john

It shouldn't be that hard Mike. I use Dyndns as a service for my home server, which is a simple LAMP server that also runs ruby. I only use it for Dev work. I have used jQuery on a few occasions as a developer. Handy for any json work.

Hey Mike I only ever dabbled with home hosting... mainly because of the connection speed issues in comparison to a host hooked directly into a main backbone. Additionally, I didn't need to worry about back ups, hardware maintenance etc. Songstuff is hosted on two different hosting accounts. All subdomains other than forums are on DreamHost. The forums are on Amazon AWS, which has many real benefits over traditional hosting.There are many reasonable hosts. Indeed I even thought of selling domains and hosting packages via Songstuff (the forums come with support for that built in). The only reason I haven't is my own bandwidth with all the rest that needs done. On Amazon AWS, there is a free tier, so you can get access to a basic windows or linux virtual server for free. Worth a look. A Pay As You Go service. I too came from hard coded PHP. I guess back in the day there were far less off the shelf solutions. What are your plans at this stage Mike? Your own project? Development for clients? Selling domains and hosting? After looking at the market over the last few years, I'd also recommend looking at developing some mobile app skills. Yet again there are loads of solutions to consider. Cheers John

Welcome aboard... your efforts are appreciated!

I'd be interested in how SoundCloud, YouTube and tune-smith permissions differ. Certainly YouTube permissions used to be very broad. In truth they should only need permissions relating to distribution and limited uses of derivative works (to allow them to perform edits for promo, or indeed to adapt using compression etc) for themselves and partner sites (for example, by posting the SoundCloud player we are effectively a partner site. Same goes for YouTube videos.)

"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy andapplication settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. " Most sites have clauses like this, because otherwise they couldn't distribute your songs, photos or text. The FB rights as I understand them ( I have a plain English explanation of rights I can refer to): non-exclusive - speaks for itself, your contract with them means that they don't have sole rights to your content. Without this their site would be unusable because no one would want FB to have sole rights, at least unless they paid you! transferrable - more of an issue, in that they can give partners permissions to use your content. This is generally intended to give them a free hand with promotion. sub-licensable - definitely more of an issue, they can grant licenses for the same permissions to others (but only for the permissions that you grant them). Yet again this relates to free promotion of content, but is less of a restriction. I suspect that this relates to what they do with data you create and the demographics and more that is derived from your activities. royalty free - they owe you no money worldwide - they can distribute it all over the world (kinda necessary for a website that can be accessed all over the world). Indeed Songstuff has to have similar permissions (though we have no sublicense component and our permissions are different. Plus we restrict our permissions) I am a firm believer in only getting the permissions you need. Big websites like FB tend to go for a carte blanche so that they get permissions for everything, just in case. That said, it does leave it open to abuse should the site be so inclined. They put these rights together, knowing that the majority of people click through without reading and without understanding. Of course courts understand that, and as a result often courts overturn or reduce the impact of clauses... but lets face it, few will go to such lengths and corporations know it. Interestingly, I have more of an issue with "license to use any IP content". "Use" does not specify any specific usage, which is as flexible as it gets (which could leave the way for a legal challenge, but then FB lawyers are lawyers, and no doubt at the top of their game. I'm a legal dufus). "Any" of course is as flexible as it gets. They are two small words, right next to each other, but each word and both together have hugs implications. I had 10 mins free. Gone now, just thought I'd pitch that into the middle and watch the ripples lol

Welcome to Songstuff!

Hey Justin According to their TOS no. If you ignore it, you can have all your accounts removed, which if you have put a lot of effort into growing, would be deeply upsetting. What you can do is to create Facebook pages. Pages are for companies, bands, public personalities etc. From one base FB account you can have many pages. Once you post there your own name is visible. what might be less of a risk of exposure is paramount, is to create pages with your core account, and where necessity dictates it, use other accounts to post to that page. You can make other accounts page admins or page editors or posters etc, possibly something that could be experimented with. if something really is that toxic, to be associated with you, it may not be the best of directions cheers John

As a wee head's up, click on Leslie's board name and go to their profile, it you want, you can then send them private messages.

