Microsoft gives singers a robot band

20 Jan

New computer software can create music behind a user’s voice

You don’t need to know anything about music to compose your own songs any more. Songsmith, a new computer program developed by Microsoft Research, will automatically chose chords as the user sings into a microphone, creating an entire song in the process.

The software analyzes the singer’s voice using a technique called autocorrelation. This data is then used to choose chords to accompany the notes. Songsmith uses a database of roughly 300 popular songs to decide which chords sound good together. Since there are many different chord sequences to choose from, the user can use “happy” and “jazzy” sliders to explore the different possibilities.

While many see Songsmith as no more than a musical toy, the researchers behind the project say music professionals can use it as an “intelligent scratchpad” or to explore new melodies. Jonathan Darley, lead singer for the England-based band This Eden, says the program seems constricted.

“The only thing it actually allows you to try is chords that are played behind the song,” says Darley. “The chords it selects are controlled by sliders that change the mood; however, the mood changes feel very artificial and lifeless.”

He says the song-style options remove a lot of the creativity of actual instrument composition, limiting your thoughts to the instruments it has programmed into that set music genre.

“On both personal and musical grounds, I would say that it wouldn’t be a worthy replacement for writing your own music,” says Darley.

The thought of computers creating entire musical numbers is satirized in many science fiction works.

“One of the ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ books mentions how a machine was devised to compose and play music, and the skill of the musician then became how entertaining a performance they could make out of pushing the ‘on’ button,” says This Eden member Sam Darley.

“I take objection to a great deal of the ‘by-the-numbers’ music that is around, where songs are written and composed to a set formula. I feel that further removing human input from this process would only diminish the end product.”

An entire symphony recorded by a computer may exist in works of science fiction, but Mohawk College Music Professor Darcy Hepner says that’s where the idea will stay, at least for now.

“We’re many, many years away from that eventuality,” says Hepner. “I doubt that they’ll ever be able to replace somebody sitting down and actually writing, because it is algorithm based, so in terms of professional use it would not be probably ever a mainstay, but that doesn’t mean it might not be an interesting tool to get a different point of view.”

Where Songsmith may actually shine is as a tool for musicians to explore new ideas, at least as a starting point to something more complex. Microsoft Research’s Sumit Basu, a musician and one of the researchers behind Songsmith, says that’s just what they intended. He says many musicians sit down with their instrument of choice and try chord after chord until they find the perfect fit, but this is time consuming.

“This just let’s you explore that space very quickly,” says Basu. “It’s a really good way to quickly explore a whole bunch of possible chord sequences that might work for your melody, and I think that’s pretty valuable.”

He says the relationship between the melody and the chord is quite strong in Western music, so the software is very good at finding the appropriate accompaniment for the given melody.

While many users of the software object to the creative process becoming even somewhat automated, Basu says that is not what Songsmith is about.

“It is not going to make songs for you,” he says. “You really have to provide the melody and really that’s the creative aspect of song writing. In no way are we trying to replace that.”

But there is more to writing a song than figuring out a melody and chords. Hepner, who has performed with such artists as BB King and Aretha Franklin and has toured with Blood Sweat and Tears, says that one aspect that the software is unable to analyze is lyrics, an essential part of song writing.

“Often what happens when you’re writing a song is you get the lyrics to the song, and you try to make the melody and the chords support the lyrics,” he says, “If there’s a turn in the phrase of the lyrics, then the melody should also move with that. A program like this would never recognize this because it is not concerned with the lyrics, only the melody.”

And the lyrics will never be analyzed by Songsmith. While researcher Basu says that the team is continually looking at ways of working with more complex chord sequences, there are no plans to develop the program any further. It is as complex now as it may ever become.

“I doubt that we’re going to see genius coming from a computer for a while,” says Hepner. ”You‘re not going to see ‘Yesterday’ or some of those classic McCartney things coming out of one of these.”

Tuition up, funding down

6 Nov

(Photo by Riley McLeod, Ryerson Free Press)

(Photo by Riley McLeod, Ryerson Free Press)

Thousands of students continue to rally in Toronto and all over the province against rising tuition fees

Students rolled out thousands of petitions onto the lawn of Ontario’s legislature in Toronto, and presented tens of thousands to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s constituency office in Ottawa.

Increased tuition fees, insufficient funding, and the current economic crisis have motivated over 50,000 students to send in signatures.

“Reaching Higher,” McGuinty’s post-secondary framework, was one of the topics addressed in the petition.

The provincial government has increased funding for post-secondary education, but many students and lobby groups say this isn’t enough. Continue reading 

Local farmers are drowning; we’re filling the tub

25 Sep
Image courtesy of SXC.HU

Image courtesy of SXC.HU

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed in 1994. With the formation of the world’s largest free trade area, economic growth was soon to follow. Farmers would be exporting more than ever before, and consumers would be paying less. It would mean easier, cheaper trade for everyone involved! Well, that was the plan.

So, what happened? Why are farmers losing money every single year, while larger corporations are reporting higher profits?   One of the side effects of the agreement was that many of the laws that protected farmers no longer held true. Instead, huge farming conglomerates now set prices with which local farmers have no chance of competing. The small farming families are slowly being pushed out of the business—a business they’ve been cultivating their entire lives.

