MPC Stems - Coming Soon

TT_Lab wrote:The difference is the old people are us now.

TT_Lab wrote:In my young age (late 80's and 90's), older people (nowadays known as boomers) always were saying that real music was only made by live playin "real" instruments (They really were talking about guitars), never clicked with me. Tools don't define artists. Intent and composition (I don't mean composition in a classic musical kind of way, more in a painting or photograph way) capabilities define your work. Pick elements and put them together with an intent, trying to communicate something, some feeling or whatever you want to communicate. So,IMHO new tools only bring new oportunities.
These people were always diminising electronic music (Dance, techno, hip hop etc...)

40Beatz wrote:I Might as well open up the latest version of FL Studio 21 and use their Stem Extraction. But at the same time I want it to be All In The Box

HouseWithoutMouse wrote:I suppose Akai are using whatever they were able to get for free, the basic Demucs stuff. Developing something better requires tens of thousands of $ of computation time, lots of good well chosen training material and most importantly someone who knows what they're doing.

hyena wrote:sorry, no. i can't be put in the "innovation hater" category. i'm really interested in new techniques. if we go back to my example about WARP techniques, the technology used is Granular Synthesis, which i'm absolutely fond of , when used creatively, while i tend to despise when used as utility because of what i already mentioned. so please, don't distort my views (not you only but i picked your reply as an example).
all i'm saying is that there are creative and boundary pushing uses of new technology, and there are other utilitarian uses that are supposed to make our life as musicians\producers\audio engineers simpler , which they in some sort of way do, but at some costs.

to the one saying that we have proof that mpc stem separation tool is without artifacts, sorry i don't believe it. it cannot be absolutely 100% without artifacts. i listened to tubedigga examples and on some samples those artifacts were evident, same as rip-x and other tools which i tested out of curiosity.
artifacts are not bad per se, in fact back to the WARP analogy, i enjoy using extreme warp timestretching because of the weird artifacts it creates, but if you want to preserve the fullness of sound of a specific sample, it takes away something.
anyway, we'll see. technology evolves, but even after more than 20 years of granular timestretching techniques, we still have bad artifacts on warp depending of course on the algorithm and the source material...

hyena wrote:artifacts are not bad per se, in fact back to the WARP analogy, i enjoy using extreme warp timestretching because of the weird artifacts it creates, but if you want to preserve the fullness of sound of a specific sample, it takes away something.
anyway

TT_Lab wrote:

hyena wrote:sorry, no. i can't be put in the "innovation hater" category. i'm really interested in new techniques. if we go back to my example about WARP techniques, the technology used is Granular Synthesis, which i'm absolutely fond of , when used creatively, while i tend to despise when used as utility because of what i already mentioned. so please, don't distort my views (not you only but i picked your reply as an example).
all i'm saying is that there are creative and boundary pushing uses of new technology, and there are other utilitarian uses that are supposed to make our life as musicians\producers\audio engineers simpler , which they in some sort of way do, but at some costs.

to the one saying that we have proof that mpc stem separation tool is without artifacts, sorry i don't believe it. it cannot be absolutely 100% without artifacts. i listened to tubedigga examples and on some samples those artifacts were evident, same as rip-x and other tools which i tested out of curiosity.
artifacts are not bad per se, in fact back to the WARP analogy, i enjoy using extreme warp timestretching because of the weird artifacts it creates, but if you want to preserve the fullness of sound of a specific sample, it takes away something.
anyway, we'll see. technology evolves, but even after more than 20 years of granular timestretching techniques, we still have bad artifacts on warp depending of course on the algorithm and the source material...

I wasn't implying you were an innovation hater. Neither Im saying stems is going to be flawness (I know that part was not for me but anyway...). Heck, even I don't know if I'll use it. Again, tools are tools and artists are artists. As you said, you find creative outputs with warping and granular synthesis, maybe others will find a creative output for stems and its quirks. What I really don't understand is the need to be categoric about a tool. I mean the value that you don't find in it might be there for others. I don't see the point in stablishing lines in art outside of the lines each of us enforce on ourselves. When I was studying architecture at uni, some of our teachers wouldn't let us use computers to do our project presentations, the said it was to easy and soulless, and those teachers were some of the most innovators on their art. Years came by and I have seen the most beutiful architecture project presentations done with computers. Guess I've made my point. Of course, please, don't take this personal, Im not writting from an antagonistic place. This topic is one that really interests me for discussing with peers with similar drive to make something creative.
And... yeah stems....right....sorry for the OT.

40Beatz wrote:......March 2025

marctronixx wrote:

40Beatz wrote:......March 2025