Back at music school when I has this vague notion of being an audio engineer, one of our first projects we did was called a "soundalike". Basically, pick a pop song track, and do your best to recreate it.
It turns out, this is actually a pretty common thing to do industry. And it has to do with music copyright law. When you license a song to use in a movie or commercial or whatever, you typically have to pay for two things: a publishing license (the songwriting), and a mechanical license (the actual recording). A soundalike removes the need to pay for mechanical license, and is usually the cheaper route.
Stupid solutions to stupid problems.
@paul the second largest recording studio in Nashville does nothing but soundalikes (and is owned by one of the largest distributors of karaoke content worldwide)
It's always been weird to me how much value the music industry places on statically generated media files, and how much money gets dumped into making them.
We live in an age now where concerts try to reproduce produced recordings and not the other way around. Synthesized electronic sounds are pretty normalized things.
In a more enlightened world, audio files would be entirely worthless, and music consumption experiences would better leverage the computer medium, making things more interactive and immersive. Basically, the sorts of things brian eno has been saying all along.
Instead we have
All this stuff
Welcome to post.lurk.org, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.