Hey A Ranger A detailed and well thought out answer. I is deliberately vague because I know that it means different things to different people, even at different times. Meanings can even overlap as a combination. For me the purpose here is the debate, the thought behind it and the possibility of writers and musicians examining other perspectives. Informed opinion and understanding of the issues help writers forge their way with more direction rather than stumbling about aimlessly or in an unproductive way. While there is no right answer, there are answers which at least approach a right answer for some of the interpretations of the question. What makes a song great can differ for writers and listeners, though there is generally some overlap. Popularity is certainly an important factor for measurement, but the meat of the measurement is more how many people think that a particular song is great overall, and in so many ways. For example: Is the song emotive? Do I connect with the sound? Does it mean something important to me? Is it evocative? Does the melody do all these alone? Do the lyrics do this alone? Does the arrangement or performance achieve all these? Combined, do they become even more? Are these facets above memorable? Does the song have a strong connection in multiple contexts? There are no doubt more measurements that we each personally use, normally by strength of response. I.e. We have a stronger or weaker response, we don't tend to quantify our response in marks out of 10. Similarly, our measurements can change according to context. We can also qualify greatness according to context "the best song for a wedding", "the best party song" etc. Popularity is important only in that it gives an idea of numbers and strength of connection. As writers and musicians, as a rule, we do not create music with the purpose if it being disliked and ignored. How we connect with listeners may vary, the reason why we connect or even who we want to connect with may vary, but again, we don't want our work to mean nothing, to connect with nobody. And so popularity has to be an important factor. So does fulfilling "purpose". The writer may want to fulfill an artistic vision, or to connect will loads of people and sell millions of units. Listeners just want something that fulfills their need, usually an emotional need. They want something that evokes a strong reaction, on some level, even if that is an intellectual level. They want a song to feed their happiness, or to comfort them with sadness, to encourage their heart with love etc... And they endlessly sift, looking for songs that they can earmark for certain circumstances. Either consciously, or subconsciously, writers try to create these songs. Artists and producers try to perform and record them. Songs can have instant, strong short-term appeal, others slow burn with growing, lasting appeal. A very few manage to achieve both. A combination of easily accessible melody and lyrics, with strong hooks, but enough meat on the bone to have an intellectual appeal, even with the simplest of messages. Lastly exposure saturation must be perfect. Under saturated a song may fail to fulfill it's potential. Over saturated and listeners turn off, even to the point of hating the song. There is a sweet spot. I think for many, the answer could simply be the songs that elicit the greatest response in them. That response could be a song that has very strong connection in one context, or elicits a strong connection across a number of contexts. Formulas may help us to approach creating something that is a great song, but that is far from the whole answer. As songs are penned, performed and recorded, they only have potential. To be truly great that song has to convert potential into actual, or more correctly a combination of a song with great potential and a team to present it to the masses in the right way at the right time. So many variables! All we can do at any point in the creation of a great song is fulfill the parts we play to the best of our ability. When we create, our motivations are complex and varied. Some writers say they "write for myself". But in all honesty, it is only a part of a complex picture. If everyone expressed dislike and hate for their songs they would soon stop... At least publicly. What they seem to want is acceptance and endorsement... And that is measured by reaction. Even popular reaction. Writing for others may or may not be your acknowledged prime motivator, but it is an important part of the mix. Writers try to fulfill a brief, their own or someone else's. Write a love song, write a protest song, tell a story... this at least gives a song an initial purpose. But songs can be repurposed by artists, producers and marketers. To be in control of the entire thing, you have to be in control of all those roles. Just a few thoughts... :)

Hey Jay, welcome aboard! I'm glad you like the site. The staff are always pleased to hear their efforts are appreciated. :)

Hey Thom Welcome to Songstuff! Are you planning to record in a pro studio, a home studio? Do you have a band or are you working solo? I have loads of questions about your project, but I don't want to pelt you with a ton of questions in your first post LOL Cheers John

I hear ya. Loads more new articles and info coming. More on point too. Lol

Hey Ali, I just realised I hadn't welcomed you to our community... Welcome aboard! :)

Hi and a big welcome to Songstuff! Please: tell your friends share / tweet / retweet Songstuff and Songstuff articles etc new articles and interesting topics. Songstuff gives loads for free but it does rely on it's family of members being willing to regularly help with spreading the word. Building our community is the main way we can help both ourselves and the site. Friend, like, share, follow etc the Songstuff portals on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Instagram, Soundcloud, MySpace, YouTube and more. Networking is good! Many thanks!

