Improvisator

[eduardo_b]

It seems the issue might be about "authenticity." Is the music from human creativity or the work of a sort of artificial intelligence. From the perspective of a purist, any software that creates music on its own would be suspect, even though humans wrote the software. Automation would be okay if it was first programmed by a human. It seems as though the core point is not how good (or not) the music is but how it came to be. I would think samplers would be in between the two in terms of human versus machine. I do sense that those most offended are probably already accomplished in music as a result of their own talents and efforts.

[Hink]

It seems the issue might be about "authenticity." Is the music from human creativity or the work of a sort of artificial intelligence. From the perspective of a purist, any software that creates music on its own would be suspect, even though humans wrote the software. Automation would be okay if it was first programmed by a human. It seems as though the core point is not how good (or not) the music is but how it came to be. I would think samplers would be in between the two in terms of human versus machine. I do sense that those most offended are probably already accomplished in music as a result of their own talents and efforts.

seems to me that those "offended" as you say may not always be all that accomplished and in fact might be the ones that are insecure in their own talents and efforts...

[eduardo_b]

It seems the issue might be about "authenticity." Is the music from human creativity or the work of a sort of artificial intelligence. From the perspective of a purist, any software that creates music on its own would be suspect, even though humans wrote the software. Automation would be okay if it was first programmed by a human. It seems as though the core point is not how good (or not) the music is but how it came to be. I would think samplers would be in between the two in terms of human versus machine. I do sense that those most offended are probably already accomplished in music as a result of their own talents and efforts.

seems to me that those "offended" as you say may not always be all that accomplished and in fact might be the ones that are insecure in their own talents and efforts...

I was actually thinking some form of jealousy. That is, those who use this kind of software hadn't "paid their dues." Sort of like someone mastering a process (series of steps) in Photoshop, and then they find out others are using a commercial filter to do the same thing in seconds.

[Hink]

It seems the issue might be about "authenticity." Is the music from human creativity or the work of a sort of artificial intelligence. From the perspective of a purist, any software that creates music on its own would be suspect, even though humans wrote the software. Automation would be okay if it was first programmed by a human. It seems as though the core point is not how good (or not) the music is but how it came to be. I would think samplers would be in between the two in terms of human versus machine. I do sense that those most offended are probably already accomplished in music as a result of their own talents and efforts.

seems to me that those "offended" as you say may not always be all that accomplished and in fact might be the ones that are insecure in their own talents and efforts...

I was actually thinking some form of jealousy. That is, those who use this kind of software hadn't "paid their dues." Sort of like someone mastering a process (series of steps) in Photoshop, and then they find out others are using a commercial filter to do the same thing in seconds.

I know, and that is exactly what my response was about. There are actually a lot of people who's validation comes from a job well done and not by recognition of others. Many of those people are going to be above petty jealousy and in fact might walk away thinking "they missed out on the best part".

[frz]

It seems the issue might be about "authenticity." Is the music from human creativity or the work of a sort of artificial intelligence. From the perspective of a purist, any software that creates music on its own would be suspect, even though humans wrote the software. Automation would be okay if it was first programmed by a human. It seems as though the core point is not how good (or not) the music is but how it came to be. I would think samplers would be in between the two in terms of human versus machine. I do sense that those most offended are probably already accomplished in music as a result of their own talents and efforts.

seems to me that those "offended" as you say may not always be all that accomplished and in fact might be the ones that are insecure in their own talents and efforts...

I was actually thinking some form of jealousy. That is, those who use this kind of software hadn't "paid their dues." Sort of like someone mastering a process (series of steps) in Photoshop, and then they find out others are using a commercial filter to do the same thing in seconds.

I know, and that is exactly what my response was about. There are actually a lot of people who's validation comes from a job well done and not by recognition of others. Many of those people are going to be above petty jealousy and in fact might walk away thinking "they missed out on the best part".

There's a point in all of the above.
I've tried out this plugin and I find it kinda useful (albeit a bit expensive to my taste) for inspirational needs but it will never substitute a good musician's performance or a good composer's ear, just like every protools in the world won't substitute a good engineer, even if he's stuck with a behringer desk and a bunch of 57s. In case somebody thinks that with this thing you'll automatically come up with a hit they're on the wrong track. 90% of the stuff that sells out there is simple and direct anyways.

Untalented people will always produce shitty stuff, even with the best technology in the world: they'll only be doing it faster.

