OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
"cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.

The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
preferences?

eric

"eric" wrote in message
...
OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
"cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.

You'd probably have no problems with using a cover. It's not for profit or
performance and is clearly for teaching. However, I'm not a lawyer.

The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
preferences?

I'd like to see:
Drums
Percussion
Lead guitar
Rhythm guitar
Acoustic guitar
Bass
Keyboards
Some horns/sax if you got 'em
Lead vocals
Couple of backing vocals, preferably in harmony to one another and the lead
(like the Beatles did)

If it had that, I don't think I'd care too much about the genre. It would be
a blast messing around with good quality recordings.

Jim Carr wrote:

"eric" wrote in message
...

OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
"cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.


You'd probably have no problems with using a cover. It's not for profit or
performance and is clearly for teaching. However, I'm not a lawyer.


I am no lawyer either, but I will be selling these discs. So, I am
pretty certain I would have to pay a royalty of some sort for this.
Given the limited run and distribution, I am sure it would be fairly
minimal. But, it would be more hoops to jump through to get this project
rolling.

eric

eric wrote:

The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
preferences?

Pick a band with some versatilty and record a variety of genres,
instrumentation and styles -- ballads to rockers. Not only will this be the
most useful, it has the broadest potential appeal.

Tim

I would strongly suggest doing oricinal material. Using copyrighted
material at this point with the RIAA in an uproar could lead to all kinds of
headaches, including injunctions and lawsuits. Believe me, getting license
to use copyrighted material requires quite a bit of hassle and expense and I
just don't think it would be worth it.
Another very good reason for using original material is that the mixer
would not have heard it before and would have no subconcious preconceived
notion of how it should sound, which would be a good thing.
As to genre, straight ahead rock and roll might not present enough of a
challenge, since mixing it is pretty straightforward. I'm not trying to
offend anyone, but I think the music should be a little more open to
different interpretations, perhaps a pop tune with a bit of convolution, to
both present a challenge to the mixer and to give the mixer a chance at
being a producer as well. Even including a few extra alternate tracks
wouldn't be out of line, as it would give the mixer an opportunity to do
some cutting, pasting aznd splicing. If this is to be for educational
purposes, something like this would give even the more advanced person a
chance to stretch out a bit.
The basic tracks would give the novice mixer a chance to learn basic
mixing and the extra alternate tracks would give the more advanced person a
shot at doing some advanced production. I would suggest a 16 to 20 track
"basic" mix with about four alternate tracks, which could be anything from
alternate bass lines tt alternate vocal tracks, to lead instruments to
alternate drums. Using cut, paste and splice techniques the mixer would have
literally hundreds of variations on the original song.
It would take some time, but I think a really well recorded multitrack
song that had appeal and originality with some good alternate tracks that
would give the chance for a lot of variation in the final mix, would be
easily worth $50 or more for the multitrack, and since this would involve a
lot of time and effort, I see no reason why the person doing it shouldn't
make a bit of profit from it
If this group is going to be the evaluators and critics of the mixes, I
would suggest that members who contribute their advice and constructive
criticism be given the opportunity to purchace the multitrack at a healthy
discount.
I still think a more simple multitrack posted free for folks to download
and play with would be worthwhile though.
"eric" wrote in message
...
OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
"cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.

The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
preferences?

eric

In article , erick21
@merr.com says...
OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger ...
The main question I have now: What style of music ...


gospel might be an avenue that would circumvent any legal issues.

tferrell wrote:
eric wrote:


The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
preferences?


Pick a band with some versatilty and record a variety of genres,
instrumentation and styles -- ballads to rockers. Not only will this be the
most useful, it has the broadest potential appeal.

Tim


Remember, this first release is going to be a CD, with one full song on
it. It will only be possible to put one song's worth of multi-track
material on a single CD.

I may consider a DVD release with more material in the future.

eric

The problem is that you can only get one multitrack song per CD, and the
recording time involved if you're going to do it right would make it
prohibitive to do a bunch of material unless the market was there to make it
at least pay for itself.
See my previous post in this thread, if a multitrack done as I suggested
sold well, then folks might want to put forth the effort to make a little
money.
If there is someone or some group who has the time and wants to post
basic multitrack recordings for free download, I'm all for it. The songs
need not be very complicated as long as the recordings are well done, with
low noise and no clipping. The songs could represent whatever genre you're
interested in. I might even be tempted to post one or two myself, when I get
time.


"tferrell" wrote in message
...
eric wrote:

The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
preferences?

Pick a band with some versatilty and record a variety of genres,
instrumentation and styles -- ballads to rockers. Not only will this be
the
most useful, it has the broadest potential appeal.

Tim

"Eric" wrote in message
...

You'd probably have no problems with using a cover. It's not for profit
or
performance and is clearly for teaching. However, I'm not a lawyer.


I am no lawyer either, but I will be selling these discs. So, I am
pretty certain I would have to pay a royalty of some sort for this.
Given the limited run and distribution, I am sure it would be fairly
minimal. But, it would be more hoops to jump through to get this project
rolling.

Oops.

I think you can get a compulsory mechanical license for about $42.50 (8.5
cents per song with a 500 copy minimum) so long as you don't do a wacky
cover. In other words if the song sounds substantially the same, you're
fine. If you decide to do a Reggae version of "Angel in the Morning" like
Shaggy did, you would probably have to negotiate the rate for such a
derivative work.

You can do it online at
http://www.musicbootcamp.com/cover_t...arry_fox.shtml. It shouldn't be
much effort since it's pretty routine.

Since you're producing a multrack and have no control over what folks do
with it, or to it, I absolutely would NOT recommend using a cover song.
Remember, if you provide the source material you have a definite legal
liability. Stick with original material and copyright it yourself to keep
someone else from trying to say you stole it from them, and to prevent
someone else from doing a commercial release of their mix of your song
without you getting your share.
Since it's in digital format, I'd suggest using a sealed package with a
software-style "open this package and you're bound by this license" type
license. Courts have consistently upheld this as a valid type of license
agreement with software, and I see no reason it wouldn't work for sigital
audio as well. I really see nothing wrong with someone doing a commrcial
release as long as they're bound to get your advance permission and give you
your share of the proceeds. The license agreement should include this as
well as covering any other rights which you wish to retain.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:G9d2c.9029$506.2468@fed1read05...
"Eric" wrote in message
...

You'd probably have no problems with using a cover. It's not for
profit
or
performance and is clearly for teaching. However, I'm not a lawyer.


