5 ms·

A complete MIDI-based framework for automatic backing tracks generation

79 points by murat124 4y ago

murat124 4y ago
I've found this while looking for a backing track. Amateur musicians may find it useful.
- brudgers 4y ago
  There are some hardware options from the 1990's. Take a look at Yamaha's QY series. The QY10 can be found for under $100. Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i66uPOe8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i66uPOe8g The QY300 for under $200. Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR2UX3axNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR2UX3axNM As a bonus the dawless approach also generates tones.
  - sh4rks 4y ago
    Is there any reason to use the hardware over the software?
    - dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
      Offloading CPU usage - and some people just love the feeling of physical equipment. Also, even if you map all controls to keyboard shortcuts, changing parameters by physical knobs is usually much faster anyway.
      - brudgers 4y ago
        Not having to map controls to physical knobs uses less of my CPU. And since I don’t have to remember how I mapped three days ago because it seemed like a good idea, hardware uses less of my RAM.
    - brudgers 4y ago
      I find physical hardware a useful abstraction. And the lack of email a bulwark against distraction…no HN helps too. I understand why people like DAW’s. And understand why I like dawless. For about $150, I can have the best Yamaha engineers could do in 1992 built into a roadworthy housing. Integration is only a matter of 1/4” TS cables, DIN MIDI and 120v AC. Or to put it another way, the QY gear is mostly software. Dedicated hardware gives it devoted user interface. The UI doesn’t have to try to be like the UI of my mixer or my effects boxes because it is not purely visual. The UI doesn’t have to compete with my mixer for space in my visual field because they both live in three dimensional space. But those are my reasons.
      - krnlpnc 4y ago
        I've found that the DAW itself wasn't the problem for me. It was using the same computer and space for work as I did for creativity. As soon as I set up a dedicated laptop and corner for music, and ran the DAW full screen, the distractions went away. I use a combination of hardware and software.
        brudgers 4y ago
        For me, dawless seems to smooth over several points of friction at the expense of things I don’t care about right now. One is the dedicated configuration. I turn on a 36” power strip and everything is ready to go in less than a minute. An important part of that is everything is ready to go every single time. There are no patch Tuesdays. No semantic versioning. The process is rock stable except for how I change it. A second affordance is that I can make tradeoffs around the specific capabilities I think I want. An example is my 1980’s Yamaha QX5 sequencer will record Sysex. Ableton Live Lite — came free with my first controller — won’t. It is an upgrade or finding another daw or running another piece of software and managing sysex outside the daw. The QX5 was fifty bucks and has a well engineered interface because Yamaha knew what it was doing. I don’t care that the UI is dated because so am I. A third affordance is dawless means line level audio can be the dominant signal path. That makes it easier for me to reason about my setup. There are a some of this is just what works for me caveats. Mostly I just want to put on headphones and make noise because it brings me joy. I am not trying to make an album and if a song comes out of it that’s just a bonus. I am doing it all on the cheap. The $999 for Ableton’s top package represents a lot of gear I would rather spend money on. I’ve fallen into the Turing tarpit enough times to know what mine looks like. Mine looks kind of like a daw.
klodolph 4y ago
This looks like a software alternative to having an arranger keyboard / (or arranger workstation), which is nice. Arranger keyboards are great and all, but they cost money and take up space. You may have used an "arranger keyboard" without knowing what that product category is. An arranger keyboard is designed to provide automatic accompaniment--backing tracks--at the touch of a button, in many different styles. Common low-end keyboards fall into this category, like the Yamaha PSR series and the Casiotone series. You may have one, or you may have purchased one for your children. There are also much more expensive, high-end keyboards in this category, like the Genos. The simplest way to use the accompaniment is to trigger it from the left hand with a keyboard split. Here's what that looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWW9tyB__3o&t=706 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWW9tyB__3o&t=706 The general two purposes for arranger keyboards is (1) to let you perform as a solo act and (2) make it easier to write songs. The other three common types of keyboards are synthesizers, stage pianos, and keyboard controllers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pantulis 4y ago
  I would add another keyboard category, the workstation synthesizer (Fantom, Kronos/Nautilus, Montage...) which also let you perform solo and allow you to create your own productions (the Kronos will even burn a CD!) Supposed to be the flagship product, I find very interesting how musical instruments manufacturers carefully differentiate the features between arrangers and workstations.
  - xhevahir 4y ago
    There's a lot of overlap between the Montage and the Genos. A lot of the "Performances" and "Arpeggios" in the workstation are derived from Yamaha's arranger keyboards. Arranger keyboards, though, are anathema to a lot of musicians because of their association with the kind of one-man-band acts that perform in nursing homes, airport lounges, Oktoberfesten, and so on. (It's no accident they usually have whole banks of presets dedicated to genres like Schlager and Polka.)
  - 4y ago
jpfr 4y ago
This looks very much inspired by Band-in-a-Box. A commercial software to generate backing music that my teacher recommended for training jazz improvisation. The performance was okay. I found it too sterile. It didn’t really swing … especially for the target audience of jazz musicians. It was helpful though! Judging from its look and feel, Band-in-a-Box is around since the 90s.
- schwartzworld 4y ago
  Since they allow you to import Band-in-a-Box files, I'd say they're well aware of the prior art.
- xhevahir 4y ago
  This uses accompaniment styles from Yamaha arranger keyboards, which have been around for ages. It's a much simpler format (really just a special kind of MIDI file) than the BIAB one, and more open. This project has details: https://github.com/bures/sff2-tools https://github.com/bures/sff2-tools . There's a site that's popular with users of Yamaha keyboards, www.jososoft.dk , that has tons of styles in various genres. I messed around with JJazzLab a few months ago, and, while I did encounter some annoying MIDI problems involving the drum patches, I liked it enough that I wrote myself a script to import a song from another program, Impro-Visor, for auditioning in JJazzLab. It's a lot easier to use than Band in a Box.
pantulis 4y ago
Reminds me a lot of the Karma engine by uber hacker Stephen Kay which has been ported to Korg and Yamaha workstations.
TheEdonian 4y ago
Didn't Microsoft have a tool/game like this aimed at kids? I remember a youtube video ages ago that generated music from humming or something.
- TonyTrapp 4y ago
  Songsmith! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E

