Roboshred - Watch a 78-fingered robot rip a guitar solo

reply to post by riffraff


Each to his own taste, but that's a terrible way to listen, think about or play music.

Music played at blinding speed, featuring polyrhythms and unusual chords, is rarely good music. As somebody once beautifully explained it, listening to that kind of music is like listening to a raconteur who knows lots of long, polysyllabic words and weird syntactical conventions, and insists on using them all the bloody time. The result is ugly babble, not clear speech; far less is it poetry.

Anyway, this kind of thing is old, old hat. Clockwork music-boxes have existed since the Renaissance. During the Victorian era they became incredibly sophisticated and complex. Player pianos were invented round about the same time.

Pat Metheny's Orchestrion recently showed what you could do with this approach by creating a whole orchestra of musical instruments triggered from his guitar. It's still a bit blah, but I think it sounds a million times more musical than that rubbish in the OP. What do you think?

Aleister

applesthateatpeople
reply to post by Wookiep

 

A lot of people in this thread don't seem to know much about jazz.

That sounded great!

Wow!

I tried again after reading your post, and the main problem with it is the guitar robo-cop is using sounds way too tinny. And not nearly enough nuance or subtlety in the playing.

edit on 17-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

I agree that humans have more to offer than any robo-band. This music is something I'd compare to Casio demo music for the keyboard at Radio Shack.

BUT, it was really cool. I would pay to see a robo-band. However, if this is the future of bands, this is a little scary.

reply to post by Astyanax

Music played at blinding speed, featuring polyrhythms and unusual chords, is rarely good music. As somebody once beautifully explained it, listening to that kind of music is like listening to a raconteur who knows lots of long, polysyllabic words and weird syntactical conventions, and insists on using them all the bloody time. The result is ugly babble, not clear speech; far less is it poetry.

hmm.. I suppose I've just been "accidently" enjoying music that includes many of these things and more haha.. that analogy doesn't fit for me.

your reasoning would suggest that you would also criticize people who write in-depth about science and history, for not always writing at the level of the layman.. Stephen Hawking and John Grisham are not in competition and neither are these musicians...

in fact, the way that everyone seems to see these robots as "competition", is the exact same way many musicians were competing against the laptop of DJs in the early 2000s haha. THESE ARE TOOLS and nothing more.. if we could sit back and appreciate things openly, maybe we could all stop bickering long enough to enjoy life of ... progress!?

not to mention that "weird chords and polyrhythms" were largely expanded upon during the early days of Jazz, and in those days those musicians were just doing what they loved..

and now those "weird chords and polyrhythms" are in the Charlie Brown soundtrack..

perhaps cartoons of the future will have grindcore soundtracks? anyone's guess

en.wikipedia.org...

and talkin about old ideas.. i couldn't make it past the 3min mark of your video. THIS is absolutely a gimmick and sort of demonstrates how this guy is IN LOVE with his ability to play the guitar haha.. he just doesn't do anything NEW with it, so i got bored and was done..

reply to post by smurfy

I dont really use midi or sequencing any longer. If I do anything, i split a keyboard into say strings/grandpiano and organ/horns...and then perhaps via midi to a 2nd keyboard. I havent recorded much of late.

And as I said. The subtle nuances and dynamics of live playing...especially stringed instruments, is hard pressed to be re-created realistically via either of those methods.

It all ends up sounding robotic no matter what.

reply to post by HyphenSt1


I like many guitar pieces, however, Eruption, at the time and even now, -there has been nothing like it, not just technically, but that sound also. I don't care how technical some guitarists nowadays are, Eddie was an innovator and was doing things that no one else had ever seen or heard until that point in time. A lot more than just 'tapping'. Listen to that gorgeous intro to the VH song: Women In Love.

As far as Petruci, he never amazed me or impressed me, although I have respect for him. I'm probably as good as he is(I say this with no ego)

The robot thing IS cool to see, but I was just making the point that it lacks that human touch, and by that, I mean the palm-muting and little, different noises that all guitarists make. Besides, it will be a long time before a robot can do a flying Eddie or a wind-up strum like Pete Townsend.

But don't get me wrong; I like to see anything like this having to do with music. Music is my life, my love.

we're not obsolete quite yet.... this guy pretty much proves that !

reply to post by HyphenSt1


robots will never be able to rock.



i could name bands that have guitar players with 10, 20, 30 fingers, and drummers that only have two arms that beat that krap hands down. 78 fingers and 28 arms pft.

just a few. zztop, rush, led zepplin, molly hachet, metallica, ram jam, ac/dc, ted nugent, boston, stevie ray vaughin, jimi Hendrix, eric clapton, george harrison, roy orbison
actually there are to many to name them all.

here is a 20 finger guitar band and a drummer with just two arms that beat that, no robot could ever how to beat.
not the best version but i wanted you to see the band.



hell how could i have forgotten the best album ever. listen to it all side a and b




here is another what i think is fine example of guitar playin

Chickensalad
Yeah that sounds like total crap. Kind of reminds me of the Christmas lights linked up to the radio thing. It does sound forced and completely emotionless but it is a cool idea.