I am no lawyer either, but I will be selling these discs. So, I am
pretty certain I would have to pay a royalty of some sort for this.
Given the limited run and distribution, I am sure it would be fairly
minimal. But, it would be more hoops to jump through to get this project
rolling.

Oops.

I think you can get a compulsory mechanical license for about $42.50 (8.5
cents per song with a 500 copy minimum) so long as you don't do a wacky
cover. In other words if the song sounds substantially the same, you're
fine. If you decide to do a Reggae version of "Angel in the Morning" like
Shaggy did, you would probably have to negotiate the rate for such a
derivative work.

You can do it online at
http://www.musicbootcamp.com/cover_t...arry_fox.shtml. It shouldn't be
much effort since it's pretty routine.

Einstein wrote:
Another very good reason for using original material is that the mixer
would not have heard it before and would have no subconcious preconceived
notion of how it should sound, which would be a good thing.

Very good idea.

As to genre, straight ahead rock and roll might not present enough of a
challenge, since mixing it is pretty straightforward. I'm not trying to
offend anyone, but I think the music should be a little more open to
different interpretations, perhaps a pop tune with a bit of convolution, to
both present a challenge to the mixer and to give the mixer a chance at
being a producer as well. Even including a few extra alternate tracks
wouldn't be out of line, as it would give the mixer an opportunity to do
some cutting, pasting aznd splicing. If this is to be for educational
purposes, something like this would give even the more advanced person a
chance to stretch out a bit.

Another good one, as are the rest except for the free posted
one. I'd like to provide someone, Eric in particular, with
a profit motive to help ensure it is tracked right (and
also, I'm on dialup.) :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
Einstein wrote:
Another very good reason for using original material is that the
mixer
would not have heard it before and would have no subconcious
preconceived
notion of how it should sound, which would be a good thing.

Very good idea.

Or not. It depends on where you are. Speaking for myself, I'm still trying
to learn how to get to a sound I want. When learning guitar, most of us
start out with straight-up, note-for-note imitation. After you learn that,
you start going for your own sound. Granted, some just have the gift, but
some of us have to work really hard to be average. :-) I'd rather know the
picture for the puzzle before I start assembling the pieces.

I'm thinking (off the top of my head) something like Pure Prairie League's
"Amie" which has some acoustic and electric and lots of vocals. If I could
learn to achieve *that* sound, I'd probably learn a lot. Once I get it, I
can mess around with it. Having some extra tracks with variations would be a
big plus. I'm not pitching that song as much as the idea.

"Einstein" wrote in message
news
Since you're producing a multrack and have no control over what folks
do
with it, or to it, I absolutely would NOT recommend using a cover song.
Remember, if you provide the source material you have a definite legal
liability.

How so? How is it much different than buying a regular CD? The only
difference is you have two tracks on your typical CD instead of multiple
tracks. You have no liability over what someone does with it after that. The
rights to a cover are pretty standard. You get permission and pay the
royalties. You release it. People buy it. If they choose to remix it on
their own for their own use, that's perfectly legal. Changing the EQ and
using the DSP settings on your stereo are fundamentally no different than
using DirectX plugins in your mixing software.

In order to release a mix, we would need the permission of the copyright
holder for the original song *plus* permission to use the actual recorded
material. You are granted an immediate copyright the minute you record it.
Your rights are already in place. There are some formalities before you can
bring a lawsuit if it ever comes to that.

I don't see any liability for what someone does with his perfectly legal
release.

someone else from doing a commercial release of their mix of your song
without you getting your share.

You have that issue whether it's original or a cover. You're already
protected. You have *much* more risk with an original. The artist has the
right to grant or *not* grant a mechanical license for the *first* release
of a song. As soon as its released, then you fall into the area of
compulsory mechanical licenses. Anybody could then cover it and pay the 8.5
cents per song.

In other words, if he releases an original, he just exercised is right of
first publication. After that he *loses* some control. I could conceivably
do my *own* version (but not with his recordings) and release it. If it
became a hit, he would only get limited royalties.

Einstein wrote:

The problem is that you can only get one multitrack song per CD,

I think you might be able to get two. 24 tracks is 12 stereo wavs, say 3
minutes per song is 36 minutes worth of a CD. Should be able to get two of
those on a standard CD.

Ian

"mlf" wrote in message
.. .
In article , erick21
@merr.com says...
OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger ...
The main question I have now: What style of music ...


gospel might be an avenue that would circumvent any legal issues.

....and also put everyone to sleep, :-) then there is the religion issue. I
think it should be kept secular.

eric wrote:

OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
"cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.

It was because of the licensing concerns involved that I expressed the
willingness to part with a few extra USD's compared to the price range
suggested by other people, and even then if a "cover" is used, then it
may require rights donation from whomever owns them to be usable.

The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
preferences?

Rock, Country, Funk OK, concert grand - or petite - assumed included,
but to be representative please add violin, viola and cello (x), modify
genre to suit. Big Band and Jazz will imo be atypical as will classical,
but something Sir Martin'esque will make sense as being representative
of a studio venture. Just my DKK 0.25 ...

(x) nearby music school may be ok for hunting grounds, they may want the
learning experience of it, but pros may be cheaper in terms of studio
time consumed.

eric


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Eric wrote:

I am no lawyer either, but I will be selling these discs. So,
I am pretty certain I would have to pay a royalty of some sort
for this.

There are droit morale concerns, a specific license to do it is in my
unskilled far-away assesment required.

Given the limited run and distribution, I am sure it would
be fairly minimal. But, it would be more hoops to jump through
to get this project rolling.

Given the educational scope it is fully possible that a free, or
rebate-prices, license to use copyrighted material may be obtainable,
but better safe than sorry.

eric


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:29:28 -0600, "Einstein"
wrote:

I would strongly suggest doing oricinal material. Using copyrighted
material at this point with the RIAA in an uproar could lead to all kinds of
headaches, including injunctions and lawsuits.

The RIAA wouldn't be a problem since this would be an original
recording.

Believe me, getting license
to use copyrighted material requires quite a bit of hassle and expense and I
just don't think it would be worth it.

Getting a license to use somebody else's recorded performance of a
work can be a big hassle, but that's not what's being suggested here.

Having said that, my suggestion would be to use an original
composition. The trick there would be getting something that's both
good enough that people will want it, and affordable enough to be
practical. If the person(s) creating the recording can compose
something suitable, that's simple enough, and everything stays
in-house, so to speak. If a third party writes the song, then you've
got to negotiate how they'll be paid, i.e. do they receive royalties,
is it a work-for-hire, etc.

