MusOpen Releases Open Source Classical Music As Pro Tools Files 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."
Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Hm. Maybe you should have said something when you first helped fund the project.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:ProTools is the antithesis of OpenSource (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 ba
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
What format would you prefer?
Sadly so perhaps, but ProTools is the de-facto standard for professional audio recording.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 wit
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 Son
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Reaper and GIMP don't have a lot in common.
Re: (Score:2)
ProTools (Score:3)
What open source software reads Protools files?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Pro tools and open source (Score:1)
Is this like sweet and sour? Oil and vinegar...
Open Source Analogy (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 losi
Re:Open Source Analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
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 the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
What is the definition (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is the definition (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:1)
Re:What is the definition (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 tendenc
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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, bu
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to what EvanED listed, the same people doing these recordings are doing scores as well. [musopen.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Chicago Piano from 1886 (Score:1)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
I can't whistle =(
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
"Upright pianos with unusually tall frames and long strings are sometimes called upright grand pianos." [usd.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 inter