79 points by murat124 4y ago

murat124 4y ago

I've found this while looking for a backing track. Amateur musicians may find it useful.

brudgers 4y ago
There are some hardware options from the 1990's. Take a look at Yamaha's QY series. The QY10 can be found for under $100. Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i66uPOe8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i66uPOe8g The QY300 for under $200. Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR2UX3axNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR2UX3axNM As a bonus the dawless approach also generates tones.
- sh4rks 4y ago
  Is there any reason to use the hardware over the software?
  - dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
    Offloading CPU usage - and some people just love the feeling of physical equipment. Also, even if you map all controls to keyboard shortcuts, changing parameters by physical knobs is usually much faster anyway.
    - brudgers 4y ago
      Not having to map controls to physical knobs uses less of my CPU. And since I don’t have to remember how I mapped three days ago because it seemed like a good idea, hardware uses less of my RAM.
  - brudgers 4y ago
    I find physical hardware a useful abstraction. And the lack of email a bulwark against distraction…no HN helps too. I understand why people like DAW’s. And understand why I like dawless. For about $150, I can have the best Yamaha engineers could do in 1992 built into a roadworthy housing. Integration is only a matter of 1/4” TS cables, DIN MIDI and 120v AC. Or to put it another way, the QY gear is mostly software. Dedicated hardware gives it devoted user interface. The UI doesn’t have to try to be like the UI of my mixer or my effects boxes because it is not purely visual. The UI doesn’t have to compete with my mixer for space in my visual field because they both live in three dimensional space. But those are my reasons.
    - krnlpnc 4y ago
      I've found that the DAW itself wasn't the problem for me. It was using the same computer and space for work as I did for creativity. As soon as I set up a dedicated laptop and corner for music, and ran the DAW full screen, the distractions went away. I use a combination of hardware and software.
      - brudgers 4y ago
        For me, dawless seems to smooth over several points of friction at the expense of things I don’t care about right now. One is the dedicated configuration. I turn on a 36” power strip and everything is ready to go in less than a minute. An important part of that is everything is ready to go every single time. There are no patch Tuesdays. No semantic versioning. The process is rock stable except for how I change it. A second affordance is that I can make tradeoffs around the specific capabilities I think I want. An example is my 1980’s Yamaha QX5 sequencer will record Sysex. Ableton Live Lite — came free with my first controller — won’t. It is an upgrade or finding another daw or running another piece of software and managing sysex outside the daw. The QX5 was fifty bucks and has a well engineered interface because Yamaha knew what it was doing. I don’t care that the UI is dated because so am I. A third affordance is dawless means line level audio can be the dominant signal path. That makes it easier for me to reason about my setup. There are a some of this is just what works for me caveats. Mostly I just want to put on headphones and make noise because it brings me joy. I am not trying to make an album and if a song comes out of it that’s just a bonus. I am doing it all on the cheap. The $999 for Ableton’s top package represents a lot of gear I would rather spend money on. I’ve fallen into the Turing tarpit enough times to know what mine looks like. Mine looks kind of like a daw.