Eric wrote:

Remember, this first release is going to be a CD, with one full song on
it. It will only be possible to put one song's worth of multi-track
material on a single CD.

I may consider a DVD release with more material in the future.

My bad. My vote then would be original material. straight ahead rock and roll,
drums, elec. guitar, bass, keys, lead vox, and background vox. And something
fairly straight ahead on the lead vox...not something extremely affected.

I think the real potential here is in setting up an environment to give good
feedback/criticism of the final mixes. That's what I most need and what I would
find most appealing.

Tim

In article writes:

Having said that, my suggestion would be to use an original
composition. The trick there would be getting something that's both
good enough that people will want it, and affordable enough to be
practical. If the person(s) creating the recording can compose
something suitable, that's simple enough, and everything stays
in-house, so to speak.

That's the way to do it. Let the band who's playing consider it to be
a demo. Record them for free, give them the demo, offer them a couple
of bucks for each (unmixed) CD you sell, and have them release you
from any royalty payments. Be sure that they file the copyright
registration of the (original) song and publish it (just make up the
name of a publishing company if they don't alread have one) so if
anyone likes it enough to record it himself, they can collect
royalties.

Make it like a real world recording, not a world class recording.
After all, it's for learning how to mix and solve the problems that
can be encountered in mixing. You might even want to plan it so that
you don't use all 24 tracks for music, and fill some of them with
alternate mics on particular instruments such as acoustic guitars, or
kick drum, or have an electric bass with a direct and amp+mic track.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article , erick21
@merr.com says...
OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
"cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.

Couldn't you use a public domain tune as your source material? I think
that a tune like Amazing Grace (for example) could be adapted to nearly
any style.

Here is a site with information on public domain tunes.
http://www.pdinfo.com/

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/Top_50_Films.html - favorite films
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s.html - alt.music.home-studio

Well, in the first place you are selling the multitrack copy for the
express purpose of allowing other people to remix it in any way they choose,
and therefore you have no control over what they do with the song. I believe
this is not covered under the standard license you would normally purchase
to do a cover because the standard license only covers selling a finished
product for the sole purpose of the buyer listening enjoyment, it would
require a special license which would be a major pain and simply not worth
the effort to get. Uploading a mix to somewhere the members of the group
could listen to it for evaluation purposes would be considered as publishing
the song under the DMCA and would be a violation of a standard license
agreement, so providing a multitrack copy for that purpose would also be a
violation of the DMCA. Believe me it would be MUCH simpler to use original
material, and original material would be better for this purpose anyway,
since there would be no preconceived notions as to how the final mix should
sound.
I have a good friend who is an attorney and also a musician, and I asked
him about it, he said go original because it will probably come back to bite
you on the butt if you don't, and I'll take his word for it.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:G5f2c.9051$506.2352@fed1read05...

"Einstein" wrote in message
news
Since you're producing a multrack and have no control over what folks
do
with it, or to it, I absolutely would NOT recommend using a cover song.
Remember, if you provide the source material you have a definite legal
liability.

How so? How is it much different than buying a regular CD? The only
difference is you have two tracks on your typical CD instead of multiple
tracks. You have no liability over what someone does with it after that.
The
rights to a cover are pretty standard. You get permission and pay the
royalties. You release it. People buy it. If they choose to remix it on
their own for their own use, that's perfectly legal. Changing the EQ and
using the DSP settings on your stereo are fundamentally no different than
using DirectX plugins in your mixing software.

In order to release a mix, we would need the permission of the copyright
holder for the original song *plus* permission to use the actual recorded
material. You are granted an immediate copyright the minute you record it.
Your rights are already in place. There are some formalities before you
can
bring a lawsuit if it ever comes to that.

I don't see any liability for what someone does with his perfectly legal
release.

someone else from doing a commercial release of their mix of your song
without you getting your share.

You have that issue whether it's original or a cover. You're already
protected. You have *much* more risk with an original. The artist has the
right to grant or *not* grant a mechanical license for the *first* release
of a song. As soon as its released, then you fall into the area of
compulsory mechanical licenses. Anybody could then cover it and pay the
8.5
cents per song.

In other words, if he releases an original, he just exercised is right of
first publication. After that he *loses* some control. I could conceivably
do my *own* version (but not with his recordings) and release it. If it
became a hit, he would only get limited royalties.

Eliminate all license concerns and go with original material. For the
life of me, I cannot see why anyone would want to work with cover songs
anyway. It seems to me that using covers would defeat about 90% of the
purpose of such an exersize anyway, since anyone doing a mix would already
have heard the original release and thus would be subconciously predjudiced.
The whole idea of providing a multitrack is so that the person can start
fresh and do a fully original mix. In fact, when the mixes are uploaded so
that members of this group can evaluate them, I would recommend that anyone
who is planning on doing a mix should not listen to what others have done
until he has finished his own mix.

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Eric wrote:

I am no lawyer either, but I will be selling these discs. So,
I am pretty certain I would have to pay a royalty of some sort
for this.

There are droit morale concerns, a specific license to do it is in my
unskilled far-away assesment required.

Given the limited run and distribution, I am sure it would
be fairly minimal. But, it would be more hoops to jump through
to get this project rolling.

Given the educational scope it is fully possible that a free, or
rebate-prices, license to use copyrighted material may be obtainable,
but better safe than sorry.