Hi and welcome to Songstuff! Great to have you aboard! Please consider telling your friends and sharing and / or retweeting Songstuff on your social media pages, especially new articles and interesting topics. Songstuff provides loads for free but it relies on it's family of members regularly helping to spread the word. This all helps to build our community into something truly special. Please also friend, like, share, follow etc the Songstuff portals on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Instagram, Soundcloud, MySpace, YouTube etc. Networking is good! Many thanks!

PS, sorry for the thread hijack guys. Starise and I could perhaps talk about this elsewhere?

Thanks! It took ages to put in place. We have a whole load of improvements coming online, starting with a new member hub. I don't doubt that you wanted to kick off a discussion (and it has!) but in terms of options in approach, if you want to understand, the key is in asking the questions you have. From personal experience, as soon as you tell people what they think it stands a chance to cause offence and to entrench viewpoints. It colours replies. that is frequently why, when I start a discussion thread, I deliberately do not state my opinion to get it going. Instead i simply explain that I will not offer my thoughts until I get the opinions of some members. That allows me to more genuinely and openly follow up with additional questions without members feeling defensive. They tend to speak more openly with me, even if they have disagreed with other members within the thread. Ultimately, I am very interested in what they think and why. Sometimes that sways my opinions, when there are facts that I am unaware of. Generally speaking, when it comes to like... opinion is just that. There is now right answer. Members say what is right for them. I tend to know what is right for me (but as said, new facts can change that). Do I know what is right for them? No. I can suspect it, if I spend time drilling into what their needs are and how they intend using whatever it is, be it hardware, software, process, notation, concept, technique etc.then I can make an educated guess and offer some informed suggestions. Reaper. Looking at it as a software developer, I have always suspected that they don't invest much in the development of the user interface. By that i mean, there are specialists in user interface design. As menu systems became more and more complex as they offered ever evolving and complex functionality, User Interface design became more and more important. Some software developers (Microsoft being a good example) invested a lot in adaptive user interface designs. This means that the menu options change and adapt according to how YOU use it. There have been great strides forward in how this is implemented. However, with user interfaces that offer thousands of options and possibilities, there tends to have been very little invested in the user experience. Development instead focuses almost entirely on functionality. For me, Reaper offers immense control over functionality. What it appears to care less about (not nothing, that wouldn't be fair) is user interaction with the system and how that can be improved. Instead usage improvements evolve from user feedback, a bit like licking your finger and sticking it up to help you detect the direction the wind is blowing from, versus using a series of tests and functional equipment to provide a full profile of the wind. Reaper, for me, does the former. This is fairly common for smaller software companies. Devoting a salary to a user interface specialist feels like a high price, instead, an existing developer or two takes it on as part of their job role. They are not specialists. This makes all the difference. However, under the hood, I would fully anticipate their technical product to be every bit as good as the big players. More than that, for techies and detail people, they are more responsive to users and include stuff because technically they would think it interesting and potentially useful. The big players however are less responsive. Every feature has to have a proven demand. The feature set is defined according to popular need. It's quite a different approach. The long and the short is, for those tech heads, those detail people, Reaper is ideal. It is developed for tech heads, by tech heads. Big player products are far more lead by sales volume. Tech heads are a secondary user for them. Their main user is the type of user that sells the most copies. This tends to have features developed by more curtailed developers (ie tech heads who are controlled by business management), and typically most users have some tech experience, but are interested in results more than anything else. Let me give an example of these different users from another field. Synth patches. Most synth patch users use off-the-shelf patches, either out the box, or with minor tweaks. The next most common are users who take off-the-shelf patches but like to perform major surgery on the sounds they use. Lastly, there are users who use the off-the-shelf patches more to get an idea of the capability of the synth engine, and then they create their own sounds from the ground up. This has a very real impact on the product. the first group create song after song that uses sounds that loads of other people use. They churn out quick songs that only the first songs out the stable sound unique. Reason users were a perfect example of this. You could spot a Reason song a mile away. The third group tend to create highly unique sounding songs, but the time to create each song is much much longer because of the time it takes to create all those sounds. Meanwhile the second group is striking a balance between sounding original and getting there first. All of such decisions can have a true impact on the success or marketability of the artist. Certainly it can change the approach. Each of those users may look at the features available across loads of synths. Group 1 tends to like easy to use synths with massive pre-made patch libraries. Group 3 tends to like synths with loads of controls, loads of options, loads of flexibility. Group 2 like a balance of a large patch library and a fair degree of control. You see? There is no right answer. there is only matching the type of user to the type of product.

