New Musopen Campaign Wants To "Set Chopin Free" 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."
19th century HD recordings found! (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
we need more stuff like this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 importa
What will the authorities think? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
They're providing lossless FLAC (Score:2)
No need to go crazy about lossy compression. I may just have to donate to this one.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering why video? 18th century empty-v?
And yes, especially Black Keys. Which IIRC isn't the tune's real name.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I wouldn't.
It'd be a massive waste of bandwidth.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
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.
More ambitious (Score:4, Interesting)
would be J.S.Bach. Over 1000 works.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More ambitious (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly copyrighted, we've asked the performer to release them. No luck so far.
What's the problem with this? It's like getting a dozen CDs as a birthday present - do you complain that they are copyrighted?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aaron (founder of Musopen) any ? I can answer? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
chopin's got some good stuff (Score:2)
Every piece ever? (Score:5, Funny)
I hope they don't forget anything from their Chopin list.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Chopin Liszt.
Re: (Score:1)
1000 internets to you.
Re: (Score:2)
plenty of places in the USA pronounce shopping pretty much as that
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the opportunities! But alas, I guess it's too late for a little covert vandalism of the Chopin wikipedia page.
API? (Score:1)
It's called "mp3". An API for music isn't a thing.
Re:API? (Score:5, Informative)
Bravo (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
24 bit 192kHz audio? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Once freely released as high quality and lossless encoded, it can be converted and distrubuted in any lesser quality form.
Re: (Score:2)
a person wouldn't have to pay anyone, the mp3 will pop up by themselves just as they do for other copyrighted works. only difference will be its total legality.
Re: (Score:1)
but it is a lossy compression. loss free compression like flac is a way to ensure preservation of audio, and there is a loss less video codec too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs [wikipedia.org] lossy compression is for non archival usage. lossless is best for archiving, since easy copy methods work and don't degrade the copy. obviously not everyone is trying to be the last surviving holder of a work of music. though if you are flac is great. the problem is not as well known as it should be. android phones for e
I like these projects but... (Score:2)
My problem is that I tend to not be so interested in the heavyweights, I much prefer lesser known composers, such as Chopins contemporary, Karol Szymanowski.
In any case, Chopin composed numerous highly patriotic songs (as in music which is sung) as well as folk songs which aren't explored much, and devilishly hard to get good recordings of. Musically good versions of those should be worth it.
Re: (Score:1)
Me too. I liked Chopin before he was cool.
That stuff with lines (Score:2)
"To preserve indefinitely and without question everything Chopin created."
This indefinite preservation technology is actually known as a musical score. It's the technology Chopin used, and it's a pretty good preservation system, with infinitely high resolution, flexibility and scalability. Admittedly it's more ambitious but it's ultimately a more future-proof project to teach music literacy ... and it has a far simpler interface that's been out of beta for a couple of centuries.
Dennis
http://maltedmedia.com [maltedmedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hah! Far from it. All means of recording are lossy, but scores are far more lossy than even the simplest recording.
This is usually justified by claiming that what's not in the score is up to the performer's discretion. OK, fair enough, but that puts you at the mercy of your notation system - if you care about something hard to represent in notation, or don't care about something that is mandatory in the notation, you're out of luck. (Western classical music is terribly shaped by
Re: (Score:2)
But resolution -- thanks for responding, by the way -- is fixed in history and geography. That makes the resolution of Chopin infinitely high, as long as you have the information.
As far as standard, it's a symbolic notation and each symbol has a definition attached in its context. As for incompatible extensions? Oh, so not true. A defined extension in the context of composer, geography, and time (as well as, in the past 75 years, by definition from the composer) makes the necessary portion reproducible. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
But that is a cop-out. The extra information you need to get fidelity (comparable to a recording) is not contained in the score, it may only be imperfectly extracted from history and geography. As time passes, more and more information you could potentially extract from geography and history is lost forever.
I argue that it is often no
Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, that might actually be interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Utter shite.
It wasn't that good. Closer to the festering diseased shite category, except that most festering diseased shite would take the comparison as an insult.
Re: (Score:1)
I hadn't thought about that track for at least 15 years until you mentioned it just now.
Those were a good 15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The main use will probably be in other things that are free. Such as wikipedia, and preloaded on OLPCs (which actually has happened to Musopen's music). If you're making dubstep commercially, it would cost you very little to get a Chopin recording you could sample anyway, so no change expected there.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Ramones? No.
The Steve Vai/Engvey Mausteen of Romanticism, plus very naughty bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Liszt the Steve Vai of Romanticism?
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
It has everything to do with harmonics. At CD samplin
Re: (Score:1)
"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'
Bandwidth limiting cuts off overtones (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
As it will when you hear it, no matter how good the speakers are.
Re: (Score:2)
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 sig
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
HELLO McFLY!!! Public Domain?!?! mastering new versions. KNOCK KNOCK! ANYONE HOME!
Re:Going to waste bandwidth on useless audio forma (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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 exp
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so this
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
. . . and corresponding Apple Logic Pro sessions as well. . .
It's like xmas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is much easier to arrange a Free piano recording than it is to arrange a Free recording of a symphony orchestra.