Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_j97tsu1 wrote

I think it’s fairly morally corrupt to alter someone’s work after their death.

−8

lofiinbetterquality t1_j97x6bc wrote

Care to explain how it is morally corrupt? And in particular, how it is different to before their death?

Also, is any alteration morally wrong? Is it your opinion for example, that quoting Shakespeare is wrong? Or what about old paintings, shouldn't they be restored?

2

ohlongjonson t1_j984ckg wrote

What do you mean by "improve the sound and expressiveness" and make "more pleasant for your ears"?

You processed some recordings you found of these pieces, I guess? What were the original inputs?

Just listening to the first one, Op. 9 No. 2, it sounds "ok", like it's been processed through a compressor with some Reverb, maybe? I think it's lacking dynamics and expressiveness compared to other performances out there.

Yundi Li, for example

3

GoodAndBluts t1_j98drt3 wrote

if you are saying AI can be more expressive than humans? Maybe.

Are you saying you are throwing in a couple of notes to make the tunes even better? Its hard to imagine people getting on board with that

3

the-powl t1_j98o27u wrote

Well first you said altering the work of someone after his dead is morally corrupt. Then you said it's okay if the one who holds the rights gives you permission. The first point is general enough that it contradicts the second though.

Anyway it's totally fine to reuse someones work. Above all for personal use.

1