Didier

Hi All, An interesting article, from Songstuff's news feed: http://p2pnet.net/story/1572 Excerpt: "One of the biggest travesties in the vast Big Five repertoire of misinformational 'facts' is their all but outright claim that sites supported by them are the only legal entities in the online music world. It's an obvious load of old cobblers. But people take it in. The reality is: the Big Music sites are the absolute worst places to go if you're looking for good, affordable new music. The Net is packed with independent sites selling music created by independent musicians. And they're all perfectly legal, perfectly legitimate and perfectly above-board. Moreover, unlike the Big Music sites which carry the same 500,000 to 700,000 trackes by the same performers at more or less the same prices, the indie sites offer genuine choice - millions and millions of tracks from artists represewntring the world's culturers." Didier

Nope, I don't condone this modern stuff Thanks for sharing that, Marc. I really appreciate the sound of that printer (especially the ambient noise). Reminds me of nights in mainframes computers room. That was magic : Didier

Hi Tom, I voted in the poll (I'm a member of SongPlanet, too). I voted "pass on replying to the thread" as something general, but (as usual in a poll) your question does not cover all the circumstances, so I will elaborate a little. The questions was: "When an artist posts a song..." which is not the same as "when an artist ask for a review". In which case, I'm more likely to write some "negative" comments. I do agree with John that reviews here are very different from OMD's, where review usually means "I want spin". I never do that. It may happen that I comment on things I like in a song, and say nothing about the rest. This was my vote. This is something I don't do publicly. This is what I do when I have been in email contact with the artist first, but it all depends on the artist. Some I know want my opinion. And, finally: Yes, Tom, your poll is great Didier

Hi Nigel, I'm member of an author's rights society (French one, SACEM). There are several points in copyright. One is to have it. More or less, something is 'copyrighted' the day you write it, even if you do nothing formally. Second point is to prove you are the owner of copyright. Without any proof, it's very difficult. In the US, I believe the easier (and more efficient) is to register your song with the Library of congress. Third point is to enforce your copyright (i.e., go to court if necessary), if someone's using your work. That's where an author's rights society is very handy, because they would do the enforcement for you. About your poems: If you can prove any kind of publication before they copyrighted them under their name, I think you could do something about it. Didier

Hi Ricky, If you have tried to contact me, perhaps your email never reached me. I didn't received one from you recently. Pure guess from my part. Would this job consist in transcribing recording of meetings on word processing/paper? If my above guess is correct, that would be a software you can pause/restart (and perhaps cue backward/forward) with a pedal. Which would explain the "wav pedal". In the past, people used specific tape recorders for these jobs. It would make sense that they now use PCs with specific software/hardware. Didier

Hi John, Thanks, it's a good read. Didier

Hi Olggu, Great A times, it sounds a bit like me when I'm trying an effect box. The difference is that none I know can stand it for so long Didier

Hi Marc, Thanks for your comments. Always difficult to understand through the limits of the medium. Merci pour les clarifications, Marc, et pour ta patience. Je comprends beaucoup mieux maintenant de ce dont tu voulais parler. J'arrête le français, sinon les autres vont croire je suis en train de de traiter de noms d'oiseaux I get the point. It barely happens to me. Part of the explanation is that I was never a "synth" guy. I started "computer music" with a drumbox and a TB303. No real choice of sounds, that was just an automated backup band. When I moved to a sequencer and an expander, that was still, initially, a glorified version of the previous. I only gradually started to become interested in other sounds than bass and drums from my expander. But your post made me also reflect on the way I listen. The same way I'm no graphist (at all), and not very sensitive on colours, I must be slightly "sound blind" also. I go very fast past the sound themselves, to the notes behind. That's obviously something I must improve: not the ability to supress the sound to appreciate a melody or an arrangement, but the ability to chose the best sound available for a purpose. Get it, and useful comment. Sans cette discussion, je n'aurais jamais su ça Thanks for the comment on my songs. I understand, if you clearly recognise such and such sound in my songs, how distracting it must be. Hence, my "sound blind" analogy. My new sampler is a (albeit low-tech) little move toward that direction. Obviously, I'm slow on catching with technology (for my music use. I've been in "high tech" software companies for the last 15 years). Didier

