Artist
 |
| Vixen wrote: | my my, since when did calling someone a purist become one of the 7 deadly sins?
A purist is one who desires that an item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences. The term may be used in almost any field, and can be applied either to the self or to others. Use of the term may be either pejorative or complimentary, depending on context.
As to feeling unwelcome, the whinging and complaining in other threads had already tipped the scales in that direction.
http://www.icompositions.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8268 |
vix i read a majorem of this thread as u pointed to it
but for me its not purism it is more
elitism
whats the difference
in the head of the person
can we get back to the music now not everyone will agree all the time and they dont have to listen to your music
by all means feel free to spend another 30 pages disagreeing
play your music sing your songs |
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 | 5:17 am |
|
|
Artist
 |
lol I do believe you are right Henno |
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 | 5:27 am |
|
|
Moderator
 |
As pointed out before, this thread is about backing tracks. The thread you link to is about covers which is another topic. It also was not started by a moderator or iCompositions representative, and members are free to express their opinion of music and what they think constitutes art here (within the rules, which would include no personal attacks, etc.). |
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 | 2:57 pm |
|
|
Artist
 |
I think what I am confused about though, is that whilst I see that covers don't necessarily use backing tracks, surely backing tracks are only for covers?
So I don't think people would want to spend up to £200+ per backing track licence only to later find they have to delete it when covers are asked to be removed?
Also what counts as a cover? I sing opera, so you can't help but "cover" well-known arias - and these backing tracks are generally licensed for upload/streaming and download - but the composers have usually been dead for a few centuries!
Sorry to be dense - it's a trait of mine, lol! |
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 | 6:10 pm |
|
|
Artist
 |
| Mosaica wrote: | I think what I am confused about though, is that whilst I see that covers don't necessarily use backing tracks, surely backing tracks are only for covers?
So I don't think people would want to spend up to £200+ per backing track licence only to later find they have to delete it when covers are asked to be removed?
Also what counts as a cover? I sing opera, so you can't help but "cover" well-known arias - and these backing tracks are generally licensed for upload/streaming and download - but the composers have usually been dead for a few centuries!
|
Roughly speaking, there are 2 types of copyright that pertain to songs.
One is the publishing rights of the song that go to the composer for having written the song e.g. "Lennon & McCartney" and
There is also the mechanical copyright that pertains to the performance captured on recording media. e.g, the Beatles' performance of a Lennon McCartney song.
If you do a cover without permission, you're infringing on the former, while if you sample, you're infringing both.
What's been argued here in the past is that the holders of mechanical copyright seem to be more active in pursuing their rights than publishers. Hence the absolute zero tolerance for samples/sampling of commercial artists and the relatively lax standards for covers here. (not complainin' here BTW!)
The thing about backing tracks is that apart from the publishing rights, they also have mechanical rights for the guys who recorded and produced the backing. And as with samples of commercial artists, the holders of mechanical copyright have been active in chasing the admins here about people using them.
Hence the distinction, hence the rules.
If you sing Opera by some long dead composer, their copyright over publishing is considered to have lapsed. This is why orchestras the world over are always playing music by long-dead composers.
If you sing the aria against a modern recording backing track the backing track most likely has mechanical copyright you have to negotiate. i.e. somebody arranged it, played it, recorded it - they want to retain rights over their work. |
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 | 7:20 pm |
|
|
Moderator
 |
Thank you, artneuro.  |
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 | 7:29 pm |
|
|
Artist
 |
Wow, artneuro, that's about as clear an explanation as I've seen. Hopefully that'll answer some of the questions that have been flying around this thread. |
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 | 7:54 pm |
|
|
Artist
|
Digital Copyright Act saves YouTube
By Gavin Ogden, Thursday, 24th June, 2010
A US judge has thrown out Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit that accused Google of allowing copyrighted videos on its YouTube service.
“Today, the court granted our motion for summary judgment in Viacom’s lawsuit with YouTube,” said Kent Walker, Vice President and General Counsel, Google. “This means that the court has decided that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) against claims of copyright infringement. The decision follows established judicial consensus that online services like YouTube are protected when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage their rights online.”
Walker said the ruling was a win for the billions of people who use the service every day.
“This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other,” he continued. “We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world.”
The decision will also apply to other parties in the lawsuit, including the Premier League.
Viacom will appeal the decision, which the firm says is "fundamentally flawed”.
YouTube recently turned five years old and said it clocks up over two billion views per day. |
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 | 8:10 pm |
|
|
Moderator
 |
Anyone here willing to pony up for google quality legal representation? |
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 | 10:11 pm |
|
|
Artist
 |
Wow, things have gotten a bit heated since I was here last!
Linda - LOL - you aren't the only one! Most people would rather listen to something familiar than unfamiliar so I assume that's why original songs often get fewer listens than well-known ones. It's not just if you use a backing track. Covers usually get more attention than original songs also. But, originality is it's own reward - I am gratified if one person gets what I'm doing and comments.
Joanna - you sound like fun to me - I'll have to check your music out! |
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2010 | 12:03 am |
|
|
Artist
|
Thanks artneuro, that's a good explanation. Mechancial rights clearance is a right pain, often because agencies only deal with a particular country, and generally not your own!!
However I was also just trying to clarify that if - as I have in the past - paid musos to create backing tracks for "well-dead"-composer opera (usually for their time rather than any mechanical rights) - then it wouldn't be iCompo asking for it to be removed because it was a "cover".
What would be really helpful is:
a) much lower rights charges. I believe many people want to pay, but the cost is prohibitive to many. If all charges were lower the companies would actually make MORE money because more people would pay and enjoy clear consciences
b) International rights clearing agency. I have pop/jazz backing tracks by a multitude of publishers. I may just have ONE track from each, yet they want a minimum order for rights clearance. Rather than pay a large sum for tracks you don't really like (because the versions differ so much) it would be wonderful to declare your whole list to an agent and pay one fee, that then got re-distributed to the appropriate owner.
Job opportunity anyone??!! |
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2010 | 3:31 am |
|
|
Artist
|
| Mosaica wrote: | | However I was also just trying to clarify that if - as I have in the past - paid musos to create backing tracks for "well-dead"-composer opera (usually for their time rather than any mechanical rights) - then it wouldn't be iCompo asking for it to be removed because it was a "cover". |
That's a little bit different to the karaoke track case that was discussed earlier in the thread.
Technically speaking, if you paid those musicians for the backing track, then what you need is a rights waiver from those musicians giving you release to use the backing track as you see fit. They do have mechanical rights over their captured performance until they relinquish it through the waiver to you - or time passes and it goes into public domain. |
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2010 | 4:08 am |
|
|
Artist
 |
| Mosaica wrote: | However I was also just trying to clarify that if - as I have in the past - paid musos to create backing tracks for "well-dead"-composer opera (usually for their time rather than any mechanical rights) - then it wouldn't be iCompo asking for it to be removed because it was a "cover".
|
Just for your knowledge really.
In the UK copyright only last for a certain amount of time before the song enters the Public Domain, and any song in the Public Domain can be freely used, so if we are talking long dead composers here, you should be alright.
The UK rule is:
• Intellectual Copyright lasts 70 years before entering Public Domain.
• Mechanical Copyright lasts 50 years before entering Public Domain.
I am sure this differs in other countries, but basically in the UK, anything recorded prior to 1940 is now Public Domain and you can record the song without having to worry about Intellectual Copyright getting in your way. I am sure that this would cover many of the Orchestral, Operatic and Jazz Standards that many people here do, so all you have to worry about is Mechanical Copyright and as Art says, as long as the recording artists waive their right to the song, or you play all of the instrumentation yourself, then you should have nothing to worry about and iComp shouldn't have to ask you to remove the song as a cover!