Since NAFTA, the number of Canadian farms claiming bankruptcies has increased 500%. Farmers’ income declined 19% by 1999, even though prices skyrocketed. Something wasn’t working. The plan didn’t live up to its hype. Who was pushing this thing, anyway?

Continue reading 

Journalistic integrity and verifying sources

21 Sep

Spider web

One of the first things we are taught, along with remaining objective, is to establish and maintain your credibility. There is an inherent trust between the reader and a medium; one which is very easily shattered. With every act of falsehood, journalists everywhere take the fall. Much like lawyers, we’re subjected to a tired cliche: journalists cannot be trusted.

In reality, most journalists work behind a mandate of trust and reliability. If someone tells you something in confidence, chances are you will keep that in confidence. If you find something that would make a great story, you’ll verify your facts before sending it to your editor.

Continue reading 

Journalism: redundant noise or a clear voice

9 Apr

“Journalism has no future.”
-Mike Hogan, Course Co-ordinator, Cardiff School of Journalism

The future of journalism is dead, according to some instructors. Mike Hogan thinks that people no longer want to be told what is going on. He says that Journalism is just noise and gossip–noise that accompany events that would still take place regardless. The digital communication age is near and “old-fashioned journalists” aren’t needed anymore. We have Youtube. We have Google. We have the world at our fingertips, and we don’t need ye ol’ Gatekeeper deciding what we need to know or how much of it to divulge.

So, what’s the big deal? Does the really mean that the future of journalism is dead, or did Hogan really just want to stir up some decent discussion for once?

It’s true that journalism is like gossip, but this is a simile. They share some characteristics, but the one key element that sets journalism apart is objectivity. Gossip is merely the discussion of people, while Journalism is the discussion of events and how they [i]affect[/i] people. Eleanor Roosevelt once said that great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people.

The “digital era of journalists” aren’t real journalists. What they practice cannot be considered legitimate journalism. They are taking part in an elaborate, virtual form of gossip. They’re just another version of chatty cafeteria teens, except this time they’ve got broadband.

To liken journalism to loud noise accompanying events, events that would happen without it, is just academic verbal vomit. What does that even imply? I suppose Hogan is saying that a war will go on whether there’s a journalist covering the story or not, so the extra clutter and noise brought about by media coverage only clouds what’s really happening. What he’s described there is poor journalism, not the craft itself. A good journalist doesn’t contribute just noise to an event. He adds context. He adds a level of exploration that would not normally be evident without the careful research and analysis that goes into the art.

Perhaps a better way for Hogan to stir up discussion in is classroom would be to say, “citizen journalism has no future.” People want to be told, but they don’t want to hear it from some redneck with a camcorder. 50% of the content on Youtube is garbage, 49% is just gossip, and there’s a small, lonely 1% that is screaming to the world, “This is the mass communication device we’ve been waiting for.” Maybe we should start using it to share something important, useful, and thought-provoking, instead of sensationalism or the latest Internet meme.

Information overload

28 Mar

If you had an essay assignment 50 years ago, there was a pretty standard way of getting your information. Go to the library, pour through journals, track down books, and find the information you’re looking for.

Today, this process is generally the same, but we go about it in a different way. If you want a journal article, those same resources are available online or at least searchable online. Libraries have computer search engines in place of enormous cabinets of file cards. I don’t think Melvil Dewey expected his Decimal system to ever get this many hits.

There is also an ever-increasing amount of information exclusively available on the Internet. The pubic encyclopedia Wikipedia is a great example of a source that might offer some info not available anywhere else.

So, is all of this too much? Are we experiencing an information overload? Can we handle the sheer enormity of resources at our fingertips at any time of day? I think so.

What’s great about resources online is that they don’t overload the reader, because the resources aren’t there without input from the reader. A website doesn’t popup unless you type in it’s address. You won’t see a document unless you open it yourself. The information is there, but you need to access it yourself.

The challenge is to be able to sort through the garbage and find the useful bits. Analyzing sources, especially those online, is a key skill in anyone’s arsenal but especially in a journalist’s. The information is out there, hidden away somewhere, but you’ll need to find it and decide if it’s credible and relevant. Is that so different than some poor schmuck buried in 30 pounds of books in the dusty library stacks on a friday night?

Journalistic Analysis and Interpretation

20 Mar

“We know there is a vast morass of information out there that our audiences want us to try to make sense of. The danger consists in trying to leap above it, not by getting more dramatic or salient or verifiable facts, but by analyzing, speculating, predicting, interpreting – by drawing definitive conclusions while the bodies are still warm.”
Paul Knox, The Globe and Mail

The above quote stresses the importance of accuracy and research in reporting. It’s not enough just to report on the facts, telling the audience what happened and when. A good reporter analyzes and interprets the facts based on careful research.

Journalistic analysis has nothing to do with injecting your own beliefs into the mix. Predictions and speculations are only valid when they are the result of research. This can be through experts in the subject that provide information leading to these conclusions.

If a journalist simply jumps to conclusions after hearing a sensational story, the consequences can be disastrous. The CRTC and other regulatory bodies work to ensure journalists maintain credibility, but it’s generally up to the journalist to ensure everything checks out. There are severe consequences far beyond a simple correction, and there is no hand holding along the way. It pays to be aware of your sources, your facts, and how you are using your information. Any analysis, speculation, or predictions should come as a result of careful research, instead of hype and sensationalism.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.