. It depends what I play, and in what state of mind. Some things I can never be tired of playing. I never tried to compete with the good guys: I was much too lazy. Now that time has passed, though, I do enjoy playing exercises, but the first months beginners' book To each his own. I wouldn't do that for a guitar part. Of course, I would redo a chorus, if it's separated from the verses, for instance. But otherwise, if I miss a note at the end of a 5 minutes part, I redo everything from the start. I want the performance to be "consistent". That's even more true for vocals: even there are gaps between parts, I always do a full take. On the other hand, I sometimes do what you say on keyboard parts. In my experience, you're not asked to perform live, you more kind of beg to play live And for those who have enjoyed an hostile/indifferent audience (I wonder which is worse), one may wonder why you're supposed to enjoy that sometimes. Admittedly Barely, but agreed for the sake of the argument. It's a Stacy with 4 Meg, and a Mega STE for the ADAP, mind you Did I mention I have (and use, on one song) a Casio VL-30? As far as I would do only MIDI with the computer, the fact that it's an Atari or not is not relevant. Last time I checked, there was no more possibilities, MIDIwise, in the latest incarnation of Logic, than in what I use. And, if it's for using hardware synths only, using a recent synth mimicking a 70s synth (that's mostly what I see in magazines) wouldn't make it more "modern". Part of the answer is that I use my gear live. Not often, but it has to be ready when needed. Which means, for me, rock solid and trusted sequencer and related gear. Some use hardware sequencers for that, but I trust Notator (my live sequencer) on an Atari as much as a hardware sequencer, and it's more convenient and has much more possibilities. And hardware sounds, because I have no crew to feed a sampler between songs. I know too well that my recordings do not translate as well as I’d like how I sound live. But that has to account more from my poor sound engineer (which I don’t pretend to be) talent than from the sounds themselves. Do I? (sound typically 80s). No, that's not my purpose. And none of the people who enjoy my music (some of them are musicians) have said to me: "I like your music, but it sounds typically 80s". Or, "I like your music, because it sounds typically 80s". But it's true I had this kind of comment from a very few musicians, not enjoying my music the least (I mean, I could play the recorder, they wouldn't enjoy my music anyway), saying, for instance: "You can't use that sound, I recognise a MT32" Me: 'Why is it bad?" Musician: "Because it's a MT32!" About your question: Is it because you think, because of my gear, I'm wasting whatever talents I may have, and that it distracting people from otherwise good songs? Or is it you just try to understand why someone would use 10 years dated technology? Didier

What you write makes much sense. Reflecting on what you wrote, it's true that, before I start recording, I have usually rehearsed a song live for months (years). So, in fact, most of the production is done during this stage, where the song "matures". Adapting the machines to fit my singing and playing, but also adapting my singing and playing to fit with the machines. Didier

Hi Marc, Not that much. I find my abilities much more limiting, usually. On the other hand, the fact I bought the sampler obviously means I wanted something new That's not really for me to say, but that's an interesting subject. So what do you think of a normal rock'n'roll band? Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps first album, as an example. The sound is strictly the same, from songs to songs (same instruments). That doesn't make it less interesting for me. And I *wouldn't* want Cliff Galoping Gallup to change sound. Other example: Glen Gould playing Bach. Just the same boring piano on two full CDs. Still interesting for me. Another point is that (for me), a song has barely any relationship with the production/sound used. It must exist "on its own", i.e., the structure, melody, etc., does not rely on a specific sound/gear. My composition guitar is not a very good one, on purpose. I don't want to be disturbed by the quality of the sound. Of course, there are exceptions, and a specific sound might trigger inspiration, so I understand what you say. I don't confuse PCs and gear. I like gear. Does a pianist is just afraid to change, because he's using only a piano for years? And why some guitarists favor old guitars, and wouldn't change them for a new one? Thus said, it's true I wouldn't want experimenting new gear constantly. When I'm doing that, I'm not really doing music.(Even if it is fun, most of the time). I think we're not really speaking of the same thing. For me, my real music gear is my guitars, my amp and my piano. The rest is more "production" gear. And I don't find my guitars, amp and piano limiting *at all*. Exceptions apart, the music I make is created with an acoustic guitar or the piano. So whatever synths, computers, etc. I have would have or not has nearly no influence on my music (the core of it). Of course, it has an obvious influence on how these "bare" songs will be "translated", and thus how they will be perceived by the listeners. I must have heard at least 10 versions of Lady Jane performed by Lou Reed. Some of them were totally different, but it's still Lady Jane. Interesting discussion, Marc Didier

Very true. My dealer has a gorgeous second hand Fatar available (140 cm, exactly as a standard piano). Unfortunately, so far, I haven't found a way to fit that in my studio I fully agree. But that's where the ADAP, even played with plastic keys, seems more musical to me, so far, than the SC88. No implied budget, up to a point, of course It's more about what gear I find incentive or not. Thanks Dave. I'll have a look. Didier

It could've, but no I only got the ADAP two weeks ago, so the bass sounds you hear come from either a MT32 or a SC88. Unfortunately, I got the ADAP without any sounds. But, anyway, it would have been only one floppy (720K), according to the manual, so it isn't a great loss. By the way, speaking of vintage sounds, the ADAP is not 8/12 bit, 22K, as some of the competition at that time. It's the "regular" 16 bits 44K. At that time, I think I was buying a ZX81. You're probably all right As mentionned above, all sounds are new to me. I don't expect to achieve a perfect, or even average piano. Just something different, that is usable for me. I still don't feel any pleasure at the idea of having a PC in the studio. I spent enough time on these for lasting me a lifetime, and I'm using one for every day tasks. But, in the studio, it has to be something I enjoy. Didier