eric


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

You have a mistaken notion about mixing, it is not like learning to play
guitar, and there are no "note for note licks in mixing". In any event, even
with guitar, playing the riff note for note won't make you sound like the
record unless you're using the same effects, tone settings, etc. as the
original guitarist was using on the recording. If you want to copy a certain
sound, like Pure Prairie League's "Amie", then you have to learn to listen
to each individual instrument and each vocal part, figure out exactly what
EQ settings were used and exactly what effects were used, and then apply
that knowledge to your own original material. It won't help you one bit to
have a multitrack of "Amie" as you really won't learn a darn thing about
applying what you've learned to your own material, and it will actually hurt
you because you'll just be copying, you won't be creating. You have to learn
to focus on each component of a mix, isolate it in your mind and figure out
exactly what the engineer did to get that particular sound, then you have a
basis for doing a mix like that yourself. As an example, you'd need to be
able to figure out that Vince Gill used a Telecaster for the electric lead
and rythmn, that he played through a Fender Super Reverb amp in the studio
when recording it, and that he used a Martin D-28 for the acoustic parts,
and that the strummed acoustic guitar was probably mic'ed with a large
diaphram condenser mic (probably a Neuman) at about a foot away off axis of
the sound hole and behind and a bit below the bridge, with EQ boost at 300Hz
and at 8KHz and the mids cut back and quite a bit of compression, and that
the acoustic lead was mic'ed at about a foot directly over the sound hole
with a bit less treble boost, less mid cut and less compression than the
rythmn. The vocals used moderate compression and a very mild boost at around
3KHz for presence and had a very light neutral reverb added. Did I get all
this from listening to the song? mostly, but not entirely. For example, I'm
not certain that the acoustic guitar was a Martin D-28, but I'd bet that it
was a Martin, and I know that he owned a D-28 at that time. I also know that
the electric guitar was definitely a Tele, because there aren't many
electrics that are capable of that particular sound and I know that Vince
owns and plays a Tele most of the time, I also know from listening that the
amp was either a Twin Reverb or a Super Reverb and I know that Vince uses a
Super Reverb and prefers it's sound over the Twin. As for the mic technique
and EQ, that comes from experience in the studio and knowing what technique
and EQ gets that sound. You need to practice listening and tuning in to each
instrument and vocal part until you can isolate it and figure out what is
being done in the mix to make it sound that way, and do research on the web,
there is a lot of stuff about studio technique and even about particular
songs and the way they were recorded if you look for it. Check this one out,
it's about how the Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar" was recorded at Muscle
Shoals Sound Studio:
http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording...s3/sugar.shtml
I do agree that something like "Amie" with a mix of acoustic and electric
guitars and lots of vocals and harmony might be a very good multitrack to
work with, because a song like that would contain elements of country, pop,
rock and bluegrass all in one song. But, and this is a very big but, it
should be totally original, the only resemblence should be that it contain
acoustic and electric guitars and have elements of rock, pop country and
bluegrass in it. In other words it should sound like something that Pure
Prairie League might have done if someone had given them the original song
to work with, is should NOT sound like something that Pure Prairie League
did do! A song like that would be a challenge to mix well.
Mixing is an art unto itself and I know some very good mixers who can not
play a note on any instrument nor can they sing a note on key. What they do
know how to do is listen and translate what they hear into what they want to
hear.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
newsUe2c.9048$506.2110@fed1read05...
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
Einstein wrote:
Another very good reason for using original material is that the
mixer
would not have heard it before and would have no subconcious
preconceived
notion of how it should sound, which would be a good thing.

Very good idea.

Or not. It depends on where you are. Speaking for myself, I'm still trying
to learn how to get to a sound I want. When learning guitar, most of us
start out with straight-up, note-for-note imitation. After you learn that,
you start going for your own sound. Granted, some just have the gift, but
some of us have to work really hard to be average. :-) I'd rather know the
picture for the puzzle before I start assembling the pieces.

I'm thinking (off the top of my head) something like Pure Prairie League's
"Amie" which has some acoustic and electric and lots of vocals. If I could
learn to achieve *that* sound, I'd probably learn a lot. Once I get it, I
can mess around with it. Having some extra tracks with variations would be
a
big plus. I'm not pitching that song as much as the idea.

Public domain songs have the same problem as cover songs, if you've ever
heard the song than you have preconceived notions as to its sound and
therefore an unconscious predjudice regarding your treatment of it. If you
really want to learn as much as possible form the experience, it should be a
song you've never heard in final mix before, period!

"killermike" wrote in message
...
In article , erick21
@merr.com says...
OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
"cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.

Couldn't you use a public domain tune as your source material? I think
that a tune like Amazing Grace (for example) could be adapted to nearly
any style.

Here is a site with information on public domain tunes.
http://www.pdinfo.com/

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/Top_50_Films.html - favorite films
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s.html - alt.music.home-studio

"Einstein" wrote in message
.. .
As an example, you'd need to be
able to figure out that Vince Gill used a Telecaster for the electric lead
and rythmn, that he played through a Fender Super Reverb amp in the studio
when recording it, and that he used a Martin D-28 for the acoustic parts,
and that the strummed acoustic guitar was probably mic'ed with a large
diaphram condenser mic (probably a Neuman) at about a foot away off axis
of
the sound hole and behind and a bit below the bridge, with EQ boost at
300Hz
and at 8KHz and the mids cut back and quite a bit of compression, and that
the acoustic lead was mic'ed at about a foot directly over the sound hole
with a bit less treble boost, less mid cut and less compression than the
rythmn. The vocals used moderate compression and a very mild boost at
around
3KHz for presence and had a very light neutral reverb added. Did I get all
this from listening to the song? mostly, but not entirely. For example,
I'm
not certain that the acoustic guitar was a Martin D-28, but I'd bet that
it
was a Martin, and I know that he owned a D-28 at that time. I also know
that
the electric guitar was definitely a Tele, because there aren't many
electrics that are capable of that particular sound and I know that Vince
owns and plays a Tele most of the time, I also know from listening that
the
amp was either a Twin Reverb or a Super Reverb and I know that Vince uses
a
Super Reverb and prefers it's sound over the Twin.

Actually, Vince Gill didn't play at all on Amie. He wasn't in the band
until way
near their end.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

"Einstein" wrote in message
. ..
I have a good friend who is an attorney and also a musician, and I
asked
him about it, he said go original because it will probably come back to
bite
you on the butt if you don't, and I'll take his word for it.

Releasing it on CD is publishing it. Once you publish it, you risk losing
the control over cover versions. Present this to your lawyer friend and see
what he has to say:

http://www.wonderdisc.net/resources/...l_license.html

When do I need a mechanical license?
If you plan to include on your CD any compositions (songs) that were not
written by you, then you will need to obtain a mechanical license from that
song's copyright holder. This copyright holder may be a publishing company,
or an individual.

What is a mechanical license?
A mechanical license is an agreement between the owner of a song copyright
and a party distributing sound recordings of that song. The license spells
out how much the company distributing the sound recordings will pay to the
copyright holder for each copy sold, how often these payments will be made,
and other details.

What is a compulsory mechanical license?
After a song has been recorded and distributed the first time (with proper
permission from the copyright holder), that song is then available to be
recorded by anyone else who would like to record it. The owner of the song
copyright cannot prevent other recordings from being made as long as the new
user follows the laws governing the compulsory mechanical license.
Compulsory mechanical license terms are set by the copyright act and dictate
royalty rates, payment schedule, and more.

[This is my big concern about using original material. If you think you
might have a hit (remember, "mmm bop" made it big and it sucks), you *lose*
control over any of us recording our own versions.]

