zircon

Long story short... internet radio (small and non-commercial, anyway) is safe, as many people have predicted. The government was not going to let the entirety of internet radio to get shut down. There are also negotiations for even reducing the payout rates to SoundExchange further.

Very dramatic, very well-executed remix. I initially said NO to this as a direct post because I wanted to point out that I felt the choral writing and arrangement was a bit disappointing. The choir tended to just sing the same things that other instruments were playing in the original, rather than build new harmonies and go in a new direction. That was a big letdown for me - I could predict nearly every chord the choir was doing. The arrangement was also a little bit of a mixed bag. The original material and variation was great, but some sections were really close to the original in almost every way. Ultimately, I think this is well above the bar. That goes without saying. But I think the mixers could have put more variation into the choir and the parts of the arrangement that stuck close with the source. That would have turned this from a fantastic remix into a legendary one. YES

As I posted in the other thread, you never have "complete control" over your music under U.S. law, and in almost all kinds of recording artist agreements, publishing deals, distribution contracts (etc) you lose a measure of control. Hence why I do not understand the outcry here. A compromise such as the one djp/BrainCells are talking about would make sense however.

But you don't have control regardless. Hundreds of thousands of people will have YOUR mix, with YOUR name directly attached to "OC ReMix". It will be in their MP3 tags and in the filenames. They'll remember where they got it and associate you. Yet the entire worldwide recording, publishing, and songwriting industry more or less operates under legally binding contracts just like this.

BrainCells, I can understand your concerns, but let me ask you this... if you did want to remove your tracks someday, do you realize that they've probably already been downloaded tens of thousands of times; possibly hundreds of thousands? They're all over the internet, on torrents, P2P networks, on people's iPods, on burned CDs, on hard drives, in cars, etc. What would it really do to remove them from OCR? It's already out there, people have already listened and formed an opinion. All you would be doing is stopping new people from enjoying your existing music - and believe me, people do enjoy it, as you are a great remixer.

Wow, talk about overexaggeration and hyperbole. We're talking non-exclusive licenses here, people. Perspective. You haven't lost your distribution rights, you still have them, except you willingly gave OCR a non-exclusive license to them - that's hardly Dave "wresting control", so don't use such inflammatory language. FYI you license rights to people ALL THE TIME with music and creative works in general, whether you're sending it to a factory to get it pressed on CD, uploading it to someone else's webserver, putting it on MySpace, Soundclick, you name it. You license tons of your other rights too. That's why I can't fathom why people are having trouble with this policy; similar ones exist ALL over the internet, and hell, in real life in general and they're often much worse than this. I mean, are you aware that the minute you distribute your work in the US, you actually lose your "exclusive" distribution rights? It's written right into our law. Once your song is out there, other people can perform, reproduce, and distribute it for an extremely small fee (9.1 cents per song, but typically much lower). And that's not to even TOUCH on fair use provisions which encompass a wide range of topics, again "wresting control" of your rights. Give me a break. Sorry if I'm sounding impatient and frustrated here, but before immediately objecting here, many of you need to do some legal research into EULAs and license policies of other websites, as well as US and international copyright law in general. You don't have as many rights as you think, and you give them out to other people more often than you think (and often without your explicit consent). Lucky for remixers here, we're not a big, evil record label out to monopolize your music from you, hence the non-exclusive, limited license that is for non-profit use only and gives you more attention to begin with...

He said he can't think of any case. Perhaps there WOULD be a legitimate reason, that he simply is not thinking of. Hence why the provision is in there that mixes can be removed with the agreement of both parties. Thus, I don't think the crux of your argument makes any sense.

Thanks for the info! I've been waiting for this.

www.soundtempest.net/VOTLMedley.mp3

Myke; cool! Glad you enjoyed them. WesPip; Phew... I was worried CD Baby was having Canada shipping problems. BTW - I've reduced the price on the physical CD to $13. I think this is a little more reasonable. Not to slight anyone that preordered it at that price... after all you did still get it before anyone else

1:21, with the screaming guitar solo, would be "On That Day, 5 Years Ago..." but it's the solo section, so you don't really hear the original melody. You only hear the progression in the background there.

oop 10 char

Bump, how does June 16th sound?

