How Long Does Other DAWs Take To Save 20,000 Midi Items?

[IncarnateX]

As already said in my first post about it. The core problem is that the notion of infinite in the proof does not apply to what we know about a human or a monkey's lifespan and maybe not even the universe in so far it is still discussed whether the universe will die or not among astronomists. Thus, there are no immortal monkeys nor immortal human beings. However a machine could in principle be immortal in so far that different generations of people could keep it working (given that the universe does not collapse at a certain point in time). However, it would ridiculous to sit around for centuries waiting for such a thing to happen, and since we are talking about probabilities, it is not even certain that it ever will. So now I have spelled out the message and actually your objections are based on the fact that you agree, so you do not really have to try to counter it. However, that is not really the core of what I posted since i am sure that those really trying to make it happen per algorithm are well aware of the proof and its unfathomably small likelyhood. The point is that there are researchers who actually are trying to increase this likelihood by applying sets of rules, e.g. there is a difference between completely randomness and controlled randomness. And they believe they can. However, to object to it, you would really have to speak on the same scientific terms that they do, so do not expect the usual KVRish is going to convince anyone but your own As.

[LawrenceF]

Not that I agree with his working method, but it's HIS method. If he feels right working that way, so be it

^^ This. ^^ It's kinda like religion in a way, as long as it's not harming anyone else, who cares?

Such is "free will". I mean, if I was his financier and he was late delivering music or something I'd ask ... "What the heck are you doing?" But I'm obviously not and his work method doesn't affect my life in any way at all so... live and let live.

[Delta Sign]

And hey, sometimes it's simply fun to think about stuff like that. I've come up with some pretty convoluted ways to make the most simple music in my days

[IncarnateX]

Anyway, if I remember well, from my math studies, isn't the infinite unachievable, and all the functions that tend to infinite never really reach the limit (they "tend" to infinite, but they do not "reach" infinite)?

Within a finite material universe where all matter tends towards dissolution, infinity is of a given unit of time. In other words, time will come to an end before infinity is ever achieved.

I did not state the above, fmr did, plz correct the quote

[IncarnateX]

Give me the formula.

see my edit

"Maybe the monkeys problem is not formally provable because the infinite series they produce is countably infinite and therefore does not contain all possible strings (from Cantor). Perhaps Shakespeare's works are one of the missing strings from the countably infinite strings "

Yet, if you let a pile of monkeys into a controversial KVR thread, you will have groundbreaking redefinitions of psychiatry, math and astronomy before you can say: IBTL . What is the likehood of that, you think?

[BertKoor]

Just give them monkeys some rules to change the garbage/diamond ratio!

[fmr]

Give me the formula.

see my edit

"Maybe the monkeys problem is not formally provable because the infinite series they produce is countably infinite and therefore does not contain all possible strings (from Cantor). Perhaps Shakespeare's works are one of the missing strings from the countably infinite strings "

Yet, if you let a pile of monkeys into a controversial KVR thread, you will have groundbreaking redefinitions of psychiatry, math and astronomy before you can say: IBTL . What is the likehood of that, you think?

Whatever you say

[harryupbabble]

@JoseC

Well, it seems the Beatles did not use randomizers but they did use randomization on the song Tomorrow Never Knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles
Here's a quote from that article:

"Among the experimental songs that Revolver featured was "Tomorrow Never Knows", the lyrics for which Lennon drew from Timothy Leary's The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Its creation involved eight tape decks distributed about the EMI building, each staffed by an engineer or band member, who randomly varied the movement of a tape loop while Martin created a composite recording by sampling the incoming data."




In the case of Pink Floyd... their name itself is random.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-conne ... Illuminati
They randomly picked two blues musicians that Barret had in his collection: Pink Anderson and Floyd Council and put the words together.

Plus, on Dark Side Of The Moon, random people were used to talk throughout the whole album.
https://www.newsweek.com/eclipse-354066

"To gather these various sound bites, Waters began questioning anyone who came through the studio.
“I wrote all the questions down on a set of cards, and they were in sequence,” he said, as quoted by Harris. “A ton of people did it. Each person would read the top card and answer it—with no one else in the room—and then take that card off and do the next one. So, for instance, when it said, ‘When was the last time you were violent?’ they would answer that, and the next card said, ‘Were you in the right?"

[JoseC.]

Award for most inneficient, uncreative and illogical method of creating music.

Id love to see this guy in the kitchen with his random recipe generator.

Worst thing is that he wrote above that he does not even have fun (as anyone would expect, this must be boring to dead).

[harryupbabble]

Yes, I guess my method is similar to the "monkeys write Shakespeare" theorem. The main difference is that the monkeys just keep typing away. I don't. I make selections of what to keep and what to reject when it comes to my 20,000 drum patterns, when it comes to everything actually. I use my ears. Like stated at least twice now, my method is similar to "noodling at the piano' but the muscle memory part is bypassed and automation is used and the results don't sound as boxed in. Yes, when I was "noodling at the piano", the results started to sound the same and I blamed muscle memory. But with randomizers, I was getting different and varied results that I was not getting when I was "noodling at the piano" (midi controller in my case).

I'm okay with the drums being random, but my bass part's content is not random. But that could change. For now, I have 314,200 bass midi files. But their notes are confined to the notes of triad chords. I have the notes weighted, meaning that the root gets favoured the most, the fifth gets favoured second, and the third gets favoured last. And the chord triads that the bass notes are based on are transposable meaning that my G bass folder is just a copy of my F bass folder but transposed 2 notes up. And with the minor triads, the transposing of the third is slightly different. But I still have to randomly select what bass pattern to reject and what to keep.

