something better to do.

Still, a bunch of ignorant AC apologists will probably mod me down in your defense. Why do I even bother?

Re:19th century HD recordings found! (1)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year ago | (#44781577)

He/She obviously does not know about the Slashdot tradition that at least one person must take the summary of each article either extremely literally or stupendously wrong, whether through stupidity or satire. The George Sand reference was a total give-away that it is satire, for those who are humourously impaired.

Re:19th century HD recordings found! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781581)

chav!

Re:19th century HD recordings found! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782165)

chav????

How dare you, Milquetoast!!!

Re:19th century HD recordings found! (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | about a year ago | (#44782413)

Those of us who are able infer that they are recordings of top artists performing Chopin's works. Those of us with nothing better to do post comments like yours. Those of us who are have nothing better to do and are asleep at the switch mod up comments like yours.

And those with no clue of history post anonymous comments like yours. You could've googled George Sand, but I assume you had something better to do.

Still, a bunch of ignorant AC apologists will probably mod me down in your defense. Why do I even bother?

He can't because the NSA would find out he didn't know and would mock him in their mom's very large basement...

Re:19th century HD recordings found! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782583)

Oh yes, I will just start using some of my large supply of modpoints ... oh wait I don't have any. I am AC. You are fuckwitted.

Re:19th century HD recordings found! (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44781439)

George and Frederic did performing of another kind together, but would they want a recording of it? I don't think Freddy would go for that

Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio format.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780403)

Besides the fact that 24bit 192kHz audio is retarded audiophile snakeoil and provides zero audio quality improvement over 16bit 44.1kHz as a end user format this is a good idea.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (4, Informative)

XanC (644172) | about a year ago | (#44780429)

But this isn't just an end user format! The idea is to set this music free so that it can be used in other projects, remixed, remastered, anything.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44780453)

But this isn't just an end user format! The idea is to set this music free so that it can be used in other projects, remixed, remastered, anything.

Here come the Chopin Dubstep remixes....

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (4, Insightful)

Mprx (82435) | about a year ago | (#44781325)

Slow it down for a bassline and that 192KHz will actually be useful.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44781487)

The thing is, that might actually be interesting.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44781545)

But this isn't just an end user format! The idea is to set this music free so that it can be used in other projects, remixed, remastered, anything.

Here come the Chopin Dubstep remixes....

I guess you never heard the Apotheosis remix of Carl Orff's O'Fortuna.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#44782719)

I wish I hadn't. Utter shite.

If I want to listen to classical pieces that have been fucked around with there's ELP and Tomita.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781783)

Tracks 1,4,5 and 10 [apple.com] ...

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780743)

Let me know how wonderful your 3rd string pianist sounds. I will stick with real artists that I don't mind paying a few dollars to support.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780911)

> remixed

If you are going to remix it then up mix it to 192kHz before you start hacking on it. It's not like you are actually ever going to improve the audio quality by mixing it with other stuff.

> remastered

To remaster you kinda of have to have the original recordings. You'll never be able to pull audio out of recordings you downloaded from this project that doesn't exist no matter what 'kHz' pcm format it is encoded at.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#44782167)

If you are going to remix it then up mix it to 192kHz before you start hacking on it.

You'll never be able to pull audio out of recordings you downloaded from this project that doesn't exist

It's amazing you managed to write both of those sentences in the same post.

Dropping from 192 KHz to 44.1 destroys information that you can never get back. It's not information that can be used if you just listen to it, but it is information that can be used if you pass it through more editing stages.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (2)

AaronW (33736) | about a year ago | (#44780459)

I disagree. It will cause fewer problems when having to resample. For example, usually DVDs and blu-rays require a 48KHz sampling rate. The additional bits and bitrate are also useful when mixing or processing the audio later for those who choose to do so.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#44780495)

I know you're trolling, but everyone else can relax. Chopin's not exactly a long-form kind of guy. The Ramones of Romanticism, if you will. It'll all still fit on a couple-hundred CDs. Or a couple big USB sticks if you want to go all 21st century on it. It'll be OK. No one's actually gonna be forced to download it if they don't want to.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

aarondunn (2710233) | about a year ago | (#44780559)

We're also going to offer standard CD formats, so no need to worry. If we raise enough money that is.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44781179)

Might want to start expanding on those stretch goals. I don't think you will have any trouble getting there. After the awesome job you did on the first set people should be eager to help out again. It did seem to take forever though.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780555)

Besides the fact that 24bit 192kHz audio is retarded audiophile snakeoil and provides zero audio quality improvement over 16bit 44.1kHz as a end user format this is a good idea.