[spitboxer]

thanks for the demo jonathan, this looks impressive, 3 clicks before nag seems a bit tight, but better than nothing eh

anyway, i was only mentionning vst3 because i thought you implied the next version would have several midi output ports ; but i don't think you'll find many people pressuring you down that road for now though...

cheers

why would it be vst3 for more midi outs?

[moosethree]

AS a hobbyist I would greatly appreciate this software: both for its immediate enjoyment and for its potential to educate me. I don't agree with the naysayers.

[eduardo_b]

AS a hobbyist I would greatly appreciate this software: both for its immediate enjoyment and for its potential to educate me. I don't agree with the naysayers.

I'm not a naysayer at all. I think this sort of software has lots of potential as a creative tool, and an educational one as well. Some of those who are derisive about this software are probably using auto exposure cameras, not even aware that it used to be necessary to use light meters and set one's own f-stop and shutter speed -- taking into account depth of field and motion (the subject's and/or the photographer's) That was the drill for real photographers who knew their craft and took photos under lighting conditions that amateurs couldn't overcome. Now, only the true hobbyists and pros care about any of this. I think my point is obvious enough.

[deastman]

I'm in agreement with some of the posts so far: this looks like a wonderful tool for inspiration and education. Not currently in my price range, given the weak US dollar, but I'll keep an eye on it.

[eduardo_b]

I'm in agreement with some of the posts so far: this looks like a wonderful tool for inspiration and education. Not currently in my price range, given the weak US dollar, but I'll keep an eye on it.

About $116, which I guess is sort of high. I wonder if the dev would be willing to offer a euro price and a separate, unlinked dollar price.

[funkychickendance]

I'm in agreement with some of the posts so far: this looks like a wonderful tool for inspiration and education. Not currently in my price range, given the weak US dollar, but I'll keep an eye on it.

Conceptually, something like this product is a tremendous idea. Being served up harmony choices as we compose ought to be a great thing. Also, a perfect way to create variations without needing to know a vast amount of musical lore.

The trouble for many of us, I suspect, is that the dev has a rather rudimentary grasp of English, and that the manual is almost incomprehensible. The GUI could use some help, too.

It could be the cleverest tool in the world, but how would we know? If I could make head or tail of either the manual or the GUI, I'd probably risk the money. But I'm wary, because I've bought a few too many expensive WTF white elephants over the past couple of years.

EDIT: I am thinking about this a little harder, see post below.

//fnx
ps: which reminds me, it's time to start rolling them out in Market Place so potential beneficiaries can get a bargain, and I can get some dough back for things I will use

[deastman]

The trouble for many of us, I suspect, is that the dev has a rather rudimentary grasp of English, and that the manual is almost incomprehensible. The GUI could use some help, too.

It could be the cleverest tool in the world, but how would we know? If I could make head or tail of either the manual or the GUI, I'd probably risk the money. But I'm wary, because I've bought a few too many expensive WTF white elephants over the past couple of years.

I didn't find the GUI incomprehensible. I didn't understand *every* region of the interface, but I only spent about five minutes playing with it (that nag screen is way too restrictive) and haven't even touched the manual. I'm not looking for a tool to write my music for me, just something to offer suggestions I might not have considered on my own. I have, shall we say, an "intermediate" grasp of theory, but never deliberately employ it when composing beyond a basic intuitive level. This type of tool could be quite useful when I find myself stuck in a I-IV-V loop.

[funkychickendance]

As a couple of people suggested to me, I installed the demo and kicked it around for 15 minutes or so. And, it's less baffling when you actually input some notes, with a piano plugged in.

Now, while I wish the GUI wasn't in German -- but then, how difficult is it to follow, really? -- the plug does something that I find rather neat. And what the dev thought he was doing, too. It serves up harmonic alternatives and ways of resolving progressions. Plugged into a decent grand (TruePianos), I found myself hearing Beethoven-like progressions and cadences in really ordinary chord sequences. Because these are music theory-correct, non-jazzy derivations. Nice! [For a change, I mean]

This could turn out to be a useful plug for me, compositionally, and now I have to figure out how to pay for it...

//fnx

[darrenn]

I would be prepared to pay the price if only there was a decent manual. My harmonic theory could do with some help and this tool looks like it could do the job but the manual would definately need improvements before I part with my money.
Darren

[Rod Staples]

I must admit when I first saw this I thought "Oh no". Everybody is going to be producing complex string arrangements - skills I have taken years to build up.

But really it is not a plugin that churns out perfect sequenced arrangements. It is really just a tool like a casio calculator in mathematics. Its still up to you to make the right choices from the options available. No different from using a theory book, its just easier than using a book.

So ultimately I think it is good.