What a mechanical license is not.
A mechanical license is not permission to use someone's sound recording of a
composition. Use of sound recordings either partially (like sampling) or in
their entirety (for instance, in a compilation), requires a different kind
of license (usually called a Master Use license). Often the party holding
the copyright to a sound recording (a record label for instance) is not the
same party holding the copyright to the underlying composition (usually a
publishing company). If you need help licensing a sound recording, please
contact us and we will do our best to assist you.
For more info, download our complimentary Guide to Mechanical Licensing.

"Einstein" wrote in message
. ..
Public domain songs have the same problem as cover songs, if you've ever
heard the song than you have preconceived notions as to its sound and
therefore an unconscious predjudice regarding your treatment of it. If you
really want to learn as much as possible form the experience, it should be
a
song you've never heard in final mix before, period!

Your confidence in your position does not make it right. In fact your
arguments actually favor my position in some ways. The ultimate challenge in
being creative is to take something that was done one way and mix it to
sound totally different. You can still do that with a cover.

For me personally, I am still struggling trying to get a decent mix
together. Having a target sound in my head gives me someplace to go. My
metaphor about guitar playing still stands: For most of us we learn to
imitate before we learn to create. The techniques we learn during imitiation
are later applied towards our creative side.

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 12:29:48 -0700, "Jim Carr"
wrote:

Your confidence in your position does not make it right. In fact your
arguments actually favor my position in some ways. The ultimate challenge in
being creative is to take something that was done one way and mix it to
sound totally different. You can still do that with a cover.

Another useful challenge would be to take the raw tracks and mix them
to sound as close as possible to a reference mix.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 12:29:48 -0700, "Jim Carr"
wrote:

Your confidence in your position does not make it right. In fact your
arguments actually favor my position in some ways. The ultimate challenge
in
being creative is to take something that was done one way and mix it to
sound totally different. You can still do that with a cover.

Another useful challenge would be to take the raw tracks and mix them
to sound as close as possible to a reference mix.

Agreed. For me personally, I don't think I will be able to achieve "my
sound" until I figure out the techniques I need to use in order to create
someone else's sound. I don't even know what "my sound" is yet. Right now
I'm still trying to put together that sounds decent on my reference monitors
and *still* sounds decent on other systems. I would like to be able to
remove the recording quality from the equation, which is why I will gladly
pay $30 for a CD with a bunch of tracks I can play with.

I don't have to ask my lawyer friend about a mechanical license because
that was exactly what we were talking about. A mechanical license does give
you the right to record, perform and distribute a finished song for the for
the buyers to listen to. It does not give you the right to record and
distribute unfinished song for the purpose of allowing the buyer to modify
and redistribute it. There are special licenses that do allow for the
distribution of an unfinished song with missing tracks for purpose of
allowing the buyer to do the missing tracks themselves. A karaoke license is
an example. as are the old "Play Guitar With" and "Play Along With" series,
but none of these licenses allow one to record and distribute copies of the
song in any form, nor do they allow for modification of existing tracks on
the song. Distribution is the publishing of the song in any public medium,
and distribution, even distribution to a limited group of people over the
Internet is a violation of the license and of the law. I'm not even sure if
any copyright holder would be willing to provide a license of this type or
if a legal contract could be drawn up because it would have to bind people
that weren't parties to the contract to pay royalty fees for copies of the
mixes they distributed over the Net.
Once again, to me this is a moot point as I don't see what would be
gained by having a multitrack copy os a song everyone would probably already
heard and have preconceived notions about. You simply lose to much of the
potential for learning by doing this. If you want to go through the hassle
of getting a special license and recording and distributing a multitrack,
then by all means go ahead and try, but don't think a standard mechanical
license gives you the right to do this, because you will in all probability
wind up facing a lawsuit.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:RCK2c.10141$506.8501@fed1read05...
"Einstein" wrote in message
. ..
I have a good friend who is an attorney and also a musician, and I
asked
him about it, he said go original because it will probably come back to
bite
you on the butt if you don't, and I'll take his word for it.

Releasing it on CD is publishing it. Once you publish it, you risk losing
the control over cover versions. Present this to your lawyer friend and
see
what he has to say:

http://www.wonderdisc.net/resources/...l_license.html

When do I need a mechanical license?
If you plan to include on your CD any compositions (songs) that were not
written by you, then you will need to obtain a mechanical license from
that
song's copyright holder. This copyright holder may be a publishing
company,
or an individual.

What is a mechanical license?
A mechanical license is an agreement between the owner of a song copyright
and a party distributing sound recordings of that song. The license spells
out how much the company distributing the sound recordings will pay to the
copyright holder for each copy sold, how often these payments will be
made,
and other details.

What is a compulsory mechanical license?
After a song has been recorded and distributed the first time (with proper
permission from the copyright holder), that song is then available to be
recorded by anyone else who would like to record it. The owner of the song
copyright cannot prevent other recordings from being made as long as the
new
user follows the laws governing the compulsory mechanical license.
Compulsory mechanical license terms are set by the copyright act and
dictate
royalty rates, payment schedule, and more.

[This is my big concern about using original material. If you think you
might have a hit (remember, "mmm bop" made it big and it sucks), you
*lose*
control over any of us recording our own versions.]

What a mechanical license is not.
A mechanical license is not permission to use someone's sound recording of
a
composition. Use of sound recordings either partially (like sampling) or
in
their entirety (for instance, in a compilation), requires a different kind
of license (usually called a Master Use license). Often the party holding
the copyright to a sound recording (a record label for instance) is not
the
same party holding the copyright to the underlying composition (usually a
publishing company). If you need help licensing a sound recording, please
contact us and we will do our best to assist you.
For more info, download our complimentary Guide to Mechanical Licensing.

Ooops, I blew that one! I don't know what I was thinking, as I knew that
Vince wasn't the band when Aimee was recorded. Must have had an Alsheimer
moment :-) However I stand by my statements that the accoustic guitar was
probably a Martin, the electric guitar was a Tele played through a Fender
Super Reverb or Twin Reverb, and everything I said about mic technique and
EQ still stands as well.