Wrong.

There's some research suggesting that humans can hear transient sounds with frequency components theoretically beyond the normally recognized 20kHz or so "audible" limit.

Now if I could just find it - my Google-fu is weak and all I get are audiophile regurgitation of that. :-(

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780817)

This is especially true for a single instrument, like a solo piano. I'd love to have the rig that Steinway put together to be able to differentiate between recordings of New York vice Hamburg D's. It's pretty easy to do in person by most people who play Chopin's corpus, much less so in a recording.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44780885)

Besides the fact that 24bit 192kHz audio is retarded audiophile snakeoil and provides zero audio quality improvement over 16bit 44.1kHz as a end user format this is a good idea.

Wrong.

There's some research suggesting that humans can hear transient sounds with frequency components theoretically beyond the normally recognized 20kHz or so "audible" limit.

Now if I could just find it - my Google-fu is weak and all I get are audiophile regurgitation of that. :-(

It has everything to do with harmonics. At CD sampling rates a 15 kHz sine wave is indistinguishable from a 15 kHz sawtooth wave -- you only have three samples per crest. Whether or not a human ear could discern the difference has afaik not been studied.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781105)

"At CD sampling rates a 15 kHz sine wave is indistinguishable from a 15 kHz sawtooth wave"

Can you please learn math and signal processing properly before you spew that level of utter crap?

At CD sampling rates (44.1kHz), you will have perfect reconstruction of any waveform that is bandwidth-limited at ~22 kHz if you have infinite precision (i.e. no quantization errors due to limited bits-per-sample).

192kHz is TOO MUCH, and it will actually degrade the reproduction quality if it is fed to anything that doesn't neutralize the damage by applying a low-pass filter to get rid of all the ultrasonics and aliasing before it hits the analog stage.

24 bits might actually be useful for extra dynamic range, but only if the final encoding pass is not being done properly.

Don't confuse the formats required for signal processing (where 24 bits and 96kHz are indeed useful), or the oversampling done *internally* by the DACs to implement a much larger gap for their *internal* low-pass filter to operate, with the formats appropriate for the final work (where anything more than 24bit 48kHz is idiotic, and 16bit 48kHz should have been enough).

Bandwidth limiting cuts off overtones (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44781185)

At CD sampling rates a 15 kHz sine wave is indistinguishable from a 15 kHz sawtooth wave

At CD sampling rates (44.1kHz), you will have perfect reconstruction of any waveform that is bandwidth-limited at ~22 kHz if you have infinite precision (i.e. no quantization errors due to limited bits-per-sample).

I think grandparent's point is that once you've bandwidth-limited your signal to 22 kHz, a 15 kHz sawtooth wave becomes a 15 kHz sine wave.

Re:Bandwidth limiting cuts off overtones (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44781509)

As it will when you hear it, no matter how good the speakers are.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782279)

you are confused, 192 is not a samplerate, its a bitrate a 44.1Khz recording is more around 700kbs (16 bits *44100 times a second)

so n 192 is quite pathetic compared to basic 1980's tech pressed on plastic

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#44782699)

No you are the one is confused, when someone says 24bit/192kHz they mean the 192kHz as a sample rate. High end audio gear usually offers this sample rate though it's doubtful if there is any benefit. 96kHz is probablly more than sufficiant in practice.

That 192 kilobit per second is also a bitrate used for crappy compress

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#44782729)

Sorry I forgot to complete the last sentance.

That 192 kilobit per second is also a bitrate widely used for crappy compressed audio is merely a coincidence and unrelated to the topic at hand.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#44782723)

At CD sampling rates (44.1kHz), you will have perfect reconstruction of any waveform that is bandwidth-limited at ~22 kHz

And a 15kHz sawtooth wave is certainly not a waveform that is "bandwidth limited at ~22kHz"

In real life the signals entering your system from the real world are NOT sharply bandwidth limited so you have to bandwidth limit them to avoid aliasing. There are two ways of doing this, the first is to use an aggressive a analogue filter and then sample at the rate you actually finally want. The other is to use a much less agressive analogy filter, sample at a higher sample rate and then filter and decimate the signal digitally.

