Bohemian Rhapsody On Old Hardware 137
eldavojohn writes "The sweet sweet melodies of Queen and the late Freddie Mercury are reproduced by hardware almost as old as the song is. 'There are millions of computers sitting idle at home consuming fantom electricity. Let's see where all that power is going. This is dedicated to all fans of Queen and hey let's not forget about Mike Myers and Dana Carvey of Wayne's World. Please note no effects or sampling was used. What you see is what you hear (does that even make sense?) Atari 800XL was used for the lead piano/organ sound, Texas Instruments TI-99/4a as lead guitar, 8 Inch Floppy Disk as Bass, 3.5 inch Hard drive as the gong, HP ScanJet 3C was used for all vocals. Please note I had to record the HP scanner 4 separate times for each voice. I tried to buy 4 HP scanners but for some reason sellers on E-Bay expect you to pay $80-$100, I got mine for $30.'"
Queen Bohemian Rhapsody Old School Computer Remix (Score:5, Insightful)
one thing......... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (Score:2, Insightful)
The timing is definitely off, and with the timing of each "instrument" a little off, they're not in sync with each other. It's close enough that you can tell what it should sound like, but it doesn't actually sound like that.
For example, the rhythm of "easy come, easy go" starting at 0:36 is clearly wrong. The bass part starting around 1:30 isn't bad by itself, but it's not in sync with the other parts. 3:09 to 3:31 is pretty bad too.
I suspect it was easier to get the timing right with some "instruments" than others. The bass part, by itself, seems very rhythmically solid, particularly from 3:29 all the way through to the end, it's just that the other parts aren't in sync with that.
Overall, a brilliant piece of work. If these minor timing details could be cleaned up, it would be awesome.
Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it was necessarily a limitation of the instruments; the problem was -- as I said before -- timing, not timbre. It was inadequate in the same way that a perfectly normal instrument played by a robot would be. I think it was simply that the person who made the (presumably) MIDI file used to drive the thing just did a poor job of it, and that it would have sounded just as wrong if it had been played back using the sound card's synthesizer.
Some of the pitches weren't quite right either, but that really would be a limitation of the hardware, and I'm not complaining about it. Far from it; I think the hardware aspect of it was brilliant! I just wish he'd used a better score.
Hmm... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. I thought it seemed pretty well in tune; it was the timing that was off.
If the creator is reading Slashdot: perhaps you could make some of your source material public, so we can see how you programmed each device to play its notes? Perhaps we could help work out some of the rhythmic details.
Re:Takedown? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Takedown? (Score:2, Insightful)
No ocpyright infringement. This is an original recording of a unique arrangement. Copyright exists in this new recording.
In the UK, the PRS (Performing Rights Society) will what a fee for the performance of this work because it is a derivative arrangement of an existing protected work. In turn the PRS will protect this arrangement and collect fees for that as well, should they accept a request to protect it.
Just to repeat though - Nothing to do with copyright.
The PRS perform useful and harmful work all over the UK. Useful in the for commercial performances they ensure the original composers and musicians get rewarded for their work.
Harmful in that their enforcement is over-zealous and results in them regarding not-for-profit performances (you and your mates playing tunes on folk instruments down the local pub) as a revenue generating exercise. This imposese ridiculous fees on pubs etc and results in music sessions shutting down etc. Resulting in less music for everyone and less space for musicians to hone their skills who some of which become the very people the PRS need to protect. So short sighted. I know many PRS members, and non of them think the PRS treat music sessions correctly.
The PRS are loathed just about everywhere for their heavy handed approach to licensing. They even insist that an employer is responsible for licensing an employees radio if used in that workspace (because everyone can listen to it, in theory, never mind the workspace is a noisy car mechanic workshop - yes, this went to court and sadly, the PRS won).
Many parallels to the RIAA, where what they gain on one hand they lose with the other through insensitive, heavy handed greed.
Re:Big whoop (Score:3, Insightful)
It appears that he split the midi tracks up between the instruments, but didn't align them up properly afterwards.
Pretty impressive, but sort of poorly executed.
I'm sorry, but the misalignment is bad enough that I couldn't make out the song for the first 30 seconds D:
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF dude. If there ever was a /. post worth of the "news for nerds" title, this is one.
Absolutely freaking awesome.
Re:A phenomenal waste of resources (Score:2, Insightful)
You should waste your angst on Las Vegas or something.
Re:"fantom" electricity ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oddly enough, TFA (the YouTube info from which this text was copied) spells it correctly!
Re:Cool, but needs syncopation (Score:3, Insightful)
The timing is definitely off, and with the timing of each "instrument" a little off, they're not in sync with each other. It's close enough that you can tell what it should sound like, but it doesn't actually sound like that.
For example, the rhythm of "easy come, easy go" starting at 0:36 is clearly wrong. The bass part starting around 1:30 isn't bad by itself, but it's not in sync with the other parts. 3:09 to 3:31 is pretty bad too.
I suspect it was easier to get the timing right with some "instruments" than others. The bass part, by itself, seems very rhythmically solid, particularly from 3:29 all the way through to the end, it's just that the other parts aren't in sync with that.
Overall, a brilliant piece of work. If these minor timing details could be cleaned up, it would be awesome.
The OP neglected to take into account (or neglected to do a good enough job taking into account) the latency for each command to each instrument. This is especially evident with the scanner: it has a long startup time, but, once running, does well. When it first starts up after a period of silence, it's horribly late, but if it is just changing pitch, it's snappy. The same is true, but to a lesser extent, with the floppy drive -- but it also is producing a louder tone for the initial few hundreds of milliseconds and then quiets down.
In all, I concur: a very good start at something that could well be brilliant, if a little more time had been spent obsessing.
One of the things that makes the original a phenomenal performance is the non-robotic timing (the grace notes, for example, are not performed the way they appear on the score; the rising lead guitar arpeggios accelerate, as another example). A serious job would have tracked down not only all of the latency idiosyncrasies of the hardware, but also the subtle timing variations. And it might have mixed the recording a little better, too.
Good start, though.
Re:Big whoop (Score:3, Insightful)
Please submit a link to a post where you have done what you are asking of him.
What, because he hasn't done the same thing, he has no right to criticize? That's fallacy. You may as well say nobody has the right to criticize the president because they've never been president.
FWIW, I felt the same way as the parent - I couldn't even make out the song at first, and that ruined it enough that I just quit listening after about 30 seconds. Not to take away from the guy's effort - I'm sure it was a lot of work, and he should be commended for that - but it ends up just sounding like a bad MIDI recording.