"Hal Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Einstein" wrote in message
.. .
As an example, you'd need to be
able to figure out that Vince Gill used a Telecaster for the electric
lead
and rythmn, that he played through a Fender Super Reverb amp in the
studio
when recording it, and that he used a Martin D-28 for the acoustic
parts,
and that the strummed acoustic guitar was probably mic'ed with a large
diaphram condenser mic (probably a Neuman) at about a foot away off axis
of
the sound hole and behind and a bit below the bridge, with EQ boost at
300Hz
and at 8KHz and the mids cut back and quite a bit of compression, and
that
the acoustic lead was mic'ed at about a foot directly over the sound
hole
with a bit less treble boost, less mid cut and less compression than the
rythmn. The vocals used moderate compression and a very mild boost at
around
3KHz for presence and had a very light neutral reverb added. Did I get
all
this from listening to the song? mostly, but not entirely. For example,
I'm
not certain that the acoustic guitar was a Martin D-28, but I'd bet that
it
was a Martin, and I know that he owned a D-28 at that time. I also know
that
the electric guitar was definitely a Tele, because there aren't many
electrics that are capable of that particular sound and I know that
Vince
owns and plays a Tele most of the time, I also know from listening that
the
amp was either a Twin Reverb or a Super Reverb and I know that Vince
uses
a
Super Reverb and prefers it's sound over the Twin.

Actually, Vince Gill didn't play at all on Amie. He wasn't in the band
until way
near their end.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I didn't just form an
opinion, what I'm saying comes from many years experience at both live and
recording mixing, and from teaching others to do it as well. I've found that
when doing studio mixes, using material that the student was familiar with
simply didn't serve very well, the student learned more and faster when
working with unfamiliar material. Trying to copy a reference mix is an
absolutely meaningless concept unless and until the student has the
experience to listen and know exactly what EQ, effects, etc, is being used
in during the reference mix. It is useless for beginners, and has very
douibtful use as a training tool for the advanced student. The only place it
is useful is as a test that the teacher can use to see how good the
student's listening and analytical skills are. Since the people who would be
interested in buying a multitrack have varying experience, at this point we
want to provide a learning tool, not a test.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news9O2c.10504$506.9795@fed1read05...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 12:29:48 -0700, "Jim Carr"
wrote:

Your confidence in your position does not make it right. In fact your
arguments actually favor my position in some ways. The ultimate
challenge
in
being creative is to take something that was done one way and mix it to
sound totally different. You can still do that with a cover.

Another useful challenge would be to take the raw tracks and mix them
to sound as close as possible to a reference mix.

Agreed. For me personally, I don't think I will be able to achieve "my
sound" until I figure out the techniques I need to use in order to create
someone else's sound. I don't even know what "my sound" is yet. Right now
I'm still trying to put together that sounds decent on my reference
monitors
and *still* sounds decent on other systems. I would like to be able to
remove the recording quality from the equation, which is why I will gladly
pay $30 for a CD with a bunch of tracks I can play with.

"Einstein" wrote in message
. ..
It does not give you the right to record and
distribute unfinished song for the purpose of allowing the buyer to modify
and redistribute it.

I never said it did. Who said anything about redistribution? The guy is
simply planning to sell a song playable through multi-track mixing software
or require the listener to combine the WAVs into a single file to play it.
If the purchaser chooses to mess with the mix himself, he can. Of course he
can't redistribute it. That's already covered by copyright law. The
recording is covered and the original author of the song is covered. It's
the same issue whether it's a cover or original.

There are special licenses that do allow for the
distribution of an unfinished song with missing tracks for purpose of
allowing the buyer to do the missing tracks themselves. A karaoke license
is
an example. as are the old "Play Guitar With" and "Play Along With"
series,
but none of these licenses allow one to record and distribute copies of
the
song in any form, nor do they allow for modification of existing tracks on
the song.

Your second statement is simply wrong. If I pull up "She Loves You" by the
Beatles in my mixing software and start tweaking EQ, reverb, etcetera, I
have not violated *any* laws. I cannot distribute my efforts, but I can
certainly tweak it all I want in my basement. Explain to me how what I do
with his multiple tracks is any different than adjusting the bass and treble
controls on my car stereo. It's all a matter of degree.


Distribution is the publishing of the song in any public medium,
and distribution, even distribution to a limited group of people over the
Internet is a violation of the license and of the law. I'm not even sure
if
any copyright holder would be willing to provide a license of this type

What type? Instead of two-track stereo it is distributed on many tracks. I
can bring up a two-track in my mixing software just as easy as a 24 track.
Suppose it was just a Dylan song with a guitar and vocals. You could mix
your own version splitting the two sounds to the two tracks. Would that be
okay according to you? I see no difference.

Karaoke has a different license, that's for sure. One reason is that Karaoke
includes lyrics. By definition a mechanical license does *not* include the
right to publish the lyrics or musical notation. You need a reprint license
for that and a synchronization license if you intend distribute it with
graphics (how the lyrics are displayed). Karaoke licenses are not
automatically granted. Someone *might* be able to argue that what he's doing
would require a multimedia (karaoke) license, but I disagree.

If you cover a song but omit the vocals or guitar parts, you have obviously
altered the song to a large degree. Mechanical licenses are not
automatically extended when you significantly change the song. One could
argue that a vocal-less song becomes a derivative work. I doubt it, though,
because an instrumental version is not much different. You can get a
mechanical license for that. That said, I don't see his proposal falling
under Karaoke.

Nowhere can I find any information stating that a different license would be
required for a "play along with" release of a song. If you can educate me
with a link, I'd appreciate it.

if a legal contract could be drawn up because it would have to bind people
that weren't parties to the contract to pay royalty fees for copies of the
mixes they distributed over the Net.

Huh? If I distribute copies of Cocker's cover of "Feeling Alright" I'm
already in trouble. Cocker's publishing company isn't in trouble because of
what I did with Dave Mason's song. If I cover the song myself and pay the
license fees, I have no control or obligation to control what others do with
their copy. That's already handled by copyright law.

Once again, to me this is a moot point as I don't see what would be
gained by having a multitrack copy os a song everyone would probably
already
heard and have preconceived notions about.

You keep skipping the MOST important point. If he uses an original song and
that song has not been distributed before, it will now have been published.
At that point anybody else can cover it and only pay mechanical license
fees. It would really suck if some other band covered that song and had a
hit on their hands. It might also pose a problem if the band lands a record
contract because of that song and the record company finds out the song has
already been published. They could give the song to another band to record
and distribute that version instead. If the song were not already published,
the original band could prevent the record company from having another band
release the song. Since it's already out, tough noogies.

That, my friend, would cause me worry. Besides, *even* if it is an original,
he still needs to take care of the licensing as described above.