Either way you will create artifacts. In particular there is a tradeoff that the more perfect a filter is in the frequency domain the more ringing it creates in the time domain.

Or if you don't care about data rate you could just stay in the higher sample rate throughout the system and avoid the need for agressive filters at all.

If your system had perfect filters then putting a 15kHz sawtooth wave in would result in a 15kHz sinewave out. Of course perfect filters can't exist so in reality you will also get a small ammount of alised signal in there too.

Does any of this matter to the human ear? that is for the audiophiles to argue over ;)

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780921)

Your problem is that you suffer from 'authoratative belief'. Unless you have the auditory senses of a newborn baby, you won't, and noone else can despite their claims, be able to tell the difference between a 192Kbit MP3 and any source material of a higher bit rate in a true ABX test that is rendered from the same source mix. Even Ivor Tiefenbrun, the most vocal anti-digital audio advocate, was proven wrong nearly thirty years ago. You might want to start your Google-fuing here:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

and try to gain an understanding why 24/192 audio is a waste of time unless you are mastering a CD:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | about a year ago | (#44782441)

HELLO McFLY!!! Public Domain?!?! mastering new versions. KNOCK KNOCK! ANYONE HOME!

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (4, Informative)

aitikin (909209) | about a year ago | (#44780767)

24-bit makes sense, giving far greater dynamic range (which can be construed as resolution if we want to compare it to photos/videos). Admittedly, calling it 24-bit is a bit absurd as the best I've heard of is closer to 20, maybe 21 bit, but if we're trying to keep within a standardized system, may as well use groups of 8. In older recording/playback system 48k was a vast improvement over 44.1k. The perceived advantages to 88.2k, 96k, 176.4k, and 192k were due to a one octave (88.1k/96k) or two octave (176.4k/192k) low pass filter causing less of a high frequency bump than a tenth of an octave (44.1k) or an eighth of an octave (48k). This is not really necessary anymore as the digital filters perform way better than most people give them credit for.

As a playback standard, 24-bit 44.1k or 24-bit 48k make perfect sense with current generation, decent quality D/A. 24-bit permits the greater dynamic range and greater dynamic accuracy that pieces like Chopin's can benefit from. There likely will be an audible sonic difference between 44.1k and 192k, but it will be distortion. Some people certainly prefer the sound of these higher bit rates, however it is still not accurate to the original product. If the higher resolution bit depth isn't necessary (as is the case with most modern music) it will not be detrimental to the playback, unlike 192k.

For anyone looking for a more in depth write up, it was shared here on /. a while back, but there's a great write-up from Neil Young [xiph.org] about why these formats don't matter (the argument using solely a 1k test tone is very easy to dither, using a full symphony or even a full piano's range is virtually impossible to mask with dither). I disagree with him in general on the 16-bit vs 24-bit, but, for the most part, the average listener would never know the difference considering the dynamic range in most modern music is still comparable to watching a movie that's 128 x 72 upconverted to 1080p while 1080p would've been available to the producer to begin with.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44780915)

Indeed, we're talking Chopin here, not Kidd Rock. With classical music you need dynamic range. With other classical composers you need even more; the 1812 overture comes to mind. I'm not sure 24 bit would be high enough, provided you had some REALLY big amplifiers in your stereo. I mean, cannons are a lot louder than drums.

Companding (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44781211)

One solution here is to use some form of companding. Apply "loudness war" style level compression to the audio stored on the CD and in the FLAC, but store in a side channel the compression level at the start of each CD sector (1/75 of a second) so that the original dynamic range can be reconstructed. I was under the impression that one of the modes of HDCD worked this way.

Re:Companding (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782211)

Yes, this is what HDCD did. But it's totally unimportant. Despite the insistence that "The 1812 overture comes to mind" the numbers still fall out the same way, either you want the 1812 overture to be so quiet you can't hear most of it, or so loud it causes hearing damage, or you don't need more than 16 bits.

When people talk about how maybe they want to fiddle with the volume throughout the track and THAT'S why they want more bits they're actually saying they think the mix is shit. Go on, "I bought this expensive classical recording, it's mixed poorly so I spend a lot of time fiddling with the levels. I wish they would mix rock music poorly too so that I had to spend all my time fiddling with my Hi Fi equipment and not listening to it".

Re:Companding (1)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#44782353)

either you want the 1812 overture to be so quiet you can't hear most of it, or so loud it causes hearing damage, or you don't need more than 16 bits.