I want to bring up a couple things regarding intellectual property, as this is an area of law that I am studying. With regards to the license issue, AD is partially correct. When you license something you are not giving ownership. Copyrights can be split and shared among any number of people. Additionally, specific rights can be shared and not others. Take my song "Throwdown". I can retain full control over the right to mechanically reproduce & distribute the song, and also the right the synchronize it with a visual. To date I have licensed the song to several people, giving them the limited right to synchronize the song with their video. They have no ownership. They cannot use the song for anything else than what I allowed them to use it for. But there's another side of the story here. Just because you own a copyright doesn't mean you transcend contract law. Let's say I sign a contract saying, "I hereby grant Person B the non-exclusive right to synchronize my song 'Throwdown' in 'Crappy Student Film III' and edit it as necessary." Then, I decide I don't want Person B to use my song. I can't simply say "You don't have the right to use my song anymore. I own the copyright, and you don't, so what I say goes." I signed a contract that was legally binding, and if I bar them from using it they can sue me for breach of contract. I'm speaking from experience here, BTW - besides my school studies in areas like copyright, business law, contract law, and publishing, I also actually deal with licensing music and copyright manipulation all the time because I license my own music (and license things from other people) and have to read/write contracts for it.

It's really a brilliant album. It took me a little while to appreciate it, and it's DEFINITELY not music you can just sit down and listen to casually. It deserves full attention, and the visuals help also. Sadly I have yet to listen in full surround sound or watch the entire DVD - I have however listened on nice headphones. Great work by BT.

Some of you may remember bustatunez (aka Will Roget, II) lurking around on these forums and IRC. He's recently come out with a sample library called "Impact Steel" that he recorded, edited, and programmed himself. It's a metallic percussion library with a focus on extensive sampling on a select few instruments, rather than a couple samples of a lot of instruments. The end result are some extremely cool, highly playable patches with a sort of ethnic/cinematic timbre to them. There are also bonus patches like "Clang Ensemble" (simulating multiple players), various processed sounds, and "FX" patches which are like Spectrasonics-level sound design. IMO some of the presets like "Nuclear Reactor" are worth the price alone. Demos and more info here. It's $79 for a download version and $89 for the physical CD - Kontakt 2 format, so you do need something that can play that, but it looks like Giga and maybe EXS are both on the list. If you like the big, dramatic sound of libraries like Stormdrum or the intricate percussive sampling of stuff like RA, this is a no-brainer as it's significantly cheaper but very detailed. I highly recommend it, so check it out!

Again, did you try adjusting the modwheel position on the player interface? Are you playing the instrument in the right range?

Don't double post within a few hours, wait a couple days before bumping at least. Did you properly install all the sounds? Re-copy or re-install the library to make sure there were no errors in transferring the files off the DVD. Check that you are using the modwheel properly as many patches are linked to modwheel position for volume - by default being silent or very quiet.

I hate all of you. Except analoq.

This is my current setup, labeled for convenience. (unlabelled version here) Sadly I had to throw out my dozens upon dozens of sample library/VI boxes to make room in my apartment :~(

1. If you have legitimately purchased FL, you can download the demo from the FLstudio.com site on any computer, re-download your registration code, and then run it to authorize the software. You can do this on as many computers as you want. 2. Yes, that is a good recommendation. The soundfont player allows you to load and play soundfont (.sf2) format files, which are basically files that contain musical sounds. Pianos, organs, synths, drums, guitars, etc. 3. Watch the video tutorials on the FLStudio site, try to look over the demo songs, play with knobs and see what happens.

We don't know how we're getting there yet, but certainly not by car - we don't have a car

I have not heard the album yet. Which is it closest to? My personal fave was actually Reanimation, in terms of sonic variety, production, and overall quality. I have a lot of respect for Chester's voice and the band's production techniques are really creative. I don't care about lyrics that much.

I think it's essentially to dissuade people from throwing tantrums and badgering us to remove their mixes on a whim, then later coming back and saying "No, wait, I didn't mean it." Could be wrong though.

They're not really contradictory. The first quote says that the rights belong to the mixer except "where otherwise stated". The second quote is basically stating an exception, that you don't have TOTAL control over distribution of your mix. If you sub it here, Dave doesn't have to take it down when you ask later.