Music sounds sh!thouse. Any who has learnt an instrument and played music understands the concept of 'feel'. Good luck to anyone wanting stale 1 dinensional music, not sure it will take off though.

reply to post by HyphenSt1

your reasoning would suggest that you would also criticize people who write in-depth about science and history, for not always writing at the level of the layman.. Stephen Hawking and John Grisham are not in competition and neither are these musicians...

Clearly you haven't understood my reasoning.

Would you say that the music of Debussy, Satie or Philip Glass is simplistic? Or for that matter the music of Bach or Mozart?

Musicians from Mali and Guinea are instinctively polyrhythmic, but while their music is rhythmically very sophisticated, in intellectual or emotional terms it is very simple.

Frank Zappa's music is wildly complicated in all the ways we are discussing, yet much of it is childish, smart-alecky and irritating.

Jazz, and music that aspires to be jazz, is often complex in all these ways too, yet jazz is to music what Buddhism is to religion.

Complexity and sophistication do not necessarily add value to music. Technical virtuosity is not necessarily technical complexity. Technical complexity is not necessarily musical complexity. And musical complexity is a very different thing from music itself.

I think it would be fantastically interesting to have a blind listening study to determine if people could even tell the difference. Of course, plenty say they do when they have the nice advantage of seeing a robot actually playing... It is missing some components, but whether or not people could actually tell is a completely different story.

As you brought up Hyphen, I find it interesting how threatening this apparently is to some people! Whats interesting is that some people cant even identify subtle polyrythmic sections. When they are prevalent throughout the song, it can even frequently make people uncomfortable. I think this relates back to music being accompanied by dance, and an ever-changing song structure isnt conducive to that. Generally, for most people, that will just equate to calling the music "crap."

I cant recall how many times I have asked my music "expert" friends; "Did you hear that? That is so incredibly difficult to pull off!" only to hear the response "It just sounds like music to me."

And, I agree with TrueBrit (odd thing, it totally never happens), I want to see this on some tech metal.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie




I could'nt resist another listen (to the whole album. Again) when you posted it, thanks..Here is something for you, and a few others who like Buddy rich..


Give me real music played by real people, anyday.. I kinda enjoyed the robotic instrumental though, sounded a bit like early YES to me..

Like we say in Yorkshire, "here, get ya lug holes around this".....

reply to post by Aleister


That was insane! I have so much respect for Jazz drummers. They are the best drummers in the world imo, and I love it when jazz drummers play with musicians from other styles (like metal or rock).

I agree with you that robots will never take the place of artists, because they lack what makes music and art so enjoyable: soul and creativity. A live performance by a programmed robot has nothing on a real person who is capable of improvisation as the music/mood takes him or her. It just can't compare.

Thought I'd post a clip of one of my favorite drummers as well, Mr.Danny Carey:



drum cam!

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


I'm sorry but this is a little bit comical.. this thread is in Science and Technology and not "look guys, these robots totally shred your precious rock heroes.. the future of music is robots.."

but since you wanted to go there, let's talk about

zztop, rush, led zepplin, molly hachet, metallica, ram jam, ac/dc, ted nugent, boston, stevie ray vaughin, jimi Hendrix, eric clapton, george harrison, roy orbison
actually there are to many to name them all.

the ONLY ones I would agree produced timeless music (music that isn't easily dated and recognized mostly for nostalgia) would be Zeppein, Hendrix, George Harrison, and Roy Orbison..

now, that being said: I have NONE of them on my computer. 30 gigs of music, and not one album by ANY of who you mentioned. I respect SOME of them, but honestly their time has come and gone, and their has INDEED been new, good, innovative, music released in the last SIXTY YEARS people..

I mean, I swear the only music anyone supports anymore seems to be at LEAST 30 years old, and there's something weird about that to me.. I mean.. don't you hear how April Wine is just using formulas? I mean, does it really take all of those guitars to pull of what their playing?

is Yes the end-all, just because they were proficient musicians? I've heard Yes a lot, but at this moment I can't recall ONE SONG NAME..

I'm not saying "my music taste is better than yours" but rather just trying to honestly describe what puts me off about the fact that these bands overshadow MOST of 60 years of music history..

reply to post by Char-Lee


I hope so, but I think this composition would be to blame for its lack of musicality.

reply to post by Astyanax

Would you say that the music of Debussy, Satie or Philip Glass is simplistic? Or for that matter the music of Bach or Mozart?