The thing is... 16 bits is enough, but only barely. A quiet room is about 30-40 dB above the threshold of hearing, and 16 bits gets you about 96 dB of signal-to-noise. I think it makes sense to add those numbers, and say that if you set the volume so you can just barely hear the quietest bits of a recording that covers the entire dynamic range, then the loudest parts will be at 126-136 dB. Coincidentally or not, that's actually right at the threshold of pain, which is typically quoted at 130 dB.

What this means is that there is little room for processing at 16 bits, or even making the recording in the first place (as you have to set the input volume so that you come close to clipping without actually clipping). Cut much more than 10 dB off the dynamic range and it'll be audible to careful listeners in realistic scenarios.

So the higher bit depth definitely makes sense for recording and mastering, just not so much for the end user. However, for a project like Musopen that is trying to make actual open recordings, it also makes sense to distribute the better recordings because they're the equivalent to source code. But like source code, most people don't get any (direct) benefit from it being available.

But yeah, the comment a couple parents up saying even 24 bits may not be enough: no. 24 bits is more than plenty.

Re:Companding (2)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#44782393)

The thing is... 16 bits is enough, but only barely. A quiet room is about 30-40 dB above the threshold of hearing, and 16 bits gets you about 96 dB of signal-to-noise. I think it makes sense to add those numbers, and say that if you set the volume so you can just barely hear the quietest bits of a recording that covers the entire dynamic range, then the loudest parts will be at 126-136 dB. Coincidentally or not, that's actually right at the threshold of pain, which is typically quoted at 130 dB.

OK, so this is not actually quite right:

The answer: Our -96dB noise floor figure is effectively wrong; we're using an inappropriate definition of dynamic range. (6*bits)dB gives us the RMS noise of the entire broadband signal, but each hair cell in the ear is sensitive to only a narrow fraction of the total bandwidth. As each hair cell hears only a fraction of the total noise floor energy, the noise floor at that hair cell will be much lower than the broadband figure of -96dB.

Thus, 16 bit audio can go considerably deeper than 96dB. With use of shaped dither, which moves quantization noise energy into frequencies where it's harder to hear, the effective dynamic range of 16 bit audio reaches 120dB in practice... (source [xiph.org] )

So there's rather more headroom (by about 20 dB) than I say.

However, even that link has this to say:

Professionals use 24 bit samples in recording and production [14] for headroom, noise floor, and convenience reasons.

16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare. It does not span the entire possible signal range of audio equipment. The primary reason to use 24 bits when recording is to prevent mistakes; rather than being careful to center 16 bit recording-- risking clipping if you guess too high and adding noise if you guess too low-- 24 bits allows an operator to set an approximate level and not worry too much about it. Missing the optimal gain setting by a few bits has no consequences, and effects that dynamically compress the recorded range have a deep floor to work with.

An engineer also requires more than 16 bits during mixing and mastering. Modern work flows may involve literally thousands of effects and operations. The quantization noise and noise floor of a 16 bit sample may be undetectable during playback, but multiplying that noise by a few thousand times eventually becomes noticeable. 24 bits keeps the accumulated noise at a very low level. Once the music is ready to distribute, there's no reason to keep more than 16 bits.

so my overall point -- 16 bits is enough for the end user but not very good for mastering -- holds.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782187)

You "disagree with him"? All the way through your post you've shown no understanding of the very things addressed by Monty in this article, and then at the end you think the article is by Neil Young when it's actually criticising releases by Neil Young.

Basically you have no reading comprehension.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

rvalles (649635) | about a year ago | (#44780785)

There are many reasons why 44.1KHz or 48KHz 16bit music is mastered at much higher quality, even if you never see those masters. Musopen is simply making those masters available.

You can then derive 48KHz 16bit or whatever you please from those masters, or just download such files which Musopen will also make available to you.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#44781309)

All you've done here is prove you don't know shit about recording. 24bit 192khz audio would be ridiculous for a production copy but is relatively mediocre for a studio master.

The most layman example I can provide is: imagine if you wanted to record a movie in 1080p... and you record the last critical sceen in 1080p but realize you want to zoom in on the hero at the last minuite... you can't... the recording is in the same format as the release. To zoom in digitally you would lose quality. However, if you recorded the entire movie in a much higher format... and there you go. So to master a release, you record in much much higher quality. Well beyond what the human ear can hear. Then you master it down to what you want to release. In video its more obvious why you need it but in audio it's usually related to specific effects like pitch shifters and such. Pitch shifting a low quality recording sounds awful.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#44782287)

Mod that up... it's a good explanation.