If you share the mix with this group or any other for evaluation
purposes, that is distribution, under the DMCA. If you just send a copy to a
friend, that is redistribution under the DMCA.
Since the whole point of doing this is making the mixes available to others
for evaluation, distribution is an implied purpose, and is therefore
illegal, under the DMCA as wall as normal copyright law. I've already
talked to an attorney who is familiar with music law, I'd suggest you do the
same.
Since I feel that doing covers is a waste of time, I'm not going to
persue this any further. I've made myself clear as to what I think, I've
gotten advice from a legal expert and I've provided that information here,
and see no need to discuss it any further. If you want to distribute a cover
multitrack, go get the necessary license and permissions and do so, but
don't advise someone else to do it just because you want a particular sound,
because you may be putting them in legal jeopardy if they take your advice.
No one is going to run into leagal problems or licensing expenses doing
original material.
I'll be glad to discuss any technical issues that pertain to recording or
mixing with you, but I'll make no more comments on the legal aspects. You're
not seeing the legal ramifications of this particular application, you don't
have the experience or legal training to advise anyone. I have dealt with
similar issues before, I'm familiar with the DMCA and while I don't have the
qualifications to give legal advice either I did go to an expert who did for
his opinion. In point of fact, by advising someone to use original material,
I'm not giving legal advice, by advising someone to use copyrighted material
and telling him that a standard mechanical license is sufficient, you are.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:BIU2c.11629$506.4435@fed1read05...
"Einstein" wrote in message
. ..
It does not give you the right to record and
distribute unfinished song for the purpose of allowing the buyer to
modify
and redistribute it.

I never said it did. Who said anything about redistribution? The guy is
simply planning to sell a song playable through multi-track mixing
software
or require the listener to combine the WAVs into a single file to play it.
If the purchaser chooses to mess with the mix himself, he can. Of course
he
can't redistribute it. That's already covered by copyright law. The
recording is covered and the original author of the song is covered. It's
the same issue whether it's a cover or original.

There are special licenses that do allow for the
distribution of an unfinished song with missing tracks for purpose of
allowing the buyer to do the missing tracks themselves. A karaoke
license
is
an example. as are the old "Play Guitar With" and "Play Along With"
series,
but none of these licenses allow one to record and distribute copies of
the
song in any form, nor do they allow for modification of existing tracks
on
the song.

Your second statement is simply wrong. If I pull up "She Loves You" by the
Beatles in my mixing software and start tweaking EQ, reverb, etcetera, I
have not violated *any* laws. I cannot distribute my efforts, but I can
certainly tweak it all I want in my basement. Explain to me how what I do
with his multiple tracks is any different than adjusting the bass and
treble
controls on my car stereo. It's all a matter of degree.


Distribution is the publishing of the song in any public medium,
and distribution, even distribution to a limited group of people over
the
Internet is a violation of the license and of the law. I'm not even sure
if
any copyright holder would be willing to provide a license of this type

What type? Instead of two-track stereo it is distributed on many tracks. I
can bring up a two-track in my mixing software just as easy as a 24 track.
Suppose it was just a Dylan song with a guitar and vocals. You could mix
your own version splitting the two sounds to the two tracks. Would that be
okay according to you? I see no difference.

Karaoke has a different license, that's for sure. One reason is that
Karaoke
includes lyrics. By definition a mechanical license does *not* include the
right to publish the lyrics or musical notation. You need a reprint
license
for that and a synchronization license if you intend distribute it with
graphics (how the lyrics are displayed). Karaoke licenses are not
automatically granted. Someone *might* be able to argue that what he's
doing
would require a multimedia (karaoke) license, but I disagree.

If you cover a song but omit the vocals or guitar parts, you have
obviously
altered the song to a large degree. Mechanical licenses are not
automatically extended when you significantly change the song. One could
argue that a vocal-less song becomes a derivative work. I doubt it,
though,
because an instrumental version is not much different. You can get a
mechanical license for that. That said, I don't see his proposal falling
under Karaoke.

Nowhere can I find any information stating that a different license would
be
required for a "play along with" release of a song. If you can educate me
with a link, I'd appreciate it.

if a legal contract could be drawn up because it would have to bind
people
that weren't parties to the contract to pay royalty fees for copies of
the
mixes they distributed over the Net.

Huh? If I distribute copies of Cocker's cover of "Feeling Alright" I'm
already in trouble. Cocker's publishing company isn't in trouble because
of
what I did with Dave Mason's song. If I cover the song myself and pay the
license fees, I have no control or obligation to control what others do
with
their copy. That's already handled by copyright law.

Once again, to me this is a moot point as I don't see what would be
gained by having a multitrack copy os a song everyone would probably
already
heard and have preconceived notions about.

You keep skipping the MOST important point. If he uses an original song
and
that song has not been distributed before, it will now have been
published.
At that point anybody else can cover it and only pay mechanical license
fees. It would really suck if some other band covered that song and had a
hit on their hands. It might also pose a problem if the band lands a
record
contract because of that song and the record company finds out the song
has
already been published. They could give the song to another band to record
and distribute that version instead. If the song were not already
published,
the original band could prevent the record company from having another
band
release the song. Since it's already out, tough noogies.

That, my friend, would cause me worry. Besides, *even* if it is an
original,
he still needs to take care of the licensing as described above.

eric wrote in message ...

The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
preferences?

eric

The style of music may be secondary here - but pop/country/rock could
include enough elements of diversity to be usefull. I'm thinking it should
comprise both vocals and instrumentals, with some acoustic tracks.

My suggestions:
1. Vocal - 3 part, male/female, lead and harmonies (3 tracks)
2. Rhythm section - not as critical for this purpose. maybe just a lined
bass and minimal drum such as stereo OH and combo snare/kick. (4 tracks)
3. Guitars - lead, rhythm, and acoustic. (3 tracks)
4. Keys - more variety again maybe stereo piano, organ, and synth. (4 tracks)
5. Other - Sax and harmonica ? (2 tracks)

This would give 16 tracks for those with somewhat limited resources, and
additional tracks up to 24 might add to drum miking and solo instruments as
horns, etc.

Just my $0.02

'RedDog' Steve Pompora
current project: Betty Jean and the Free Radicals

Einstein wrote:

snip
Since I feel that doing covers is a waste of time, I'm not going to
persue this any further. I've made myself clear as to what I think, I've
gotten advice from a legal expert and I've provided that information here,
and see no need to discuss it any further. If you want to distribute a cover
multitrack, go get the necessary license and permissions and do so, but
don't advise someone else to do it just because you want a particular sound,
because you may be putting them in legal jeopardy if they take your advice.
No one is going to run into leagal problems or licensing expenses doing
original material.

snip

I want to thank both Jim and Einstein for their input on the legal
aspects of this project. I appreciate your input and ideas. I just hope
you guys can still be friends after this.