Hi BS, I got mine from an individual, he was using it as a glorified reel to reel, he is in "electro-acoustic" music (if you see what I mean). A post prod studio would most likely have sold me an ADAP II (the direct to disk version). I wouldn't have objected This thing starts to grow on me. Yes and no. It doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to be full range (i.e., C0 to C8 ). At the moment, I'm just experimenting, to try and see what sounds good or not. I'm cumulating experience before I start the "labour intensive" task: sampling my own upright. The U110 is good. I have both a MT32 and a SC88. I think they cover similar sounds. Funny thing: I did a quick and dirty sample of only one note of the standard piano patch from the SC88, just to test the ADAP. So far, I like it better than the original. And I don't think it's not about grain or something (the ADAP seems very accurate). I guess it's about how it reacts to velocity. More musical to me. There seems to be an endless list of exellent electric pianos in every synth/sound bank. Unfortunately (so far), I have never use an electric piano sound Price was not an issue, here. Thanks Didier

Bonjour Marc, C'est sympa en français But I'll switch to English, because I think the others have the right to know I wasn't aware of Vienna either, I could have used that. The nice thing about Xtrackk is that it shows all the presets, layers, key assignments, so that you have an idea of how the samples are used. It shows also the start and loop points in the samples, which will come handy to set loop points. Because my sampler doesn't know these formats. I think I have to do my come-out My sampler is an ADAP I Soundrack. If you've never heard about it, that would be quite normal. It's a hardware sampler circa 1988, using an Atari for memory, and as a front-end. Answer above, so in fact ADAP proprietary format. The ADAP's using Sound Designer I as a sample format. I have a converter to and from this format, unfortunately the loop points are not recognised by the converter So, if you knew of a converter to Sound Designer I, keeping the loop points... Didier

I just found it. It's called Xtrackk (http://homepages.compuserve.de/murmel99/software.htm). Now, I go and check your suggestions Didier

Hi Mark, 'Xactly Not an option. I can only use 'standard' sound formats. But some 'sampler' formats contain in fact wav files (e.g., Akai format), plus actual sampler information. This, of course, I can use. It wasn't that bad That's perhaps why I didn't like it that much. I prefer usually prefer pianos with more "character" than perfect Steinway grands. Thanks for your various suggestions, even if I cannot use them at the moment. Unless you know a Soundfount to 'sound format' converter. I think I've read something about it, but I forgot where. Didier

Hi Lazz, Thanks for the details. That's what I thought. Which means that's not "anyone downloading illegal music". That's only people not "pirates" enough. Because I would be surprised if the digital fingerprint would resist long to the "real" hackers. And it probably will be much of a drawback for honest customers, like the current "protected" audio CDs, that don't play on much CD player. Up to the point that Philips (the owner of the 'Digital Audio CD' logo) is suing record companies, to prevent them using that logo on CDs which are not really compatible with the standard. Didier

Hi All, Does anyone know a source for free acoustic piano samples to download? Not speaking of loops, just sampled notes. I'm looking for a reasonable quality, and in 'standard' format, e.g., wav, aiff, etc. I find tons of drums, loops, sound FX, vintage synths, but no piano so far. Didier

Hi John, I find this the most intriguing: How are they going to do this? Unless we're in Ozz' land suddenly, is the "industry" going to write spyware and viruses, that will infect illegal downloading sites, in order to display the message on anyone illegally downloading music's computers? To paraphrase Steve: "oh dear oh dear, look at the state of that industry". Didier

Hi, That's a good question, and exactly to the point. The guy swapping the NT1s is a professional guitar player (jazz and hired jobs)/teacher, and his use of mikes is for recording his guitars, both acoustic and electric. If that's the case, and the guy mentionned above doesn't have strange tastes, that means the SKEC015 should be great too. The SKEs are not bad looking either. This picture is not the same model as mine, but same look: Didier

That's something I forgot to mention, and I do agree on this one As a result, it is plugged on the same "multi plug" as my recording setup (I have different "multi plugs" with a switch for different situations, mostly "live" and recording"). It is on100% of the time in recording setup, the same as the rest of my equipment anyway. If it is built as a reasonable pro or "prosumer" gear, it should survive. That's Darwin law applied to gear Didier

Hi, I agree with Marc. The one thing you didn't mentionned: did they extend the guaranty for the 6 months the machine was not usable? If not, that's usually one of the few things you can (should) negotiate. Didier

I was myself only remotely aware of The Alarm. But I have the feeling this story tells a lot about the music industry. Didier

Hi All, I thought this one really deserved a topic in the Biz section. The Alarm (a band started in the 80's), made an impressive comeback to the UK charts by releasing their new single under the name of Popyfields, a supposed new teen punk band. Read the story here: http://www.thealarm.tv/newsdisp.asp?id=954 A link to the swindle: http://www.thepoppyfields.com/thepoppyfields/ , and to the Alarm: http://www.thealarm.com Didier