I'm convinced that 44.1/16 is beyond human hearing ability in realistic scenarios... but it's only a little beyond it. It leaves very little wiggle room for doing any processing.

Or even just recording. 16 bits actually records slightly less than the human ear can distinguish in really ideal conditions. Those conditions are pretty much "you're in a soundproofed room" with essentially no ambient noise, but that doesn't leave a lot of room to "a good listening environment". So if you're recording in 16 bits, now you've got to worry about setting the input volume almost perfectly, so that you've captured the quiet parts but never clip. Clip? That'll be audible in even mediocre conditions unless you make up stuff. Record volume 10 or 15 dB too low? Probably careful listeners in a good but realistic environment could tell. With 24 bits? Now you've got a ton of wiggle room.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781427)

It all depends on the source material.

Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#44782267)

192Lhz sounds like ass if the clown that compressed it didnt have a clue

heck 44.1Khz isnt even worth listening to anymore as its all overdriven and clipped

we need more stuff like this (3, Insightful)

issicus (2031176) | about a year ago | (#44780523)

and not just music.

Re:we need more stuff like this (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#44780573)

I just backed my first Kickstarter because of this. Sounds like a really good idea. I've often thought that music wasn't really a good idea for a Kickstarter, because most musicians already have their own equipment, and all it really takes to record an album is time. I'm much more interested in Kickstarters for physical objects, but I've been turned away by the thought of losing my money if they didn't deliver, and most physical items are usually not that cheap. Most interesting ones have been over $100. However, putting the recordings into the public domain really sparks my interest, and this project seems like something that would be reasonable to complete. Let's hope I'm not disappointed on my first Kickstarter experience,

Re:we need more stuff like this (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#44782055)

The nice thing about this project is that it's the second in a row - they already had one, and they delivered on it (I was one of the backers on that, and got my t-shirt and DVD). That one was much more complicated because the guy basically just had an idea, and had to jump through a lot of hoops to actually see it implemented... it was a fascinating read as he reported on his progress, though.

But this time around, he already has experience with this kind of thing, the kinks are ironed out, and most importantly, the popularity of his first release is sufficient to attract attention, making it much easier to find musicians to record. I really hope that this works out correspondingly well, and he can make it a regular yearly project as he had suggested.

With respect to supporting specific musicians, Kickstarter is just not the right format for this, but there are other options. Take a look at Patreon [patreon.com] , where you can pick a specific one and pledge to pay a certain amount for every new work (music track, video etc) released. Quite a few people who got popularity from their amateur YouTube videos seem to be hanging out there these days - e.g. Taylor Davis (aka ViolinTay of Skyrim/Morrowind medley fame).

Re:we need more stuff like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780621)

What do you have in mind? Music is unique because the written form passed into public domain some time ago, but we have no decent quality recordings of the audio portion. Literature doesn't require this kind of effort as the recorded written form IS what people use. Movies and Music have copyrights still that make it too expensive and rediculous. Video games are obviously too new.

Can you elaborate more on what you mean?

Re:we need more stuff like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780833)

there are plenty of public domain movies that could use a good HD remastering and given back to the public at minimal cost.

Re:we need more stuff like this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780867)

How about porn? My sister said she'll do a gang-bang video for $20,000. Have reward levels like $10 for a copy of the movie (DRM free). At higher levels, you can be in the movie - $50 for handjob, $150 for a blowjob, $250 for vag, $500 for the ass. Stretch goal (literally): she fists her friend's asshole.

What will the authorities think? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44781227)

Paying to be in the movie, rather than being paid for acting, smacks of prohibited prostitution.

The question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780549)

To preserve indefinitely and without question everything Chopin created

There is always the question of interpretations of an individual. That is the way it should be, or the musicians would be eventually be replaced with post-musical-singularity programs.

Re:The question (1)

jkauzlar (596349) | about a year ago | (#44781139)

Yes, this seems like a doomed project iconsidering how fundamental the interpretation is, but I'm far from an expert. Ask any music scholar or casual listener like me which recording of the Goldberg Variations should be 'preserved indefinitely' and I don't think any would be able to settle for a single one. And collecting recordings from different orchestras and musicians is part of the fun.

