<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by donnie: Hey Z6 we do pay royalties to the guys who play for us. As a matter of matter so far we\'ve paid them 100%
Donnie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Per Z6\'s post, I don\'t know of any sample developer here who \"steals\" anything from session players. The players know what they\'re being involved in and why, and they\'re paid for their work. It\'s actually pretty difficult to lift a coherent library from a musical track...people do it all the time for their personal libraries, but \"track lifts\" are generally not polished enough to release as a library product. Even with drums, you rarely can get \"clean\" notes with full ring-outs.
I think it\'s a little naive to assume that GigaStudio is going to put professional musicians out of business in session-land. That\'s just not true. Good players are always in demand for session and live work. If anything, GigaStudio is just one more opportunity for brand-name players to have royalty income and money-making product.
Think about it, this argument is as old as music itself...every time a new technology comes along there are always people declaring that the sky is falling. Pipe organs, valves on trumpets, synthesizers, sequencers, AutoTune, you name it...after each was introduced, the same old doom and gloom predictions tend to get aired.
Specifically referencing Nick\'s Rare Instruments, there\'s no way that those samples could have come from anything except a session specifically designed for the purpose. The isolation and chromatic repetition of specific articulations, etc., simply wouldn\'t be available from a track lift.
Sample developers are not \"stealing\" anything. They pay the players to play and they record them. If they players want royalties, they should ask for them in the contract. Most likely this would reduce the money they get from the recording session considerably, and I suspect most of them would like the money up front.
There should always be a market for live players. I believe the majority of film composers (excluding Zimmer) use live players whenever they have the budget. There have been TV and commercial composers using crappy synthesizers for years, so they aren\'t paying players anyway. Most of the people using samples don\'t have the budget to go out and hire a real orchestra for every project.
[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 09-28-2001).]
This thread reminds me of the time, back in the \'80s, when the UK Musicians Union tried to ban synthesizers (?!). Their argument was that synths were going to lose their members (those that were session musicians) work. Of course it didn\'t.
Nothing, not even Gigastudio, can replace the sound of a great musician.
Why do people steal software? I know people that make 6 figure salaries who still think it is ok to make copies of software their friends have purchased so that they don\'t have to go out and buy it themselves.
People will steal anything that is easy to steal, especially if the odds of them getting caught is low.
Well done guys. So how about the developers paying the players royalties? (for a discussion see the \"Synth Sounds\" thread).
Anyone who \'steals\' someone else\'s work deserves stick for sure. I just hope that a lawyer somewhere realizes that this whole area of sampling is not so clear cut and the developers have a responsibility to protect more than just their own bank accounts.
This thread is just too much of a love fest. face up to your own \'intellectual property\' responsibilities and come clean on this.
Kudos to the first developer who offers royalties as a matter of course to the people who create the sounds in th first place (even more kudos to anyone who already does this - please let us know if you have).
Here\'s my $0.02 from thread so you don\'t even have to look it up:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Z6: Jeff makes a very cogent point. \'Perfect\' Pianos (or, as Jeff points out, even improved instruments) are just around the corner. There is no doubt in my mind that that\'s what we\'re doing.
But the piano is very mechanical. Anyone can \'play\' the piano for a sampling session (more or less). But take Nick\'s recent post. He\'s dancing around, jumping for joy. He\'s caught someone \'stealing\' his work.
For my money his \'Rare Instruments\' is the best library I\'ve ever heard.
But he\'s not only stolen the \'sounds\' he\'s stolen the players (stealing souls?). Do these guys really know what they\'re doing when they plonk themselves down for a session? Will they make the connection when the work dries up in a couple of years when they stop getting calls?
There are a lot of real moral issues here. The whole \'Giga\' paradigm has put a lot of livelihoods in real peril. Sure, a real Bagpipe player might be better than the samples (but maybe not), but who can be arsed when you can pop in a CD?
I\'m glad that Nick has found a way to protect his work, but does a few days sampling followed by a few weeks programming deserve this kind of protection? What about thirty years of practise? I believe that the people who are sampled should (no, must!) be given royalties on every single CD sold.
It would be nice to see some of the developers here get involved in appropriate re-embursement before they go singing and dancing all over the place when they catch a \'pirate\'. I\'m allowed to use Nick\'s work because I paid for it, but I\'d feel a whole lot better if I knew that some of it was going to the person who actually played the instrument.
It seems analogous to the British Empire raping countries for their natural wealth because those countries don\'t know that certain commodities even have value (and who can turn down a paying session?).
Anyway please guys (developers) get your hands into your pockets before you start dancing, because you\'re dancing on the grave of raw musical currency (and it makes me barf, to boot).
But back to the point: Any good synth sounds out there? (thanks for the posts so far - especially the demos - very nice indeed.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Flame on.
[This message has been edited by Z6 (edited 09-28-2001).]
tokyo joe said: Nothing, not even Gigastudio, can replace the sound of a great musician.
Tokyo makes a good point. Let\'s compare apples to apples! The Sample Library is not replacing the musician...the samples are replacing the instrument. Similar to the guitar student that lets his Les Paul collect dust in the closet, there is no direct relationship between purchasing a sample library and successfully rendering a musical composition. The samples still have to be played with practiced technique, emotional care, and intelligence in order to create a personal musical statement.
Royalties are not paid to the instrument manufacturer (sample developer) because there is no guarantee that the performer (composer) will be able to create anything worthwhile from them.
In other words, the intent of the original musician who recorded the sample was to create a worthy instrument, not to win a Grammy.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jamieh: I believe the majority of film composers (excluding Zimmer) use live players whenever they have the budget.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Zimmer most definitely uses live players on his orchestral scores according to Jeff Rona who works with him at Mediaventures.
I asked Jeff about \"Gladiator\" and he said a VERY large orchestra was obviously used.
I think the only movie Zimmer did entirely with samplers that was orchestral was \"Driving Miss Daisy\".
He does add samples on top of orchestral cues however.
Wouldn\'t it be great if we could hear Zimmers mock-ups? Hell, wouldn\'t it be great if we could hear Elfmans as well?
Damon, I only meant that Zimmer doesn\'t exclusively orchestra members and sometimes prominently features the samplers, such as the horn parts in Crimson Tide.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks