A complete MIDI-based framework for automatic backing tracks generation
github.comThis looks like a software alternative to having an arranger keyboard / (or arranger workstation), which is nice. Arranger keyboards are great and all, but they cost money and take up space.
You may have used an "arranger keyboard" without knowing what that product category is. An arranger keyboard is designed to provide automatic accompaniment--backing tracks--at the touch of a button, in many different styles. Common low-end keyboards fall into this category, like the Yamaha PSR series and the Casiotone series. You may have one, or you may have purchased one for your children. There are also much more expensive, high-end keyboards in this category, like the Genos.
The simplest way to use the accompaniment is to trigger it from the left hand with a keyboard split. Here's what that looks like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWW9tyB__3o&t=706
The general two purposes for arranger keyboards is (1) to let you perform as a solo act and (2) make it easier to write songs.
The other three common types of keyboards are synthesizers, stage pianos, and keyboard controllers.
I would add another keyboard category, the workstation synthesizer (Fantom, Kronos/Nautilus, Montage...) which also let you perform solo and allow you to create your own productions (the Kronos will even burn a CD!)
Supposed to be the flagship product, I find very interesting how musical instruments manufacturers carefully differentiate the features between arrangers and workstations.
There's a lot of overlap between the Montage and the Genos. A lot of the "Performances" and "Arpeggios" in the workstation are derived from Yamaha's arranger keyboards. Arranger keyboards, though, are anathema to a lot of musicians because of their association with the kind of one-man-band acts that perform in nursing homes, airport lounges, Oktoberfesten, and so on. (It's no accident they usually have whole banks of presets dedicated to genres like Schlager and Polka.)
I think of the Montage/et al as fitting into the synth category. I have an older keyboard like the Montage.
There is feature differentiation, sure. But I think the biggest difference between product lines is the controls. Arranger keyboards need convenient buttons for changing song sections. Synthesizers need dedicated controls for sound design. Stage pianos have dedicated buttons for the common sounds—acoustic piano, electric piano, and electric organ.
If there is a keyboard that “does it all”, I’d guess that it’s something like the Genos. It costs a couple grand more than the Montage.
> Common low-end keyboards fall into this category, like the Yamaha PSR series and the Casiotone
To my knowledge there is no clear distinction between arranger keyboards and some more advanced home keyboards. For software, Korg had released their arranger wave-sequencing engine as a plugin. Yamaha has their cheapest hardware board Yamaha PSS-A50.
The general two purposes for arranger keyboards is (1) to let you perform as a solo act and (2) make it easier to write songs.
There’s noodling for fun too.
They can produce a lot of music like sound for not much effort.
You’re one button away a from bossa nova drum track.
This looks very much inspired by Band-in-a-Box.
A commercial software to generate backing music that my teacher recommended for training jazz improvisation.
The performance was okay. I found it too sterile. It didn’t really swing … especially for the target audience of jazz musicians. It was helpful though!
Judging from its look and feel, Band-in-a-Box is around since the 90s.
This uses accompaniment styles from Yamaha arranger keyboards, which have been around for ages. It's a much simpler format (really just a special kind of MIDI file) than the BIAB one, and more open. This project has details: https://github.com/bures/sff2-tools . There's a site that's popular with users of Yamaha keyboards, www.jososoft.dk , that has tons of styles in various genres.
I messed around with JJazzLab a few months ago, and, while I did encounter some annoying MIDI problems involving the drum patches, I liked it enough that I wrote myself a script to import a song from another program, Impro-Visor, for auditioning in JJazzLab. It's a lot easier to use than Band in a Box.
Since they allow you to import Band-in-a-Box files, I'd say they're well aware of the prior art.
I've found this while looking for a backing track. Amateur musicians may find it useful.
There are some hardware options from the 1990's.
Take a look at Yamaha's QY series.
The QY10 can be found for under $100.
Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i66uPOe8g
The QY300 for under $200.
Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR2UX3axNM
As a bonus the dawless approach also generates tones.
Is there any reason to use the hardware over the software?
I find physical hardware a useful abstraction.
And the lack of email a bulwark against distraction…no HN helps too.
I understand why people like DAW’s.
And understand why I like dawless. For about $150, I can have the best Yamaha engineers could do in 1992 built into a roadworthy housing.
Integration is only a matter of 1/4” TS cables, DIN MIDI and 120v AC.
Or to put it another way, the QY gear is mostly software. Dedicated hardware gives it devoted user interface.
The UI doesn’t have to try to be like the UI of my mixer or my effects boxes because it is not purely visual.
The UI doesn’t have to compete with my mixer for space in my visual field because they both live in three dimensional space.
But those are my reasons.
I've found that the DAW itself wasn't the problem for me. It was using the same computer and space for work as I did for creativity. As soon as I set up a dedicated laptop and corner for music, and ran the DAW full screen, the distractions went away. I use a combination of hardware and software.
For me, dawless seems to smooth over several points of friction at the expense of things I don’t care about right now.
One is the dedicated configuration. I turn on a 36” power strip and everything is ready to go in less than a minute.
An important part of that is everything is ready to go every single time. There are no patch Tuesdays. No semantic versioning.
The process is rock stable except for how I change it.
A second affordance is that I can make tradeoffs around the specific capabilities I think I want.
An example is my 1980’s Yamaha QX5 sequencer will record Sysex. Ableton Live Lite — came free with my first controller — won’t.
It is an upgrade or finding another daw or running another piece of software and managing sysex outside the daw. The QX5 was fifty bucks and has a well engineered interface because Yamaha knew what it was doing.
I don’t care that the UI is dated because so am I.
A third affordance is dawless means line level audio can be the dominant signal path. That makes it easier for me to reason about my setup.
There are a some of this is just what works for me caveats.
Mostly I just want to put on headphones and make noise because it brings me joy. I am not trying to make an album and if a song comes out of it that’s just a bonus.
I am doing it all on the cheap. The $999 for Ableton’s top package represents a lot of gear I would rather spend money on.
I’ve fallen into the Turing tarpit enough times to know what mine looks like. Mine looks kind of like a daw.
For me it was approaching the DAW as a digital tape machine that worked for my flow. I run Ableton, but only record audio in from my looper and instruments. And just use the middle edition thats $300ish
I still haven't embraced the bottomless pit of software instruments, but do use a few nice plug in FX.
A lot of my ideas come up from looping, and the DAW is basically just “rolling tape” to capture that jam in a linear way. Maybe with some adjustments afterwards
I get that.
I guess I wound up toward the dawless end of the spectrum because I didn’t buy an iPad or another laptop…electronic music requires hardware either way I think.
Where I am at right now, it helps to remove software from the picture.
If the DAW solved audio and midi signal routing, then it would be a friction for friction trade off. But the daw doesn’t eliminate cables and configuration…VST’s excepted.
I have a Tascam DP 006 and the QX5 for recording. The QX will loop, transpose, and rechannel MIDI too.
Basically, I can do everything I think I want to do without a laptop.
That could easily change of course.
Dawless is an engineering design choice not an ideological hill I would die on.
Offloading CPU usage - and some people just love the feeling of physical equipment. Also, even if you map all controls to keyboard shortcuts, changing parameters by physical knobs is usually much faster anyway.
Not having to map controls to physical knobs uses less of my CPU.
And since I don’t have to remember how I mapped three days ago because it seemed like a good idea, hardware uses less of my RAM.
Didn't Microsoft have a tool/game like this aimed at kids? I remember a youtube video ages ago that generated music from humming or something.
Songsmith! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E
Reminds me a lot of the Karma engine by uber hacker Stephen Kay which has been ported to Korg and Yamaha workstations.