Update on the MP3 backing (kinda on topic).

I was able to get a demo of a pro SMF of the song I want (but not the dance remix - just the straight radio edit) so I have compared the two, and though there are some reeeally nice onboard sounds I can use for the SMF, I think the MP3 wins hands down.

The decision was made all the easier when the wife and I rehearsed the song and she came up with a spontaneous "wah-pedal Reggae" part that fitted in a weird and wonderful way. I think it works because instrumentally the dance mix is different in texture and sounds to the Radio Edit, but not in the Groove.

The more straight ahead heavy guitar part also works though, so we'll probably end up using both.

I think we'll play it weird for the Audience we have this weekend (the hipper than thou alternate crowd) and the more straight ahead way for the mainstream clubs.

Incidentally, we've had a lot of fun lately playing another brand new Top 40 song (a #1 hit here, right across the Country) for our Rock n Roll shows.
We play regularly to a great group of dancers who are able to adapt to anything, and even though the Top 40 isn't normally their cup of tea, this song is a fantastic 8 step, and some of them have been making up their own choreography and wowing us on the dancefloor.
They request the song wherever we see them now.

An older lady came up to me after one show and told me proudly "I can tell my grandaughter I was dancing to a Top 40 hit tonight!"
She had a big smile on her face and so did I.

That's what it's all about.

But the use of MP3s was inevitable because of the feel for the need to sound like the original recording of a song.

And because persons keep advocating for perfectly made factory styles on an arranger rather than encourage style making and editing and creativity, then just sounding like the recording of a song that you hear on the radio is the way to go. So Styles, midis, or MP3s it does not matter as long as you sound like the recording that is all that is important.


Why can’t you find another style to use or better yet create a style or midi; taking in to account that you will be playing on top of the style or midi (I am assuming persons can actually play).


The more persons push for perfectly made styles whether it be through audio styles or midi manipulation, the more arrangers will become mp3 players.

That is why for me the on board styles are not the most important things for me when getting an arranger. It is great sounds, creativity capability, and easy OS and easy integration with other equipment and instruments.

Mp3's will be a thing of the past just like all past media types....
records/8 tracks/cassettes/CD/Mp3's...etc etc ............smaller storage size, less compression, better sound............
more features to "ARRANGE" be happy to be a part of this technology...it's an exciting time to be alive!

Its already starting to happen....
http://us.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=213&subcategory=214&product=17810

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 07-15-2008).]

That Zen X-Fi is sweet!

Which brings me the thought I had driving home this morning. Were there ever any complaints or tirades regarding 4-track recordings or mini-discs as backing possibilities. It seems the mp3 (because of its size and convenience) is a target that really isn't any different than the media other "bands" used previously.

If it works for you and you can live with it, then go for it - musically, that is.

I don't care if it is mp3's or 24/96 wav...

What we are talking about primarily is the willingness to play over an audio file, and, in my case, more particularly, an audio file that you had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of...

There are two weaknesses of using audio (at least!), the first, and probably primary one, is that compared to either styles or SMF's, you have minimal editing possibilities. You can't mute a part, you can't make it louder or quieter, you can't apply an effect to it... Everything you do to the file affects everything. Got a guitarist sitting in? Forget muting the recorded guitar solo. Someone playing congas with you? They are going to have to play over the existing conga part. Want to change the feel of the track (swing it a bit, perhaps) after having played it until you are sick to death of it always being the same? Best of luck, mates.

All easy to achieve with SMF's and styles (and pretty common scenarios to all but the loneliest of the lonely OMB's)

Secondly, as I've mentioned before... You have a repertoire of hundreds of mp3's. You change arrangers, for one with a far superior sound (no point in changing, otherwise, eh? ). Your act still sounds essentially the same. And, even if you DID make these mp3's from your own playing and SMF's, rather than buying karaoke tracks, you SURE don't feel like re-recording your entire repertoire, so you end up playing primarily with older gear you have long sold...

Curiously, the ONE thing I see as the strength of using MP3's for seems to be the thing most use the least... The opportunity to hire a REAL guitarist, maybe even a real drummer, and prepare backing tracks that are REAL... but YOU did them, so it's still not commercial karaoke, and your act is your act, not you singing over the same stuff everyone else is. Very few doing this, AFAIK.

But whether the delivery medium for audio tracks is mp3, .wav, .aiff, or some future system TBA, they will all suffer from these pretty insurmountable problems...

Anyone know exactly HOW the Zen X-Fi makes MP3s sound better quality wise?

"Indulge in rich audio where you can hear your music in crystal clear clarity. Take in guitar strumming, crisp cymbal clashes and deep pounding bass as detail lost during file compression are now beautifully restored. The built-in X-Fi technology intelligently moves a conventional left/right earphone stereo source away from your ears, virtually expanding it for an audio experience with a breathtakingly realistic depth of field. You'll feel as if you were listening to your music from a pair of high end speakers."

Doesn't really explain it in enough (convincing) detail for me...

Maybe the insurmountable problems of editing audio are starting to be solved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFCjv4_jqAY

While this IS a breakthrough technology, Bernie, I have a sneaky feeling that this is NOT going to be the answer we all want for editing entire mixes.

Note how all the examples are of single track sources... In other words, this may be possible to extract the pitch and timing information for just one sound, but add in the complexities of an entire mix, with pitched and non-pitched sounds all mixed together, and this starts to sound a LOT more difficult to do than these simple examples.

Note also that everything done in these examples are all fairly simple, quite percussive sounds (fast attack, fairly quick decay) with not that complex a sound spectrum. Nor are they whole mixes. I sincerely doubt that this system will be able to edit whole mixes for the foreseeable future, if ever...

There IS one system existing today that COULD allow us editing possibilities with multitrack audio, without having to go the full monty and actually use a multi-track DAW inside the arranger, though... Surround sound files. This is ONE file, all interleaved, with eight channels of audio (for 7.1 surround) or more, with other formats. If a surround sound player were incorporated into an arranger, different parts could be recorded to each of the channels, and a simple MUTE on any of them could eliminate a particular sound...

Of course, it still doesn't address the possibility of changing the sound, and pitch and timing changes would be difficult to achieve without artifacts, but it is one possibility... and if the Melodyne algorithm could be appied to each channel individually, a lot more could be achieved, also.

But don't forget, at the moment, Melodyne is an off-line process. In other words, it can't be used in realtime on an arranger, even if it COULD work on full mixes....

Strangely, just at the time when MIDI instruments are getting SO close to live audio that it is hard to distinguish the two, we in the arranger world seem to be hell-bent on moving to audio loop technology, with it's far more primitive editing possibilities. Personally, I'd MUCH rather have GIGA sized MIDI instruments and them played by MIDI instruments as the basis of our styles than an audio loop of exactly the same thing played and recorded on real instruments, with no possibility of editing.

The system we have now is amazingly flexible. All we need are better quality, multi-velocity samples, and the SA system to add nuance, and we have something entirely under our control that sounds within a hair's breadth as good as the uneditable full loop...

That is quite an involved assessment, and, I'm sure, generally correct. As far as midi is conscerned,I too, prefer it. I do a Wednesday keyboard and Karaoke show. I have plenty of CD&G disks, but when I want the crowd to dance, I use good midi's or the G70. For some reason the CD's don't stir them to dance, nearly as well. I suspect it is compression. In fact, the only reason I prefer CD's on occasion, is backgroung vocals.

Bernie if you play the right music at the right temp Dancers will dance no matter what vehicle is used........most commercial songs have to be edited to strict tempo.