klodolph 4y ago

This looks like a software alternative to having an arranger keyboard / (or arranger workstation), which is nice. Arranger keyboards are great and all, but they cost money and take up space. You may have used an "arranger keyboard" without knowing what that product category is. An arranger keyboard is designed to provide automatic accompaniment--backing tracks--at the touch of a button, in many different styles. Common low-end keyboards fall into this category, like the Yamaha PSR series and the Casiotone series. You may have one, or you may have purchased one for your children. There are also much more expensive, high-end keyboards in this category, like the Genos. The simplest way to use the accompaniment is to trigger it from the left hand with a keyboard split. Here's what that looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWW9tyB__3o&t=706 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWW9tyB__3o&t=706 The general two purposes for arranger keyboards is (1) to let you perform as a solo act and (2) make it easier to write songs. The other three common types of keyboards are synthesizers, stage pianos, and keyboard controllers.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pantulis 4y ago
I would add another keyboard category, the workstation synthesizer (Fantom, Kronos/Nautilus, Montage...) which also let you perform solo and allow you to create your own productions (the Kronos will even burn a CD!) Supposed to be the flagship product, I find very interesting how musical instruments manufacturers carefully differentiate the features between arrangers and workstations.
- xhevahir 4y ago
  There's a lot of overlap between the Montage and the Genos. A lot of the "Performances" and "Arpeggios" in the workstation are derived from Yamaha's arranger keyboards. Arranger keyboards, though, are anathema to a lot of musicians because of their association with the kind of one-man-band acts that perform in nursing homes, airport lounges, Oktoberfesten, and so on. (It's no accident they usually have whole banks of presets dedicated to genres like Schlager and Polka.)
- 4y ago

jpfr 4y ago

This looks very much inspired by Band-in-a-Box. A commercial software to generate backing music that my teacher recommended for training jazz improvisation. The performance was okay. I found it too sterile. It didn’t really swing … especially for the target audience of jazz musicians. It was helpful though! Judging from its look and feel, Band-in-a-Box is around since the 90s.

schwartzworld 4y ago
Since they allow you to import Band-in-a-Box files, I'd say they're well aware of the prior art.
xhevahir 4y ago
This uses accompaniment styles from Yamaha arranger keyboards, which have been around for ages. It's a much simpler format (really just a special kind of MIDI file) than the BIAB one, and more open. This project has details: https://github.com/bures/sff2-tools https://github.com/bures/sff2-tools . There's a site that's popular with users of Yamaha keyboards, www.jososoft.dk , that has tons of styles in various genres. I messed around with JJazzLab a few months ago, and, while I did encounter some annoying MIDI problems involving the drum patches, I liked it enough that I wrote myself a script to import a song from another program, Impro-Visor, for auditioning in JJazzLab. It's a lot easier to use than Band in a Box.

pantulis 4y ago

Reminds me a lot of the Karma engine by uber hacker Stephen Kay which has been ported to Korg and Yamaha workstations.

TheEdonian 4y ago

Didn't Microsoft have a tool/game like this aimed at kids? I remember a youtube video ages ago that generated music from humming or something.

TonyTrapp 4y ago
Songsmith! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E