I hope this information helps a few people! |
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2010 | 4:38 am |
|
|
Artist
 |
| carlajpatterson wrote: | | Most people would rather listen to something familiar than unfamiliar so I assume that's why original songs often get fewer listens than well-known ones. |
That's one of the reasons why I write and record original songs that sound like familiar songs. |
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2010 | 8:58 am |
|
|
Artist
 |
| carlajpatterson wrote: |
Most people would rather listen to something familiar than unfamiliar so I assume that's why original songs often get fewer listens than well-known ones. It's not just if you use a backing track. Covers usually get more attention than original songs also. |
That's not a true statement I've done 5 covers maybe my entire time here and maybe one got to number 1 but several of my originals got to number One and most all crack the Top Ten or Twenty. Barretok Shadowofnine, Little_Hooligan, Naaji, KCsGROOVE, and a few others including myself originals get a lot of listens and usually are in the Top Five songs on the Charts. Even Now the Originals on the music list Dominate the Top Twenty Songs.
A few things being said in this thread and through out the site are not accurate and insulting to say the least. Why? All because iComp released a statement to reinforce a rule we already agreed to, not to mention it's the law, nor that there are some people here who do receive royalty checks and don't like their Copyright infringed upon I would assume the majority wouldn't either, if the shoe was on the other foot but I just guessing. I have been a Karaoke Champ before so I know first hand the preparation and time put into doing it professionally just from doing it in the competition. A friend of mine owned a Bar and put me in as their ringer but I found out it took all I had to win and in the end it was my connection with the crowd and stage presence that put me over the top. So this brings me to a dose of reality I'd like to interject into this conversation. That contest was over 20 some years ago do you think I am the same as I was then?
My point is this if you are a singer and you put in hours and hours, which amounts up to years and years, you should naturally be evolving to be much better in your field of choice i.e. starting to write your own lyrics, writing or putting together the music, to eventually being able to produce your own songs. In anything else you were doing or someone else was doing it, if you or they put in a lot of time you'd expect them to be advancing in what they do. Hours of basketball practice you should be able to do the basic fundamentals (lost art) Hours of co piloting eventually you should be able to fly the plane.
I was a singer first and had some of the best musicians in my family and friends, they were always there if I needed them but then they became pros and some famous and left me or the Country to make a living. Luckily I paid attention all the time and asked questions, I then decided if I had the urge to write a song at 1 am I'd better be able to add a little melody and drum track to remind of how it was to go. A very important Lady gave me this advice long ago, " If you want to make it in this Business you have to treat it like a Business, and offer the best proposal you can that'll make your offer stand out". She then told me to go home don't just try to be signed as a Singer/Artist but work on your producing, playing and writing skills and become the whole package and then you can get a better deal. I know there are going to be those of you who will say I just do this for fun and I understand, but I refer you back to the hours and hours spent... Even if your just going to the gym to play basketball for fun they expect you to be able to pass and make a shot.
Now this is not to knock anyone for where they are musically but just to remind you what may be your pitfall, rut or even comfortability of where you are at, it is yours and not others. Some of you are putting your own hang ups off on to others, like producers or players, which is not fair. I'm a producer who started out as a singer a long time ago and I've been producing for awhile nothing shocks me anymore. Most of the time I can get a good song out of anybody, so don't assume that because you are shy or you have a phobia of sing in front of people that you can't be worked with. And here's the killer part of it iCompositions was made or is set up for just such a thing, it also has plenty of wonderful people willing to help from amateur to pro, from foreign to domestic. I could only of wished I had a place like this back in the day and for free. So when I see them trying to protect this place and being accused of being biased and forcing singers to leave, someone even had the nerve to compare this to the Jim crow, sit at the back of the bus days please... I was able to catch a glimpse of those days and you insult the pain, the sacrifice and honor those who had to endure it or gave their life for. Please... your singing a cover will never be as important!!!
I've watch young Artist come in here and get the knowledge and practice they needed to excel way pass where we were at their age. I've even seen older Artist improve and be able to keep up with the technology explosion of the recent years. Just these few things (though there is plenty more) are priceless and worth doing whatever it takes to make sure iCompositions continues on long after I'm dead and stinking 
As always, sure you have the right to say what you want and how you feel but when you say something ridiculous be just as sure someone will have a reply. Now back to your complaining, bickering, and insults.
Moses |
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2010 | 10:26 am |
|
|
|
Join Now
Login