Hey Starise just focus in on the DAW points you raise, and the general discussion point of better DAWs... "Better" is a subjective concept when it comes to like... Much of what is liked or not is hard to qualify. Sure things can be measured with detailed surveys but they are still measuring something that is subjective. You mention there are better DAWs than reaper... But much of that is subjective according to your own usage preferences and usage scenarios. Popularity is not always a measure of technically better either... Think Betamax and VHS video recorders. beta was better, VHS had a better marketing campaign. The truth is DAWs are much of a muchness. What we like generally comes down to workflows and usage scenarios. What is hard for people to get their head's around is the perspective of others. It is something I have had to learn as a designer of websites and as a software designer.... Level of abstraction. Flexibility breeds complexity. Reaper appears harder to use because it is very flexible. With every parameter of control, another menu option is born. So at one end, if we have a DAW that automates all mixing and mastering and replaces that with one button that said "mix and master" some people would be happy with the results and love the simplicity of an interface that does exactly what it says. Then at the other end of the scale we have a DAW that allows you, the user, to tweak absolutely everything. It has a menu system that runs to 20,000 menu items... But it allows you almost limitless control. For people whose like that level of control and who are perfectly happy digesting a manual that is a Gigabyte in size.... That suits their workflow and their attention to detail... But for others it would be the nightmare system from hell. This is in essence what we see here. I've it is a preference that is very little to do with price if at all.it is to do with how we like to interact with our recordings and the level of control we have. I am not a reaper user. I have used it, but found the interface too unwieldy for my preferred usage scenarios. I have used Cubase, Sonar, Protools, even fruity loops, reason and others. Each has pros and cons. Even taking Cubase and comparing it with Sonar, I loved CAL file algorithmic mix tools, but something like that didn't exist in Cubase at the time. i could understand that another engineer might not use CAL and that it was just extra interface complexity for those that didn't use it (I've many Sonar users and all Cubase users and all Cubasis users etc.) still, for me, it was a selling point. Reaper gives a ton of flexibility to its users. For those that like simple, easy to follow flows that give them the key flexibilities... Cubase exists. For those that like similar but a bit more control, Sonar and Protools etc exist. For those that like flexibility in almost every way, Reaper delivers that. In spades. The fact is, most Reaper users will still only ever use 20% of the interface options at best.... But they love that should they need control over something expected... It is there to be used. It is more nuanced than that too. It has other benefits too, for those who see them as benefits. Just remind yourself that the simple, limited, less flexible interface can be just as unappealing and hard to comprehend a desire for, for those who don't desire that. I have a very good understanding of music technology at a technical level. My degree was all about designing hardware, software and mixed systems for use in music. So I appreciate that much of the features I would use, others will find a hinderance. Hell most are likely to be completely unaware of the concept, let alone the justification for wanting some of the features I like. When I worked as a recording engineer I needed to know details that as a producer I did not care about. Behind a recording engineer is more about technically doing something, while production is more about the end result than how it is achieved. At a guess, Steve was probably pushing back against a feeling of being dismissed, or trivialised by assumptions that price was the key differentiator and that there is indeed a right answer to the question "Which is the best DAW?". Just a guess. You got it right at different strokes for different folks, but perhaps you could have asked why Reaper fans liked it, why they chose it, rather than assuming it was the benefit you saw? I have no axe to grind here. I know you want to help others and do have a genuine interest in improving understanding. I am also sure you would not intentionally cause offence. I am highlighting this, as much as anything else, because rigid thinking should be challenged to encourage creativity, invention and learning. Lack of the ability to understand perspective comes down to knowledge and insight, but those are gained by a process of discovery and enlightenment. If we fail to see another's perspective (not the same as agreeing with their conclusion!) that speaks more of issues with our process of discovery and enlightenment than anything else. :)

Welcome to Songstuff! weird is usually good imho, if not, at least it is interesting! hopefully the critique process will help your lyrics, as will chat with members and our collection of articles

Hi and welcome Jesse Now I know what name to use in the chat room! lol

Hi Mihan, welcome to Songstuff

At home in front of your puter!

