Karaoke is where some other artist performs and records the song, without vocals, in the style of whoever popularized the song.
This Apple feature seems to be where the same popular recording gets used, which has vocals, and then some magic processing reduces the vocals.
There has always been software to sorta-kinda suppress vocals from existing recordings, but it usually ends up sounding like trash (artifacts of all sorts) compared to just having a karaoke band re-perform the song (although the talent and production quality can be dubious with the latter). Presumably the innovation here is not having vocal suppression sound so bad.
Aside: and then there are popular artists who release an instrumental version, or stems from which an instrumental version can be trivially created, but this is so extremely rare as to not even be on-topic for a conversation about broad availability.
> Karaoke is where some other artist performs and records the song, without vocals, in the style of whoever popularized the song.
No, this just isn't what the word means, either popularly or in technical usage. I can't find any dictionary that restricts karaoke to covers, and if anything the dictionary emphasizes non-covers:
> an act of singing along to a music video, especially one from which the original vocals have been electronically eliminated.
It's true that in practice most karaoke audio tracks are covers for financial reasons, but that doesn't change what the word means. Most tables have four legs, but six-legged tables are still tables.
I'm also coming at it from a Western perspective, and I agree that in the US karaoke audio tracks are usually covers. But the typical situation is not effectively like meaning. Tables are typically not made of gold, because that's so expensive, but if you show someone a solid-gold table they will not be unsure whether it's a table. The defining features of tables have to do with form and function, not the chemical composition. (In fact, if we can even go to the extreme of considering a hypothetical single-piece diamond table, which presumably has never existed. If one were created, everyone would instantly recognize it as a table.)
See the many examples (in the West) of tools that remove vocals from audio tracks; they are ubiquitously described as useful for creating karaoke audio tracks:
Is it? I've never taken karaoke to mean covers. Often it is the original soundtrack with the vocals suppressed (sometimes well via remastering and sometimes poorly with an equalizer).
To me karaoke is just signing to music, which is exactly what this is. I found it very strange that they avoided that word.
> To me karaoke is just signing to music, which is exactly what this is. I found it very strange that they avoided that word.
Apple's footnote disclaimer says "does not fully remove vocals" and "kara" means "empty/void" so it kind of makes sense to avoid using such an absolute term to describe something that isn't.
> Often it is the original soundtrack with the vocals suppressed (sometimes well via remastering and sometimes poorly with an equalizer).
Properly licensed karaoke tracks are covers, because licensing custom remixes of original tracks is prohibitive. There are sites where you can buy stems/backing tracks of any song you can think of, which are reproductions by talented musicians.
That feels like an accidental, not essential, property of karaoke. I doubt anyone who enjoys karaoke would reject a track recorded by the original artist because it wasn't a cover by someone they'd never heard of.
> That feels like an accidental, not essential, property of karaoke.
Regardless of whether you believe it's an "essential property", that karaoke music often sounds cheesy is one of several reasons Apple wouldn't want Apple Music Sing to be associated with it.
That's not an essential component of Karaoke though. I live in Japan where Karaoke is extremely popular, and in the more higher-end karaoke systems, you can pick the original music for popular songs (or sometimes you can even pick live performances with the video of the artist on stage and everything)
I see where you're going, but I disagree that "without vocals" would exist anywhere in the definition of "cover." It's all a simple Venn diagram, though. There are covers, and there are karaoke versions, and Western karaoke is usually the intersection.
Sound separation is incredible lately, even the free options. I'm sure Apples tested their model against songs likely to be sung. I'm sure it sounds great.
The real surprise is that the artists are ok with this, they must be getting compensated.
This not remotely true. There are plenty of karaoke songs that are the original recording from the original artist. At least in Japan, where the word "karaoke" originates
This Apple feature seems to be where the same popular recording gets used, which has vocals, and then some magic processing reduces the vocals.
There has always been software to sorta-kinda suppress vocals from existing recordings, but it usually ends up sounding like trash (artifacts of all sorts) compared to just having a karaoke band re-perform the song (although the talent and production quality can be dubious with the latter). Presumably the innovation here is not having vocal suppression sound so bad.
Aside: and then there are popular artists who release an instrumental version, or stems from which an instrumental version can be trivially created, but this is so extremely rare as to not even be on-topic for a conversation about broad availability.