Remixing from multiple tracks; notifying contributors
Page 2 de 2: 12
Membre
Posts: 213
Joined: 7 mars 2014
[i][quote]rp3drums wrote: I am not wild about the whole idea of mixing HD tracks from this mix or that. It becomes a bit like Frankenstein, and goes a bit out of the direction of the jam... maybe the place for this kind of mix is in the forum section "Crazy Re-Mix Board"....[/quote[/i]]
I agree insofar as it is outside of the WL license. And the soul of the original jam. In my case it was all within the same jam.
I, too, had never heard the potty term, lol. And I'm glad to hear that our percussionists don't mind a little chopping up of their tracks to meet a certain track idea. That is encouraging. :)
I agree insofar as it is outside of the WL license. And the soul of the original jam. In my case it was all within the same jam.
I, too, had never heard the potty term, lol. And I'm glad to hear that our percussionists don't mind a little chopping up of their tracks to meet a certain track idea. That is encouraging. :)
SUPPORTER
Posts: 156
Joined: 10 sept. 2014
Hmmm…. gonna be a long post… and I haven't heard "potty" for years! Thank you Martin!
Having been guilty of "borrowing" stems (and having had some of my vocal stems "borrowed") for remixes, I am well in favour of giving kudos to stems and clips getting "borrowed" by us Loopers. Perhaps on the landing page from the "upload remix" link there be a link to "multiple stem/jam remixes" and that landing page have text boxes requesting the stem/jam numbers in the remix to be entered. On upload, the stem/jam creators get an email saying their stems were remixed into jam number 234567. If this is what is being suggested with the BB tag tech talk, my apologies.
Moving to the off topic, I have some sympathy with Neronick's position about something I have created being used to make a profit for someone else outside of the Wikiloops. Individual stems can indeed be sampled and taken for outside use. Though the fact that these stems are only mp3 quality would mean that for pretty much all commercial broadcast utilisations they will be sonically useless. Though a monetised Youtube channel might prove an exception.
Ownership of intellectual property and its succession are indeed matters for longer term resolution and determination. Though I perceive that Wikiloops would have to go the route of Taxi or Reverbnation and look to offer opportunities for music placement and oversee the management thereof for this to become more immediate and necessary. Which is a whole new ball game. As Pete earlier pointed out, within the Loops I think most of us are all pretty much the same - darn happy to be here and enjoying making music that some of us thought was lost forever with some amazingly warm, supportive, and talented people.
For me, if anyone thinks any of my output is worthy of utilisation in creating something then I am gonna be fricking stoked. Shout out here for Looper slonmusic whose remixes using some of my vocal stems (and those of other Loopers) have been little short of stunning. If they become Frankensteins as Raymond envisages, may be no bad thing. Even Frankie had someone who loved him.
If I were younger, then perhaps my attitude would be different and I would be looking to be more protective of my creative output. But at nearly 60 and with less time ahead than is behind, I can't be that arsed. For me, having someone moved enough to say they like something I have written or sung is its own reward.
If something does strike big from something done on the Loops, then let glory go to Wikiloops so everyone can win. God knows Dick deserves some payback for the dedication he continues to show to the project. Long may the Loops roll!
Brian
Having been guilty of "borrowing" stems (and having had some of my vocal stems "borrowed") for remixes, I am well in favour of giving kudos to stems and clips getting "borrowed" by us Loopers. Perhaps on the landing page from the "upload remix" link there be a link to "multiple stem/jam remixes" and that landing page have text boxes requesting the stem/jam numbers in the remix to be entered. On upload, the stem/jam creators get an email saying their stems were remixed into jam number 234567. If this is what is being suggested with the BB tag tech talk, my apologies.
Moving to the off topic, I have some sympathy with Neronick's position about something I have created being used to make a profit for someone else outside of the Wikiloops. Individual stems can indeed be sampled and taken for outside use. Though the fact that these stems are only mp3 quality would mean that for pretty much all commercial broadcast utilisations they will be sonically useless. Though a monetised Youtube channel might prove an exception.