I don't think I ever made the case that "complexity" was automatically desirable.. Satie and Philip Glass CAN be very simplistic.. but they can also be very complex. this is because they understand balance and dynamic.

This balance is a natural thing and isn't taught in music theory school (I went) and similar to the tribes that naturally have an ear for polyrhythms.

Frank Zappa's music is wildly complicated in all the ways we are discussing, yet much of it is childish, smart-alecky and irritating

Frank Zappa is what I heard at my dad's house during my childhood, so you could say that he is like my equivalent of "dad music", but I respect the hell out of the man and everyone in his bands, THOUSANDS of times more than Neil Pert, Eddie Van Halen, or any of those schmucks.

good ol compessorhead

reply to post by DeadSeraph


again, the point was not that these robots were going to "replace drummers" or that they were "better than real musicians"... I never even implied it.

but since you bring up the drummer from Tool..

I agree that this guy has talent, but you wouldn't know it from that first video.. I could play that beat and drums are by far the instrument I'm least proficient with..

My problem with Tool and a lot of similar bands is that they just seem.. lazy.

my friends and I have called that rock drum beat he's playing "the money beat" because it's a lot easier to make money when you just keep with that..

now, I'm not trying to imply that complexity and speed automatically make better music, but I am saying that creativity does:

reply to post by HyphenSt1


Check out the 2nd video. A lot more complex stuff. The first video is more of a display of dynamics, so while you could possibly play that beat since it isn't very fast, it's the off tempo stuff Carey does and the tonal variation he gets out of his kit that is neat about the first vid (and something no robot can do atm). I never claimed he was the fastest drummer in the world, but I think he is one of the most interesting to listen too. I find his drumming mentally stimulating, not just someone displaying their speed on a snare or a set of thoms.

ETA: I never said that you implied robots would replace real musicians. Someone else in the thread did however, so I was just voicing my opinion on that issue.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

The first video is more of a display of dynamics, so while you could possibly play that beat since it isn't very fast, it's the off tempo stuff Carey does and the tonal variation he gets out of his kit that is neat about the first vid (and something no robot can do atm). I never claimed he was the fastest drummer in the world, but I think he is one of the most interesting to listen too. I find his drumming mentally stimulating, not just someone displaying their speed on a snare or a set of thoms.

I'll give you that one sir. I responded a little bit reactively and I gave you a star for your civil response haha. I agree that dynamics are very important and I admit that I wasn't even taking that into account in listening to the first video (tho I will maintain that the beat itself is just a little bit annoyingly simple haha) but you are right, that second video shows articulation that is very organic and absolutely highlights where the human-touch shows an advantage over a machine..

and perhaps I should have added before that Tool really had a big impact on me when I was about 13 (definitely ended the "grunge phase" that every Washingtonian must go through it seems haha..) and I actually do still enjoy some Tool and respect them for experimenting and going tangent from most "rock bands".. It's just not naturally the "frame-rate" that I operate at I guess, so when it comes to that sort of thing, I usually gravitate towards stuff that has a lot of variety like Hella and Lightning Bolt.

Both of these band are guilty of becoming monotonous in their own way by seeming to "try to play as fast as possible" but when you listen to an entire album, I think you might find that there are MANNY dynamics, but perhaps just in different realms..

If I communicate any opinion on my OP, it is this: These are impressive new tools that human musicians can use to orchestrate previously unplayable compositions. is this "good" or "bad"? I don't care to even make that call! I think that it's good that there are more tools for musicians, than ever before.. but i also think it's a shame that a laptop and turntables can (and DOES) replace an entire band at EVERY school dance and major event since.. 2001? haha.

Humanity is an important aspect of music that should be maintained, but so should variety. That is my simple theory haha.

reply to post by HyphenSt1


Oh I agree. Things get stagnant after awhile and in the realm of Rock/blues/jazz/etc it's pretty much all been done before, so experimentation is a great thing. That's part of the reason why I ended up getting into some different forms of electronic music (which I NEVER would have considered in my early alternative rock days). I found I just wanted to experience something different instead of the same tired old stuff I had been listening to for years. That led me to my love of industrial music, which ended up with me exploring other forms of electronic music like EBM, futurepop, trance, etc. I think robot musicians are a great idea, to be honest. Why not try something new? As a musician myself, I know I could have a lot of fun with it. But I think we are both in agreement that people are irreplaceable when it comes to music. Even if you only need someone to program a robot band, you still need someone to compose the music said robots will be programmed to play.

I noticed you have a fairly eclectic taste in music. I'm assuming you have checked out Mastodon? Some serious musicianship in that band (and speed, too).