Hi Dave I upgraded the server too The upgrade is focused on new features and is still being optimized for speed, so I increased server resource so that it ran faster overall. We will be introducing a site supporter role (Songstuffers) in the very near feature to help raise funds for site improvement (like further server upgrades etc, new features blah blah) for $15-$20 per quarter (just over $1 a week) and in return we'll be offering a lot of extra benefits to those site supporters (more extensive and detailed articles, kits, templates, tools, even services). I can't afford to pay for an ever improving site from my own pocket, simple as that. We could sell products but that is not the core of Songstuff. I'm not against it, but I would prefer to preserve core benefits for free (ie what is now free, though we will keep adding free stuff). This way friends of the site can support it's growth and development in return for extra stuff. A good example of this is that there are a number of sites offering training on promotion, pitching, and artist / songwriter site design. Costs vary. One I looked at last week charges $995 to train people in how to do this. Not at Songstuff. Here we will be taking the approach: Basic Info - free to all Detailed info plus tools - site supporters as part of their subscription Detailed info plus tools - interns Interns have to apply to become an intern. They will get training and access to tools and templates etc as needed to do the intern job in return for a commitment to perform that role for Songstuff for a certain number of hours per week. Interns are not paid, but then the norm is that they would have to pay a lot to get tthe tools and training, so overall they are getting a great deal. Additionally, by performing the role they gain a huge amount of experience. The even better news is that the people that benefit are the Songstuffers. For example, we train interns on promotion and tour support, getting reviews in local press for tours. So we offer that as a free service to Songstuff Site Supporters as a perk of being a site supporter. Not bad for $15-$20 per quarter! We can do the same with song pitching, internet promotion, web site design and set up, publishing admin and more. This equips interns with skills, offers a perk service to Songstuffers, and has a spin off providing great intel on current music industry and a host of spin off articles. Pretty great deal I think. If it proves popular, then the site and site development is paid for and the main beneficiaries will be site members. I think that's a pretty cool model! I'l not go through all the benefits here, but in mentioning the increased speed I thought it worthwhile mentioning that the server was upgraded, and that it wasn't free for me lol But, we have a plan! lol Seriously though, Songstuff growth has been heavily restricted by my pocket (or the lack of cash there in!). This approach could potentially remove that restriction and in fact give it a big boost to allow Songstuff to become as useful as I, and others, always wanted it to be. Cheers John

Hey Firstly youre premise is incorrect. At 150 years old the song would be out of copyright protection. Depending on juridiction two things can be protected: The arrangement used on the recording The physical recording of the song using that arrangement. If a company reports the issue to YouTube and / or Google if they are reporting a song infringement that would ultimately lose. If they reported an arrangement infringement, and there was one, well why should an arranger's efforts not be afforded some protection... after all that is the arranger's income... ie artists paying to use his original arrangement. Now there are publishers out there that look for songs no longer under copyright control to do exactly this with, precisely with the idea of licensing their arrangement. In fact that might be the whole of their business model. True, some publishers or record labels do try to claim rights they just don't have. They are chancing their arm in the hope that you will not contest the issue... especially if they know that you are an individual. It's wrong, just as business bullies are wrong wherever you find them. That might sound implausible, but there have been many instances of companies who own arrangements being paid license fees for usage of the song by record lables/bands wanting to use the song because of the claim on the arrangement. Some of these publishing companies do it with the express purpose of building a catalogue of old songs with new arrangements with the sole purpose of selling rights, ownership or licenses for those songs and arrangements to be used within emerging markets... China is very popular. What Hobo says about the DMCA and YouTube is quite right. Additionally if they claim an infringement but fail to file an action, my understanding is that a black mark can be applied to the reporting user's name, because they just created work for YouTube/Google for no reason, and because it helps reduce the mechanism being abused for commerical anti-competition reasons... ie take out your competition to boost your position. If a company repeatedly does this with no ownership, no claim, they are soon seen for what they are: opportunistic, exploitative bullies. Cheers John