Ownership of intellectual property and its succession are indeed matters for longer term resolution and determination. Though I perceive that Wikiloops would have to go the route of Taxi or Reverbnation and look to offer opportunities for music placement and oversee the management thereof for this to become more immediate and necessary. Which is a whole new ball game. As Pete earlier pointed out, within the Loops I think most of us are all pretty much the same - darn happy to be here and enjoying making music that some of us thought was lost forever with some amazingly warm, supportive, and talented people.
For me, if anyone thinks any of my output is worthy of utilisation in creating something then I am gonna be fricking stoked. Shout out here for Looper slonmusic whose remixes using some of my vocal stems (and those of other Loopers) have been little short of stunning. If they become Frankensteins as Raymond envisages, may be no bad thing. Even Frankie had someone who loved him.
If I were younger, then perhaps my attitude would be different and I would be looking to be more protective of my creative output. But at nearly 60 and with less time ahead than is behind, I can't be that arsed. For me, having someone moved enough to say they like something I have written or sung is its own reward.
If something does strike big from something done on the Loops, then let glory go to Wikiloops so everyone can win. God knows Dick deserves some payback for the dedication he continues to show to the project. Long may the Loops roll!
Brian
Fender AV II 63 TELE RW RED TRANS
Electric Guitar
2.249 €
iThis widget links to Thomann, our affiliate partner. We may receive a commission when you purchase a product there.
Visit Shop
Membre
Posts: 522
Joined: 27 févr. 2015
[i]
LOL. Didn't realise the 'potty' comment would attract so much amusement! It's a term I've known since I was a child but is very much an English colloquialism. I do sometimes forget it's an international forum and jabber away using less well-known Britishisms that only about three people will actually get!
And yes, I completely agree with your sentiments. In no way was I condoning chopping up tracks within the same session template - that completely defeats the continuity of the adds. I would never dare rearrange someone else's add within a tree (except I've done that once but that was to extend the track as it was really short and I made the edited track available too). Firstly because it's poor form and secondly, it would make subsequent adds not line up! I was exclusively talking about re-using someone's parts for a brand-new session template and that people are welcome to chop up my drums to re-use them. As per the WL license, as long as I'm named as the contributor, I'm perfectly happy.
My comment was [badly and long-windedly] saying that perhaps the editing and re-use of peoples' adds for a [i]new[/i] template could be more explicitly permitted or made obvious.
DannyK wrote:
I agree insofar as it is outside of the WL license. And the soul of the original jam. In my case it was all within the same jam.
I, too, had never heard the potty term, lol. And I'm glad to hear that our percussionists don't mind a little chopping up of their tracks to meet a certain track idea. That is encouraging. :)
[/i]I agree insofar as it is outside of the WL license. And the soul of the original jam. In my case it was all within the same jam.
I, too, had never heard the potty term, lol. And I'm glad to hear that our percussionists don't mind a little chopping up of their tracks to meet a certain track idea. That is encouraging. :)
LOL. Didn't realise the 'potty' comment would attract so much amusement! It's a term I've known since I was a child but is very much an English colloquialism. I do sometimes forget it's an international forum and jabber away using less well-known Britishisms that only about three people will actually get!
And yes, I completely agree with your sentiments. In no way was I condoning chopping up tracks within the same session template - that completely defeats the continuity of the adds. I would never dare rearrange someone else's add within a tree (except I've done that once but that was to extend the track as it was really short and I made the edited track available too). Firstly because it's poor form and secondly, it would make subsequent adds not line up! I was exclusively talking about re-using someone's parts for a brand-new session template and that people are welcome to chop up my drums to re-use them. As per the WL license, as long as I'm named as the contributor, I'm perfectly happy.
My comment was [badly and long-windedly] saying that perhaps the editing and re-use of peoples' adds for a [i]new[/i] template could be more explicitly permitted or made obvious.
Page 2 de 2: 12
wikiloops online jamsessions are brought to you with friendly
support by:
wikiloops is great! I already have some toons ready when I get the audio interface.
barrtrek