But I'm not so naive as to think those who started this project as well as the contributers didn't already know this. So what possible benefits can be gained from having a set of particular recordings at a very high bitrate? And NO, I didn't read the article

They're providing lossless FLAC (1)

neiras (723124) | about a year ago | (#44780553)

No need to go crazy about lossy compression. I may just have to donate to this one.

Re:They're providing lossless FLAC (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780715)

Lossless FLAC provides no advantage over the 'CD standard' of uncompressed AIFF. Don't even start with the 'what about metadata' crap. The 'space' savings may amount to ten percent in file size, at most, so who cares. Just because the material is provided using an open sauce codec doesn't make it any better. If it is going to be released as archival material, the less they fool around with useless codecs and compression formats the better.

Re:They're providing lossless FLAC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780837)

Wow, you're stupid.

Re:They're providing lossless FLAC (1)

neiras (723124) | about a year ago | (#44781091)

Lossless FLAC provides no advantage over the 'CD standard' of uncompressed AIFF.

And if they were releasing it in uncompressed AIFF I'd be just as happy. Moving right along...

Re:They're providing lossless FLAC (1)

rvalles (649635) | about a year ago | (#44781151)

I wouldn't.

It'd be a massive waste of bandwidth.

Re:They're providing lossless FLAC (1)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#44782135)

The 'space' savings may amount to ten percent in file size, at most, so who cares.

Um, try a 30-45% decrease for the 5-10 tracks I tried. (Actually I had one that had around a 75% decrease, but it was an outlier.)

Re:They're providing lossless FLAC (1)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#44782227)

More specific information: I picked out about 10 albums semi-arbitrarily (largely classical, but not entirely).

The total FLAC size is 4.11 GB.
The total WAV size is 7.93 GB.

So 48% decrease in size, which is even more than I said before.

Re:They're providing lossless FLAC (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44780803)

I'm wondering why video? 18th century empty-v?

And yes, especially Black Keys. Which IIRC isn't the tune's real name.

More ambitious (3, Interesting)

Megahard (1053072) | about a year ago | (#44780557)

would be J.S.Bach. Over 1000 works.

Re:More ambitious (1)

aarondunn (2710233) | about a year ago | (#44780591)

Just about any other composer would be very challenging, a mixture of many more ensemble types, many more hours of music. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, would be easier but still very hard.

Re:More ambitious (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#44780635)

Go to http://www.blockmrecords.org/bach/ [blockmrecords.org] for the complete Bach organ works.

Re:More ambitious (5, Informative)

aarondunn (2710233) | about a year ago | (#44780663)

Sadly copyrighted, we've asked the performer to release them. No luck so far.

Re:More ambitious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782727)

And this guys, is why RIAA copyright extensions are such a bad idea, without exception.

Re:More ambitious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780869)

Showpan was a fag.

Re:More ambitious (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780957)

You may be interested in this:

http://www.opengoldbergvariations.org/

Kimiko Ishizaka gives a wonderful interpretation (However, Keith Jarret's interpretation is still one of the finest harpsichord interpretations of this work.) especially the Aria. These recordings bring a stunning realism to these works.

Re:More ambitious (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#44782059)

They want to start with something more manageable first, and then move over to a yearly release schedule, taking on more ambitious projects as the audience and the donations grow.

Aaron (founder of Musopen) any ? I can answer? (5, Insightful)

aarondunn (2710233) | about a year ago | (#44780601)

Thanks for all the comments and for those that have backed us. I'll be here if anyone has any questions/comments they'd like answered. -Aaron

Re:Aaron (founder of Musopen) any ? I can answer? (5, Informative)

aarondunn (2710233) | about a year ago | (#44780615)

I should add, /. was absolutely essential to the success of our first Kickstarter. I should release some info on our backers from the first time around, it's pretty interesting data. Suffice to say Slashdot referrals made up 30% of the total. So I guess I'm saying I'm counting on you :)

Re:Aaron (founder of Musopen) any ? I can answer? (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44780835)

Thanks for all the comments and for those that have backed us. I'll be here if anyone has any questions/comments they'd like answered. -Aaron

Your accolades are well deserved and it's you who deserve our thanks, not the other way around.

The only question I have is, why isn't your comment nodded to +5? Come on, mods!