I do want to say that I not planning on doing a cover version of any
song at this point. Partially due to the legal preparations and
ramifications, but mainly, I feel that a song that has never been heard
would be more useful at this point. I am not saying that I won't do one
in the future.

Jim Carr wrote:

You keep skipping the MOST important point. If he uses an original song and
that song has not been distributed before, it will now have been published.
At that point anybody else can cover it and only pay mechanical license
fees. It would really suck if some other band covered that song and had a
hit on their hands. It might also pose a problem if the band lands a record
contract because of that song and the record company finds out the song has
already been published. They could give the song to another band to record
and distribute that version instead. If the song were not already published,
the original band could prevent the record company from having another band
release the song. Since it's already out, tough noogies.

This is a logical argument. However, bands make this mistake all the
time. Almost every local band that I know of has a CD that they
distribute at shows. These CD's represent the first release. You could
use the same argument against the bands for distributing their own CD's.
Is that going to stop them? Absolutely not, they need to get their music
out into the public's hands.

Furthermore, if another band were to make a "hit" out of one of the
original band's songs, Fantastic. The one who holds the publishing
rights still wins. They will get their 8.5 cents (or whatever it is now)
per copy sold. As well as royalties for airplay. I am not going going to
be taking ownership of the band's song, they will retain that.

Thanks again for everyone's input on the legal aspects of this project.

eric

OK, so far it looks like I am going ahead with this. I have secured a
domain name and am setting up a forum. I have put out a call to the
local talent pool and have already gotten a few bites. The band and song
selection is going to be the big hurdle at this point.

The web site is where you will be able to purchase the CD. It will have
a forum for discussion, and i will also provide facilities to upload
your mix for evaluation and discussion.

At this point, I am considering only making the forum available to only
those who purchase the CD. This will hopefully help to minimize any
pirating of my efforts.

I will post the URL when the site get developed. Until then, please feel
free to post any thoughts, recommendations, etc. both in the groups, and
to me off the group.

eric

You CANNOT get a mechanical (or any other) license without the copyright
owner's permission. period!!!
'Nuff said!

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:BIU2c.11629$506.4435@fed1read05...
"Einstein" wrote in message
. ..
It does not give you the right to record and
distribute unfinished song for the purpose of allowing the buyer to
modify
and redistribute it.

I never said it did. Who said anything about redistribution? The guy is
simply planning to sell a song playable through multi-track mixing
software
or require the listener to combine the WAVs into a single file to play it.
If the purchaser chooses to mess with the mix himself, he can. Of course
he
can't redistribute it. That's already covered by copyright law. The
recording is covered and the original author of the song is covered. It's
the same issue whether it's a cover or original.

There are special licenses that do allow for the
distribution of an unfinished song with missing tracks for purpose of
allowing the buyer to do the missing tracks themselves. A karaoke
license
is
an example. as are the old "Play Guitar With" and "Play Along With"
series,
but none of these licenses allow one to record and distribute copies of
the
song in any form, nor do they allow for modification of existing tracks
on
the song.

Your second statement is simply wrong. If I pull up "She Loves You" by the
Beatles in my mixing software and start tweaking EQ, reverb, etcetera, I
have not violated *any* laws. I cannot distribute my efforts, but I can
certainly tweak it all I want in my basement. Explain to me how what I do
with his multiple tracks is any different than adjusting the bass and
treble
controls on my car stereo. It's all a matter of degree.


Distribution is the publishing of the song in any public medium,
and distribution, even distribution to a limited group of people over
the
Internet is a violation of the license and of the law. I'm not even sure
if
any copyright holder would be willing to provide a license of this type

What type? Instead of two-track stereo it is distributed on many tracks. I
can bring up a two-track in my mixing software just as easy as a 24 track.
Suppose it was just a Dylan song with a guitar and vocals. You could mix
your own version splitting the two sounds to the two tracks. Would that be
okay according to you? I see no difference.

Karaoke has a different license, that's for sure. One reason is that
Karaoke
includes lyrics. By definition a mechanical license does *not* include the
right to publish the lyrics or musical notation. You need a reprint
license
for that and a synchronization license if you intend distribute it with
graphics (how the lyrics are displayed). Karaoke licenses are not
automatically granted. Someone *might* be able to argue that what he's
doing
would require a multimedia (karaoke) license, but I disagree.

If you cover a song but omit the vocals or guitar parts, you have
obviously
altered the song to a large degree. Mechanical licenses are not
automatically extended when you significantly change the song. One could
argue that a vocal-less song becomes a derivative work. I doubt it,
though,
because an instrumental version is not much different. You can get a
mechanical license for that. That said, I don't see his proposal falling
under Karaoke.

Nowhere can I find any information stating that a different license would
be
required for a "play along with" release of a song. If you can educate me
with a link, I'd appreciate it.

if a legal contract could be drawn up because it would have to bind
people
that weren't parties to the contract to pay royalty fees for copies of
the
mixes they distributed over the Net.

Huh? If I distribute copies of Cocker's cover of "Feeling Alright" I'm
already in trouble. Cocker's publishing company isn't in trouble because
of
what I did with Dave Mason's song. If I cover the song myself and pay the
license fees, I have no control or obligation to control what others do
with
their copy. That's already handled by copyright law.

Once again, to me this is a moot point as I don't see what would be
gained by having a multitrack copy os a song everyone would probably
already
heard and have preconceived notions about.

You keep skipping the MOST important point. If he uses an original song
and
that song has not been distributed before, it will now have been
published.
At that point anybody else can cover it and only pay mechanical license
fees. It would really suck if some other band covered that song and had a
hit on their hands. It might also pose a problem if the band lands a
record
contract because of that song and the record company finds out the song
has
already been published. They could give the song to another band to record
and distribute that version instead. If the song were not already
published,
the original band could prevent the record company from having another
band
release the song. Since it's already out, tough noogies.

That, my friend, would cause me worry. Besides, *even* if it is an
original,
he still needs to take care of the licensing as described above.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 22:05:06 -0600, "Einstein"
wrote:

You CANNOT get a mechanical (or any other) license without the copyright
owner's permission. period!!!
'Nuff said!

This probably should be true. But it isn't. See:
http://www.harryfox.com/mechanical.html

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect