Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: Johnny Mac on September 03, 2008, 11:23:37 PM
-
Did anyone read the article in last months Guitarist about record companys releasing their old master tapes?
The idea is to remove the guitars from master tapes and post them on to a site in mp3 for us to download, for a price. It's an idea the record companys are considering to get more money in. Sounds like a great idea and would probably be good for vocals and other instruments too.
-
I'd be a definite customer. It'd be amazing.
-
Yeah it does sound amazing doesn't it!
I do own the Tascam Guitar trainer but they never get the whole of the guitar removed form the track by just honing in on the EQ frequencys and the whole thing gets muffled and cr@ppy sounding, so something like this just gets me very fired up to have a real crack at something good!
-
I think that sounds terrible. I wish every label would fall into the sea this instant. They only serve their own self interest.
Yet another way for labels to get one over on the original artists who cannot get a royalty on a performance they are cut out of!
I call BS on that.
-
I never looked at from that angle Ben but I would have thought if the musicians own the copyright then they would get royalties for anything re-released.
-
I'm no expert (at all!) but I suspect the mechanical copyright (performance) is on the stereo master, not the multi-track. And bearing in mind loads of old artists are not getting mechanicals from CDs because the original contracts didn't cater for new mediums... I bet NO-ONE thought the multi-track masters might get exploited in some other way further down the line...
Publishing royalties (songwriting) should be another matter, but Fred Bloggs the bass-player might not be getting those, so we'd be using his bass part and he might not be getting nowt for it...
I'm kinda with TO on this one, but on the other hand, other than being able to hear how the tracking went, I wouldn't personally be that interested anyway...
-
What's the point? :? If it's just for making transcribing easier (how hard is it anyway?), they better get the permission from the guitarist first.
I suspect many of the artists wouldn't want their work dissected in this way, and who could blame them.
-
What's the point? :? If it's just for making transcribing easier (how hard is it anyway?), they better get the permission from the guitarist first.
I suspect many of the artists wouldn't want their work dissected in this way, and who could blame them.
I don't think it would be for easier transcribing- more like a very authentic or accurate backing track?
-
What's the point? :? If it's just for making transcribing easier (how hard is it anyway?), they better get the permission from the guitarist first.
I suspect many of the artists wouldn't want their work dissected in this way, and who could blame them.
I don't think it would be for easier transcribing- more like a very authentic or accurate backing track?
Well done Sambo! Well at least some of us are awake today :lol:
-
This was already done by line 6 with guitar port online, a lot of the tracks on that were re-recorded versions with session musicians but certain ones like hendrix tracks were the originals minus guitar parts, so you could play the guitar parts along with jimi singing and you doing his guitar work. worked quite well i think
-
I'm not interested in it for backing-track or guitar-related purposes AT ALL.
I just think it'd be so cool to be able to take apart mixes of your favourite bands and notice things you never had before. It'd also give you the chance to mix and master the tracks as you'd like - everyone could have a slightly different mix on their iPod, and everyone could be a producer for their favourite band.
As far as copyright, money etc. goes towards the issue - I really don't care. Copyright is old-hat in the music industry - it's been destroyed by MP3 and P2P. If artists don't like their labels selling their master tapes they shouldn't have signed a deal that allowed them to. If they haven't signed a deal that allows them to then they SHOULD because it just might regenerate enough interest in them to make them some serious cash (whether that's through sales of merchandise, back catalogue, new disks, tour tickets... whatever)
-
Hmm... I agree with almost all you say indy ^
I'd like to be able to generate re mixes as well - where I'd find the time, I have no idea though :roll:. And perhaps artists, or their representatives should be actively looking at new ways of exploiting their work to their advantage - I have a feeling some won't have the funds to start the procedure though :(
... but I do question the "Copyright is old-hat in the music industry - it's been destroyed by MP3 and P2P"
Its policing might have been seriously undermined by these things, and like any scheme dreamt up by humans, it's not exactly flawless anyway, but surely the basic requirement that it fulfills, as I understand it - the licensing of intellectual property rights, a method by which one can figure out who gets paid what for their effort, and who doesn't get paid for stealing those efforts - still exists?
-
... but I do question the "Copyright is old-hat in the music industry - it's been destroyed by MP3 and P2P"
Its policing might have been seriously undermined by these things, and like any scheme dreamt up by humans, it's not exactly flawless anyway, but surely the basic requirement that it fulfills, as I understand it - the licensing of intellectual property rights, a method by which one can figure out who gets paid what for their effort, and who doesn't get paid for stealing those efforts - still exists?
Yes you're right; intellectual property right do still exist. I imagine artists are still paid for the work that they do according to their contracts.
What does not still exist is any respect for copyright laws from the general public. Nowadays only a tiny percentage of songs are purchased legally (although it is rising apparently). Digital music is DIGITAL and thus can be copied, shared, reproduced, remixed, tweaked, changed and stolen by almost anybody with a computer. It is human nature to do this. It's human nature to want to get things for free and it's human nature to try to share things with others. The fact that it's so easy to do and that it's so difficult to police means that obviously it's become the norm.
If record labels and artists want to bitch and whine about copyright infringement then they should have thought about that before making their material so damn easy to manipulate.
I know this has strayed a long way from the original point, but if artists want to make money they are going to have to offer something tangible that can't be digitalized.
Master Tapes are not going to make any money :P but they would be nice to have, and should therefore be shared; why not?
they might inspire other artists to cut and paste and remix and remaster old material and do something new with it in ways that couldn't be done before, and that's got to be a good thing.
-
I'm not interested in it for backing-track or guitar-related purposes AT ALL.
I just think it'd be so cool to be able to take apart mixes of your favourite bands and notice things you never had before. It'd also give you the chance to mix and master the tracks as you'd like - everyone could have a slightly different mix on their iPod, and everyone could be a producer for their favourite band.
I agree with this, i'd love to hear some old school tracks of my favourite guitar driven music to find out little bits i never knew were there, plus you can hear the proper tone better when it's a guitar on it's own.