Re:Aaron (founder of Musopen) any ? I can answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782175)

Just wanted to say thank you Sir! Liberating music is one of the best ideas. Now people everywhere can hear these wonderful works. As a musician I can also comment on the quality which I find very good. Thanks again and the best of luck to your future endeavors!

Re:Aaron (founder of Musopen) any ? I can answer? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782305)

For the previous project you did I had some complaints regarding the delivery and so here are some suggestions:

1. FLAC has been pretty much the standard lossless format and I don't see a good reason to use something else.
2. Keep it all in the same format (bit depth and sample rate). Last time some files were 16bit, some 24bit and whatnot. Same with the tags.
3. When you're making a torrent, don't put the audio files in one zip file, it makes no sense and it's very annoying.

chopin's got some good stuff (1)

Laxori666 (748529) | about a year ago | (#44780607)

One of my favorites: Valse Brillante in A Minor [youtube.com] .

Good stuff yea dawg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782763)

I liked his crunk stylings, but his efforts at dubstep weren't to my taste ...

Every piece ever? (4, Funny)

dmomo (256005) | about a year ago | (#44780677)

I hope they don't forget anything from their Chopin list.

Re:Every piece ever? (3, Informative)

aarondunn (2710233) | about a year ago | (#44780699)

Whatever is on wikipedia will be included. We're also consulting with a professor of Music who has written extensively about Chopin.

Re:Every piece ever? (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#44781035)

That was a, AH SAY, that was a /joke/, son. Chopin list, shopping list... well, ok, more of a weak pun.

Re:Every piece ever? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781695)

Chopin Liszt.

Re:Every piece ever? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781943)

Nice, but the name is pronounced Shaw-PEN. Yours truly, C.O.

Re:Every piece ever? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782709)

I have every confidence that they can create a single place where all of the works are freely available.

A veritable Chopin Center.

musopen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780749)

musopen seems really great until you download 5 songs and then they want you to pay. blurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp

API? (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#44780751)

It's called "mp3". An API for music isn't a thing.

Re:API? (5, Informative)

aarondunn (2710233) | about a year ago | (#44780787)

API for Chopin actually. And it will be if we make it :) It'll be structured data: listing of all his music with composition dates links from each recording to his sheet music list of major events in his life wikipedia and liner notes about each piece geographical information related to the music or events in his life etc. So people can try to do various things, node map, timelines. We have some of our own ideas we'd like to try.

wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780781)

I just clicked on the archive.org page for this and they have full multitracks in wav format for each. . . Very nice.

Re:wow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44780795)

. . . and corresponding Apple Logic Pro sessions as well. . .

It's like xmas.

Re:wow! (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44780863)

How can Apple Logic Pro sessions be converted to a format readable by free software?

Re:wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781197)

I haven't finished downloading yet (they're around 6 gigs - 40 gigs per song). All the wav files are there in a big folder in what appears to be different sections and mic positions. I'm assuming there isn't a ton of mixing in the session itself so maybe you could just load the wav files into your own DAW. There appears to be a pro-tools session file in there as well.

As far as converting a logic session to a free software, I've never tried it but I did a web search and a piece of software came up called AATranslator (Windows) that claims to be able to convert pro tools and logic sessions into reaper (free-ish). It's a $60 program, though.

192kHz considered harmful (by the FLAC engineers) (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44781141)

Please refer to:
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

The above was written by one of the engineers behind FLAC itself.

READ IT. It will teach you exactly what you need to know about sampling theory and signal processing for you to not look like an utter ignorant, math-challenged buffon every time you start talking about bits-per-sample and sampling frequencies. It will also teach enough about the human hearing for you to understand what is really required *in practice* for good-enough-even-for-SuperMozart signal fidelity reproduction.

Bravo (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | about a year ago | (#44781723)

I freely downloaded a set of Bach organ works that were donated to the public domain, and they're a treasured part of my extensive collection. It's unfortunate in a sense that top grade recording interests such as the Vienna Philharmonic will endure a reduction of their royalties, but the main repertoire of classical music has been out of copyright in some cases for centuries, and I applaud this direction.

24 bit 192kHz audio? (2)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year ago | (#44781769)

Fuck - just gimme 320kbps MP3 and I'll be happy....

Problem already solved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44782397)

There's an online group called the "Piano Society" - pianosociety.com that shares performances - free to anyone who wants to listen or watch. Over 5k recordings online already. Lots of Chopin, many top notch performers.

Why re-invent the wheel? Also youtube.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...