I think the guy is a total ass .just look at his dancemoves accompanying the background music …
He’s sooooooo ZEN .
Midi input for effects has been around for ages in renoise.
^^^ROFL! That has made my day! You should read the comments on utoob…!
Sorry, back to the BT bullshit…although I must admit the plugin does look good though
“why not again?”…ROFL
@gentleclockdivider: damn, that video and that song suck lots. it shows exactly what i hate about pop-music, which is taking a cool effect and ass-raping it to death. lady gaga does it with her Telephone song, which has the stutter-edits in the beginning mainly, but this guy tops it off with cheesy vocals over some shitty trance-tune, and all the while i realise he could’ve made the entire song without stutters, and it would sound more or less the same (or possible even better). amazing how crappy, generic and unoriginal someone can get with an effect that can do the amazing shit he’s showing off in that NAMM video (kinda like doing that horrid AutoTune shit like Kanye West, but using a 1000 times cooler effect)
No need to challenge or anything.
A patent must be of substansial hight to hold up in court.
Sometimes people get patents for things allready known because the once who issue the patent are not doing their job good enough.
Often it can be very old people working in the patent industry.
If its possible to prove that it was known before the patent is worthless which it is there is no need to be upset about it.
A patent is also only for one country. And its very expensive to keep a patent in many countries, since the cost of the patent rise for each year
if I´m not misstaken.
The Wheel was acctually patented in Australia back in 2006 or something.
But…
The Australian office controlling patents, IP Australia, said that Keogh’s innovation patent would not stand if tested in court
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html
So yes as a marketing gimmick it might pay off but dont worry, but dont worry he will not win any courts.
Hey, but it goes both ways? I mean, auto-tune’s success lead to it being uncool, because someone decided that it got ‘too easy’ - just like Glitch was declared ‘the end of IDM’ by some people, because it actually made the effects accessible and easily controllable (or random, if that’s what you wanted). I guess this ‘stutter edit’ plugin is no different.
Personally, my problem lies not with the plugin itself - I think it looks and sounds really cool - but rather the fact that the patent is used as a kind of marketing ploy to mask the fact that stutter editing has been around for ages. That seems like an endorsement of software patents and some (weird) sort of historic revisionism combined. Ugh.
i do not have a problem with the stutter edit plugin or with things getting ‘too easy’, and your point of accessibility is a valid one. i have a problem with unoriginal, uninspired or just plain crappy musicians utilizing and popularizing these effects and effectively destroying (in popular culture at least) what was once a cool effect. i am talking about the difference between what Aphex Twin would do with the Stutter Edit Plugin, verses what that BT-guy does with it in the video posted by gentleclockdivider. you have a great effect, and this is how you use it?
i’m not hating on AutoTune either, because i think it is good to be able to tune a voice to the music, but i do hate the people stretching this effect to the maximum and robotizing their voices, then making hundreds of songs with just that effect.
of course i’m just saying ‘i hate pop-music’, but this is one of the main reasons i hate it, taking a Good Thing and using it to make a piece of shit, thus rendering the Good Thing for the most part useless, with the result that if some pop-music-fan hears and Aphex Twin song he’ll exclaim that he’s using the Lady Gaga stutter-effect.
(i know this is a useless rant, but aren’t they always? it just pisses me off)
I’ve almost started a thread so many times about how much I hate exactly that! Enough people have seen and heard my rants on the subject in other places though. Personally I blame Cher. But the current overuse of it has made me to start even disliking original vocoda effected music (as in the old shit.) Stick on the radio and easily 50% of the tracks have this horrible effect. Is it just because pop-stars these days can’t sing or is it in least part because it’s current in vogue?
(Sorry for derailing…)
Well, perhaps someone should give him a load of links to sites with commercial applications (including Renoise) and then propose him to sue all these software developers for infriging his patent. Let’s see if he then wakes up 
Successfully means no one else did it before.
The damn plague with patents is:It doesn’t matter who invented it first, it only matters who claims the patent for it first. So frankly challenging him, if his patent really is successful is a bit risky.
I actually like Gaga’s Telephone for its proper use of effects… BT just abuses the crap out of it to make his boring vocals more interesting
well that’s what commerial shit is about these days …use an effect to make something boring more interesting…and use it over and over and over ond over again …and the masses love it for at least a whole summer period …
i must agree with you. i’ll admit i just don’t like Gaga because she exists thanks to the hype around here, and not thanks to her music being that fantastic.
Gaga’s famous because she achieved cult status before she even hit the mainstream… she was quite popular in the LGBT scene prior to getting on with a major label. She’s one of the few pop acts that wasn’t manufactured by a record label… her image is entirely her own.
Wow, from BT to Gaga, this thread just need a hitler reference.
On matters of style:
If you think black and white, you risk ending up in the black or white box. Life in box ain’t fun. This applies for techniques used to achieve certain sounds. A broader view may reveal:
-
Use of stutter/glitch that doesn’t appeal to me: BT, some pop tunes…
-
Use of stutter/glitch that appeals to me: Aphex Twin; Telefon Tel Aviv; Coil; NIN; Underworld; and many less known acts.
-
Use of auto-tune that doesn’t appeal to me: Kayne West; Cher; a great deal of modern mainstream pop vocals…
-
Use of auto-tune that appeals to me: Fever Ray; Underworld; lesser know acts.
-
Use of blues phrasing in guitar that doesn’t appeal to me: Santana; lots of cheap usage in 80s pop.
-
Use of blues phrasing in guitar that appeals to me: Jeff Beck; Dave Gilmour; Mark Knopfler; PJ Harvey; Alice In Chains; Soundgarden; etc…
Dare I suggest that some genres can have both good and bad, even though to some these are sacred cows, or, irretrievable abominations:
- Average Country: Garth Brooks
- Good Country: The Dixie Chicks
- Average Prog: Yes
- Good Prog: Porcupine Tree
- Average Hip Hop: 50 Cent
- Good Hip Hop: Saul Williams.
These of course are simplifications to make the point. But the essence of the point still holds, and I think is pertinent for us users of Renoise: why use a tool, and when to use it. When I hear of people never ever using dblue Glitch because they didn’t want to sound like lazily composed electronic music, I think: wow, what a lost opportunity to use a wonderfully creative tool.
O_O
Sorry to butt in, but I’m reading this:
Soo… unless some raggedy ass vandal edited the Wiki to express the overflowing anger at this patent troll, there is no actual patent in force and, I’d guess, the whole kaboodle is just a marketing bullcrap, (deliberate) misinterpretation of wording, resulting in a tirade of clownades that previously were only experienced at April 1st but have become everyday norm since teh Internets was invented.
Of course, we can all agree that patents suck.