I agree, aNYthing - it is just a matter of where each individual draws the line.

It goes all the way down to building your own synth using chips/circuits you've handbuilt from minerals you've dug out of the ground yourself.

And it goes all the way up to having someone else create all your music for you, and having a different (good-looking) person get up and dj and call themselves you. That way your name is worshipped around the world, but you get the added benefit of being able to walk around totally incognito!

Actually, the internet allows people to be whoever they want to be. I'm sure people would have similar conversations about people hiring cheap labour to play world of warcraft for them and build up their characters for them, so they can strut around and say "look at how big and powerful I am".

quote:

Originally posted by aNYthing some presets can be used as is, just hold one note down, hit some sampled drums, sampled 303, add sidechained "KSSSSSHHHHHHHHH" "SH" "SH" "SH" "SH" and you got yourself a Dubfire track... all a matter of perspective. u wanna be purist? be purist then, be a musical equivalent of "vegan"....

As you said, its all about perspective. I got mine you got yours, I still think its a little different to use sampels and presets to make a song than buying one and put your name on it.

Its not that I care as much about this topic as for the innocent animals I stuff my burgers with, but I seriously think it would be better for producers in the long run to take another route.

quote:

Originally posted by fuxzz I seriously think it would be better for producers in the long run to take another route.

If they're creating copyrightable material, I'd agree. But if they're producing something like progressive trance, then they're signing away something which they have no claim over anyway - sure, they could claim that specific "recording" of the material. But they can't claim copyright over the chord progressions used, the arpeggio patterns used, the rhythmic patterns used, and so on. They're not signing away anything meaningful, and they're making much better money than the vast majority of artists/producers.

Though yes, it would be nice to have those production credits on your resume when you then decide to promote your own material. Maybe at that point you could ask the dj whether they'd like to bring out some releases where both of you are mentioned as the artists, before going it alone.

quote:

Originally posted by derail If they're creating copyrightable material, I'd agree. But if they're producing something like progressive trance, then they're signing away something which they have no claim over anyway - sure, they could claim that specific "recording" of the material. But they can't claim copyright over the chord progressions used, the arpeggio patterns used, the rhythmic patterns used, and so on. They're not signing away anything meaningful, and they're making much better money than the vast majority of artists/producers.

Im not sure I follow you here. What do you mean with that they sign away something they have no claim over?

quote:

Originally posted by fuxzz Im not sure I follow you here. What do you mean with that they sign away something they have no claim over?

They do have a claim over that specific "recording". But another producer can use exactly the same chord progression, the same arpeggios/rhythms, using very similar sounds, and release it as a new song. The "original artist" would have no claim on the material, in terms of saying "you copied my song, stop selling your song which sounds very similar to mine".

If you create an original melody however, you do have a claim on that. If people want to cover/remix it, they'll need your permission.

Business is Business.

500 shekels

quote:

Originally posted by derail They do have a claim over that specific "recording". But another producer can use exactly the same chord progression, the same arpeggios/rhythms, using very similar sounds, and release it as a new song. The "original artist" would have no claim on the material, in terms of saying "you copied my song, stop selling your song which sounds very similar to mine". If you create an original melody however, you do have a claim on that. If people want to cover/remix it, they'll need your permission.

Ok, maybe your right with that, don´t know how often things like that happens but I hope I will be lucky enough to avoid that.

OOPS! - Yes business is business,but music don't have to be business

quote:

Originally posted by aNYthing pop music is ALL ABOUT THAT. You don't really think that Lady Gaga actually writes/produces her own material? What about that boywhore wonder Justin Beaver?

that has little to do with ghost writing as their writers are generally always credited, as well as receiving publishing royalties on the back end.

quote:

Originally posted by fuxzz Ok, maybe your right with that, don´t know how often things like that happens but I hope I will be lucky enough to avoid that. OOPS! - Yes business is business,but music don't have to be business

Nah man, music always turns into business eventually. That is if you wish to do it for a living. It's fun when you first start and it still totally is to some extent, but in the end it turns into a job whether you like it or not.