No, this is something more - I think the concept is to make the multitrack original available, which with modern editing/mixing tools can be altered,
Sortof like mods? Mods have been around for a long time (anyone remember Octamed on the Amiga?), and you can download them, analyse how the sequence was put together AND the samples are included for your taking/altering.
You can download loads of them at www.modarchive.com (and you can view/play them with www.soundtracker.org). The files themselves tend to be far smaller that the resulting MP3/OGG/WAV formats.
Besides which, shouldn't we be thankful for any positive publicity, even if they don't get the licensing terms *exactly right*? It's funny how any attempt to get GNU/Linux (or Open Source Software or whatever) exposure to a wider audience always gets pooh-poohed. Maybe they should have printed the GPL and bored their readers to death? Now *that* REALLY would have helped!
Ricardo _______________________________________________ "There are several codes, and I know several of them." -Mr. Precise. http://www.rscampos.net Check my online diary out: http://www.rscampos.net/blog.html
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Ricardo Campos wrote:
No, this is something more - I think the concept is to make the multitrack original available, which with modern editing/mixing tools can be altered,
Thing is, a 'multitrack' original accounts only for one kind of music, the kind where you put it together in 'tracks'...even then, you don't get the source, but a macro of the thing.
Sortof like mods? Mods have been around for a long time (anyone remember Octamed on the Amiga?), and you can download them, analyse how the sequence was put together AND the samples are included for your taking/altering.
Yep. Even here, the tracker community deals with techno mostly, and then mods in general only contain midi and module information. It doesn't account for the original sound source, for example. The only case (and aren't we way off topic here?) where I can see 'open source music' for real is free music software development like pure data (www.pure-data.org), where people release the source code of the program, develop and upgrade as a community, and share external objects and patches with all users. A piece of music described in PD gives you a much closer approximation, IMHO, to the spirit of free software.
Besides which, shouldn't we be thankful for any positive publicity, even if they don't get the licensing terms *exactly right*? It's funny how any attempt to get GNU/Linux (or Open Source Software or whatever) exposure to a wider audience always gets pooh-poohed. Maybe they should have printed the GPL and bored their readers to death? Now *that* REALLY would have helped!
No pooh-pooing here. Only pointing out that the rush to bring music to 'open source' environments usually misses a -big- point about music itself...that it just isn't like software. More often than not, when fellow musos talk about music sharing it sounds to me like the same pleas made by 'No Logo' readers. Very keen, no sense of reality.
DC
david casal --0+ --- d.casal@uea.ac.uk --9+ --- www.ariada.uea.ac.uk/~dcasal --)+
On Thursday 07 Feb 2002 9:07 am, Ricardo Campos wrote: snip
Besides which, shouldn't we be thankful for any positive publicity, even if they don't get the licensing terms *exactly right*? It's funny how any attempt to get GNU/Linux (or Open Source Software or whatever) exposure to a wider audience always gets pooh-poohed. Maybe they should have printed the GPL and bored their readers to death? Now *that* REALLY would have helped!
Ricardo
That's really what I was getting at. Spreading the message is the important thing. Being overly concerned about terminology will only serve to reinforce the nerd/geek image that GNU/Linux has attracted in the past.
ian
-
david casal -
Ian Bell -
Ricardo Campos