I know it's very basic but hey like stated before I'm no trying to create a symphony. I'm just trying to create simple hummable or whistleable songs that I can fit simple lyrics too. Just because I'm using randomizers, it doesn't mean that's not achieveable?

Speaking of that, based on reading stuff about Paul McCartney's method of writing songs... it seems Paul McCartney tended to make the music first then later on create the lyrics. So, that's what I'm doing, copying my music heroes in some ways but not in all ways. Create the music first and then the music will inspire the lyrics. So different from the Taupin-John method. Bernie creates the lyrics first and then Elton creates the music. What an amazing pair.

I'm no monkey. I object. I have less hair, and I don't drag my arms to the floor. Those are not the only differences. Okay? But I'm off to drag my posterior to do something else, be back later my dear primates. Hahaha. Okay bye.

PS, I just remembered, back on topic: I deal with huge amounts of midi data and that is why I was trying to find out if saving 20,000 midi items in other DAWs is faster or slower than REAPER. Where is the bench-marking for all the major DAWS? If someone is creating a benchmark now and if they see this, please include the Batch midi file saving speed of DAWs in your bench-marking. It's a long shot that a bench-marker might see this post, but hey one never knows.

[mcbpete]

Just run the test and the answer is 14.5
The units are yet to be confirmed.

[JoseC.]

@Harry,

Ok, so no "randomizators" (every time I read that word, I hear William Shattner's voice in my head saying "set randomizators on stun" )

It is not the same thing using random elements in your music, than expecting all music to randomly compose itself giving pop music as a result. Both Pink Floyd and The Beatles music is very far from generative music, is old fashioned songwriting. You will never do that automatically, forget it.

By the way, I do use random pretty often when I make music.

[IncarnateX]

Whatever you say

Ah, you are making progress. Does this mean that you begin to grasp that "reaching infinite" is not a premise of the proof or do you still insist on that rubbish?

[ShawnG]

PS, I just remembered, back on topic: I deal with huge amounts of midi data and that is why I was trying to find out if saving 20,000 midi items in other DAWs is faster or slower than REAPER. Where is the bench-marking for all the major DAWS? If someone is creating a benchmark now and if they see this, please include the Batch midi file saving speed of DAWs in your bench-marking. It's a long shot that a bench-marker might see this post, but hey one never knows.

Ok, back on topic, and back to the original answer. There is no benchmarking for this, because you are the only one who does this. As far as I am aware, you can't do this sort of batch processing in other DAWs. (reaper, tho I personally loathe using it, is wonderful at this sort of thing, and was the primary tool I found a few years ago when I wanted to batch convert a folder of rex files into wav files) The speed at which most of us process the midi data that we use is insignificant because we are not trying to create every potential drum loop possible, we are just working with the very small number of midi clips that a musician would access/create in the process of writing a track. This is not a requested feature.

Further, the constant belittling of musicianship in the form of using the phrases "noodling" and derisive references to "muscle memory" is troubling. The "muscle memory" of a musician is the work of lifetimes, and is a musician's identity and signature, not a limitation (unless they havent worked hard enough to acquire one). These songs you love are expressions. The random selection of notes can be perhaps intellectually interesting, but it is not an expression.

[harryupbabble]

If that's the case then okay I guess I'm going to have to accept that DAWs are not built for my purpose. 5.5 hours of waiting it shall be then. But still, I would like this thread to not be locked. Maybe people have alternative solutions. Somebody suggested that I should do the batch exporting process during the night while I'm asleep. That sounds like a good idea but it would mean I have to move my offline computer away from my bedroom because the computer fan keeps me awake. With my living conditions, I can't do that. I'll just find a way to better schedule my activities around that 5.5 hours waiting time should I ever make more edits on my 20,000 drum patterns.

I'm still optimistic that you are wrong about other DAWs not having the capability to export 20,000 midi items. All DAWs are not built the same. Of those that have the capability to batch export midi items, maybe they have different speeds. What's the chance that all of them takes 5.5 hours to do it? Maybe one DAW takes 4.5 hours instead of 5.5 hours. They can't be all the same? And if another DAW is faster than REAPER then maybe the REAPER devs will try to match the other faster DAW even though I'm seemingly only the one that needs DAWs to be faster at batch exporting midi items.

I am not belittling musicians who rely on muscle memory. Session players rely on that. Orchestra players rely on that. Eddie Van Halen relied on that, etc. Other types of hired musicians rely on that. Hobbyists rely on that. I probably would rely on that should I ever create songs that are good enough to be played live and should I not be able to afford to hire musicians to play it for me.

When you are noodling on the piano, you are randomly selecting notes even if muscle memory is influencing you to select particular notes because of "conditioning". I am only bypassing the "conditioning" imposed by muscle memory. My method doesn't get rid of expression. My selecting and rejecting random drum patterns is me imposing my preferences and it's all my expression and taste.

I just have this belief that muscle memory is limiting, strictly in terms of composing... based on my experience with "noodling at the piano". Anybody is free to say "That's not my experience, noodling at the piano did not limit me in anyway in terms of composing my songs."

And if anybody said that, then I won't argue with that. Okay, that's that. As per usual, goodnight y'all.