Help with compositions

[shermfiddle]

I know and appreciate how much effort is put into your compositions. I really am impressed and feel so unworthy. My hope in writing this letter is to ask those who are proficient in the art of making tunes sound professional and would be so kind to find the time for some of my composition and to make one or two presentable for listening and consideration as well as basic criticizing of the completed works by the members of this forum. I have several tunes most of which are ethnic tunes i.e. Klezmer, Iris, etc etc. Some are very sad and some are very up beat. I wanted to learn about your systems and software but because I'm not a fast study and I really haven't the time or money to start the process. Of course I would acknowledge your collaboration and credits. As far as the future....I'm not sure what venue my tunes would be heard? I believe if one of you would hear a couple of tunes of mine that your creative juces will begin to flow. You can also write to me at shermanfiddle@comcast.net.

Thanks,
Sherman

[stmiller]

EDIT: woops! Misunderstood your question.

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

I think he's looking for someone to arrange/orchestrate his already done compositions. Once again this brings up the license rule with EW, which I still do need some clarification on what we can and cannot do.

They are right though, you can invest in some cheap programs to make your music. They won't be as high grade but acceptable.

However if you are looking for a professional "mock up" then I would question the EW license first because I don't know if they allow it (as many discussions about this came up I still don't have much clarification on it)

[nikolas]

I think he's looking for someone to arrange/orchestrate his already done compositions. Once again this brings up the license rule with EW, which I still do need some clarification on what we can and cannot do.
Nathan,

Doug posted in a thread, mentioning that no it can't be done! The use of the libraries must be aimed at your own music and not making mock-ups for other people. End of story.

Now if you orchestrate it as well, things probably change, but then again, for me the making of realistic mock ups take lots of time and I would certainly charge quite a lot to do it in the first place!

[nickysnd]

Doug posted in a thread, mentioning that no it can't be done! The use of the libraries must be aimed at your own music and not making mock-ups for other people. End of story.

You are kidding, right? Are you saying that, if a singer-songwriter sends me a writen song and asks me to make a mock-up, I am not allowed to do it using EWQLSO, because it is not my own song?? Can you point where is such a thing written, or to post a link to what Doug said about such a situation?

[nikolas]

No, I'm not kidding.

If someone gives you a midi file to render as is, without orchestrating or anything, then this is beyond the license. Here is a quote from doug:
I don't understand what the confusion is. If you are composing music for a client, and you are a licensed user, then that is what we make these products for. In Sp3ctre18 case, he wanted "another composer" to complete part of his composition using his sequence with sounds he didn't license, to sell it to his client; that is just an attempt to circumvent the license and is not permitted. If you use our sounds in a composition for a client, you must be licensed to use those sounds.

In the mxman1 case, I was simply responding that he could use his licensed sounds on another composition, but not "part" of someone else's composition so they could avoid licensing the sounds, that is a completely different scenario. What I "thought" he was asking was, could he use the licensed sounds on a Bach composition for example.

I think it's clear Sp3ctre18 wanted to use the sounds in his composition without owing a license, but I also admire him for asking in the first place, that shows he was interested in doing the right thing.

- Doug

And here is the link:
http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=7778&page=5&highlight=favor

Simlpy said (as I mentioned above), if shermfiddle has a piece ready and wants simply someone to make the mp3, and nothing more, this is not allowed. If shermfiddle wants someone to orchestrate and blah blah, then it probably is allowed...

[Jeff Hayat]

Nathan,

Doug posted in a thread, mentioning that no it can't be done! The use of the libraries must be aimed at your own music and not making mock-ups for other people. End of story.

Now if you orchestrate it as well, things probably change, but then again, for me the making of realistic mock ups take lots of time and I would certainly charge quite a lot to do it in the first place!

No disrespect intended towards Doug, Nick, EW, or anyone else, but there is no way on God's green earth that they can possibly enforce this. If there are large sums of money changing hands, then maybe; but EW as a company will still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a) that the license agreement was in fact broken, (after all you are not giving the samples to anyone; you are using them yourself) and b) that the license agreement is actually valid. Just because the EULA is automatically agreed to once the package is opened/sw installed, does not make it a valid EULA, in whole or in part. Some parts of the EULA will of course be valid, and are in fact enforceable - for ex., the fact that the EU does not have the right to freely distribute the content. That's a no-brainer. But I really don't think that use of the samples in a mock-up by the person who paid for the samples is a valid part of the EULA - not from a legal standpoint, anyway. I wonder what judge is going to say, "No, Mr. RiffWraith, you paid for the samples, but can not use them that way." I just don't see that happening - unless it is a flagarent violation of a law that exists anyway.

Cheers.

[dubaifox]

No disrespect intended towards Doug, Nick, EW, or anyone else, but there is no way on God's green earth that they can possibly enforce this.


There is also no way to enforce people from illegally pirating software, or stealing music to use in their productions, or people from illegally downloading music.

Just because it impossible to enforce doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[nikolas]

Nya...

won't get into discussing it (again)... Everyone knows where I stand in this situation and about piracy in general.

bye bye thread

[Jeff Hayat]

There is also no way to enforce people from illegally pirating software, or stealing music to use in their productions, or people from illegally downloading music.

Just because it impossible to enforce doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Using samples in the afore mentioned manner is in no way shape or form the same as illegally pirating software, stealing music to use in a production, or illegally downloading music. Using samples that you yourself paid for to do a mockup for someone else is not the wrong thing to do, IMHO.

[nickysnd]

Can I get a straight answer to this: If I am NOT the composer of the piece, does the license forbid me to use EWQLSO to play/record that piece?

[nikolas]

What?

The quote from doug and the link is not enough? ;)

[Jeff Hayat]

Ok, I just read Doug's post a bit more carefully:

In Sp3ctre18 case, he wanted "another composer" to complete part of his composition using his sequence with sounds he didn't license, to sell it to his client;

I think the key there is the word "SELL" - because it alludes to a person profiting directly from use of the EW samples that were not paid for by (liscenced to) that person.

Dave who doesn't own any EW product calls me to do a MIDI mockup of music he has written - he provides me with a piano scratch and wants me to orchestrate and compile my EW lib to a full orchestral score to give to him.

A) Dave turns around and gives the mockup to be used elsewhere

B) Dave turns around and sells the mockup to be used elsewhere

I think A is ok, and B is not. Correct me if I am wrong here.

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

It doesn't excatly add up to me honestly.

For instance, this quote from doug:

I was simply responding that he could use his licensed sounds on another composition, but not "part" of someone else's composition so they could avoid licensing the sounds

This is where it doesn't make sense. The wording in bold doesn't clarify "another composition" right. This says to me it's ok to do a mock up as long as it's entirely EW or something. But this isn't exactly quoted from the EULA.

The scenario that happens in studios daily is the following:

Singer/Songwriter wants to record a pop song.

Singer/Songwriter can't afford real instrumentalists, or you don't have the equip/space.

Singer/Songwriter brings in either/or a tape with a cheap MIDI mockup of the piece or a MIDI file with every note.

Studio Engineer transcribes the tape/uses the MIDI file and tracks with new EW samples (doesn't matter what instruments in this example)

Singer/Songwriter is happy with the track, and records a final vocal with BGV's.

Complete mix and editing is done for realism.

----

If we can't do the above then I'm pretty sure a lot of studios have already broken the EULA. I for one, don't do the following.

See I can understand them not wanting people to profit that didn't buy the samples, however you have to remember that the person that owns the samples isn't exactly copying and pasting the stuff in. They have to painstakingly edit every detail, or ever re-input MIDI if it doesn't sound right.

[nikolas]

You know the more we analyse it the less we'll end up making.

doug is rather clear on what he says...

Generally speaking, if I do use gold to give someone 1 solo oboe line somewhere, for free, nobody will mind. That is for sure. I can also PM doug and tell him so, and he will probqbly go "yeah, no problem, he's your friend".

If I go and make a Beatles song, cover, without paying anything to anybody, because my wife loves the beatles, nobody will say anything. Hell if I contact Paul and tell him "you know, this nad that..." he will go "yeah, why not? Love is great thing man!"...

Let's be realistic. There is no chance that any company (because I've researched the exact same thing over at NSS with different companies), will say "yeah go ahead". But in secret if you contact doug, or Frank, or Marry, or whoever and tell them, that you want to do this, cause you have passion in music and so on, chances are that they won't say no...

Still legally speaking, as it appears the "user" is the guy who benefits from the sounds, not the guy who actually has them on the computer and uses them.

Of course the idea of having a top notch studio and brining in people with midi files, or scores, to render IS out of the question! At least it appears to be!

[nickysnd]

Let us consider these two slightly different situations:
a) I compose a song and then I render it using EWSO = legal.
b) someone else composes a song and then I render it using EWSO = not legal.
How come??
Can you point to the exact phrase where this disjunction is made?
How the who-composed-the-song factor flips the use of EWSO from legal to illegal?

Also -
Still legally speaking, as it appears the "user" is the guy who benefits from the sounds, not the guy who actually has them on the computer and uses them.
Please define what you mean by "benefits from the sounds."

Of course the idea of having a top notch studio and brining in people with midi files, or scores, to render IS out of the question! At least it appears to be!
Why do you think so? Because the studio is top noch? Because of the midi files? Because it is not me the composer of those pieces? Please show me where such a thing is written, 'cause I could not find it. Thanks!

[nikolas]

Nicky,

I can't be bothered further to this whole thing. I pointed you to the almost exact discussion we had a couple of months ago, and further I quoted Doug. I'm not the man to be asking this, nor the devils advocate in this case, not anymore...

I would love for these rules not to exist, but in my eyes they appear to exist.

Furthermore, since I'm fully active as a composer, I have absolutely no time to start rendering other peoples music, whatsoever, so this does not apply to me.

Here are your options as I see them:

1. Forget about this thread, and don't mind really... keep doing what you do (whatever this is)
2. PM Doug and point him to this thread, kindly...
3. Reread my posts in this thread, the quote from doug and the thread I pointed out for you, with clear mind.

Onto your questions, hoping that they won't lead to futher discussion, as I really, can't be bothered anymore:
Please define what you mean by "benefits from the sounds."
The composer whose piece ends up with the sounds.

Why do you think so? Because the studio is top noch? Because of the midi files? Because it is not me the composer of those pieces? Please show me where such a thing is written, 'cause I could not find it. Thanks!
The midi files is the problem, not the top notch... The top notch went, cause otherwise anyone would still be using thier own little studio with Silver/GPO... But for something better, maybe a top notch studio would be better. ;)

Your last resort, is surely the court. Take it to the court where all legalities will be solved! And I'm not kidding. Trying to make out what the EULA says exactly and bend it towards your way, while Doug has commented on that, seems weird to me.

Let me repeate what Doug said, finally:

A guy asked someone to help him out. He had a melody/midi file and wanted someone with RA to use RA and make him an audio file. Doug said that this is not allowed according to the EULA. He did say that! Period! If you want to read through his quote, or not contact him that's your problem furthermore.

I did what I could to give insight on what has already been discussed. Nothing else. And of course I don't support many things on the EULA, but who cares about that? It's not my business to comment on the EULA after all, only to agree or dissagree... There ARE other libraries who allow further things, and allow even reselling. Switch!

:)

[nickysnd]

Nikolas, didn't mean to bother you so much! ;)

Your answer is fair enough, I just needed someone to point to what I am missing, because I am clearly missing something important here, which is: where is it mentioned that if you are not the composer of the piece, then you are not allowed to use EWQLSO on that piece. Since when has composition become so important for using EWQLSO?? What if I want to use this library to re-arrange Vivaldi's concerts? Vivaldi is dead, unfortunately... But what if he was alive, and he hates computers, and he asks me to re-arrange his 587 violin concerts :D ? Where is that written that I am not allowed to do that? If a composer (other than Vivaldi...) asks me to do something like that, I just want to know whether I must refuse him/her or not. I don't want to brake any agreement out of my ignorance.

That's all I need to know. Thanks for your insight, Nikolas, I mean it, it's only that I need something more than innuendos - I need explicit written statements.

I may be blind, I'm still hoping someone will point that to me, because I couldn't find any mentioning of it in the EULA or anywhere else... Please - facts/explicit quotes, not interpretations/assumptions. I think that is also what the OP wants to know, isn't it?

[nikolas]

hehe... ;)

Thing is that the EULA is not clear on what you are mentioning.

As I see it, bottom line for EW is this: Vivalid is dead, thus there is no chance of buying EWQLSO Platinum. another member here, is a loss in sales... Huge difference for them (and fairly).

I will PM Doug about this thread, although to be honest I doubt he will answer, only because he has already answered that.

It is a matter of interpretation really on the EULA. Check with a lawyer... (I'm not kidding). IT certainly is a grey area, and if you're looking for a "rule" or a "law" that you agreed on, you won't find it. If you're looking for Doug, he is already commented through me in this thread (the previous thread that I linked). It is pretty much the same thing that you're saying.

Keep working on Vivaldi, you're more than safe. ;)

[DallasComposer]

If I go and make a Beatles song, cover, without paying anything to anybody, because my wife loves the beatles, nobody will say anything. Hell if I contact Paul and tell him "you know, this nad that..." he will go "yeah, why not? Love is great thing man!"...

lol ... Paulie is one of the smartest, toughest and shrewdest in the biz, you touch his 'Beatle' music and he ain't gonna say 'Love is great thing man!' he'll probably have one of his many lawyers say 'lawsuits are a great thing man' :p

[nickysnd]

lol ... Paulie is one of the smartest, toughest and shrewdest in the biz, you touch his 'Beatle' music and he ain't gonna say 'Love is great thing man!' he'll probably have one of his many lawyers say 'lawsuits are a great thing man' :p
yeah, especially now after he got burned by his latter love - he will probably say something like "love is half-blind, man" and "All You Need Is Eyeglasses" :D

[Kostas]

hello people,

I started once a thread about the user licence, so..


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostas
...as I asked before, can I make orchestrations of other people songs in a CD? and to state of course that I have the licence to use the samples and all these stuff i? A valid answer would be highly appreciated.

and the answer from EW headquarters!

Yes, of course, because you are the original licensee, that's what we make these products for. Alternatively, if you used someone else's copy to create this work, that would be illegal, because 'you' never purchased a license to use the software.

- Doug

Reply With Quote

[cosmodos]

The thing everyone seems to be misunderstanding is EW's stance on orchestration and arranging.

When you orchestrate or arrange a piece, you are considerably contributing to the piece. You now have a hand in the overall composition and therefore have credit and (at least somewhat) claim to the piece.

The original poster was not asking for someone to orchestrate or arrange his piece, nor was the poster who asked for someone to record his piece with RA. They were asking for someone to take their piece (which, unlike Bach or Vivaldi as examples, is under copyright and not part of the public domain) and produce a realization/mock-up of it, with no creative input from the user who has a licensed copy of the Symphonic Orchestra or RA.

So, from my understanding:

Realization = not okay
Orchestration/arrangement + realization = okay

[nickysnd]

hello people,

I started once a thread about the user licence, so..


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kostas
...as I asked before, can I make orchestrations of other people songs in a CD? and to state of course that I have the licence to use the samples and all these stuff i? A valid answer would be highly appreciated.

and the answer from EW headquarters!

Yes, of course, because you are the original licensee, that's what we make these products for. Alternatively, if you used someone else's copy to create this work, that would be illegal, because 'you' never purchased a license to use the software.

- Doug

Reply With Quote
Case solved. So the answer to my question is: Yes, the licensee of an EWQL product can use that product to play/record a piece regardless of who did compose that piece.

Thanks, Kostas!

[shermfiddle]

I'm really sorry if I opened up a can of worms but I just wanted someone who is knowledgeable in their personal music projects to have fun with my tunes and not make a big deal with legal complications. If I was involved with these wonderful software programs I would welcome some new ideas and challenges. There are many people out there who are not as talented in producing an orchestrated tune as you members of this forum. Please except my apologies and I will continue to enjoy listening to your music.

[SBallard]

shermfiddle,

I think you just inadvertantly brought to light something that apparently alot of individuals had doubts and questions about. So your question was probably a good thing in the long run. I don't think an apology was nessesary. No harm, no foul. :)

[benwalken]

Interesting but weird law!!

One question: What if someone is hired as an assistant composer (owns EW), but the composer of the project (does not own EW, he is a pencil and paper composer). The composer asks the assistant to create the mock-ups using EW, in this case is the assistant allowed to render and sample the composers music?!...

Ben

[Scott31]

Interesting but weird law!!

One question: What if someone is hired as an assistant composer (owns EW), but the composer of the project (does not own EW, he is a pencil and paper composer). The composer asks the assistant to create the mock-ups using EW, in this case is the assistant allowed to render and sample the composers music?!...

Ben

I could be way off in my understanding but I believe I may have been told at some point there is an additional type of license for this situation that can be purcased per library. Might want to check into that just in case.

[nickysnd]

Interesting but weird law!!

One question: What if someone is hired as an assistant composer (owns EW), but the composer of the project (does not own EW, he is a pencil and paper composer). The composer asks the assistant to create the mock-ups using EW, in this case is the assistant allowed to render and sample the composers music?!...

Ben
See post #22 above. If I understand correctly, Doug's answer is YES, a EWQL licensee IS allowed to play/record music using EWQL products regardless of who is the composer of the music he/she plays/records.

[benwalken]

Thanks Nicky,

Well that makes sense now...

[StrangeCat]

I'm really sorry if I opened up a can of worms but I just wanted someone who is knowledgeable in their personal music projects to have fun with my tunes and not make a big deal with legal complications. If I was involved with these wonderful software programs I would welcome some new ideas and challenges. There are many people out there who are not as talented in producing an orchestrated tune as you members of this forum. Please except my apologies and I will continue to enjoy listening to your music.

ok one thing EW orchestra libs are only one lib and have nothing to do with composition. There just tools of the trade to create a realistic sounding sound for those instruments you'll cut a lot of corners that you don't even do in real orchestration.

Another thing it's all about knowing your lib and how to get the best sound out of it. This has to do with Technique and how you use the samples and what Space you use with them.

So let's go through the proccess of creating a Orchestra Piece with the samples from scratch.

Forget about the midi file whatever let's just work with a theme you have composed on paper.

Record in using the modwheel each phrase from that piece using different instruments from the ensembles. Make sure you Repeat that same phrase with other instruments and answer wtih again other instruments, create cressendos with Harp Aprs and Bell Arps some cymble cressendos then Full orchestra same theme.

The bottem line is were doing this in real time recording each instrument seperatly in the piece on top of each other etc.

This can be used for any sample lib there isn't some majical lib for orchestration LOL!
Use the modwheel buddy, listen to how your legato sounds and how expressive the sounds are in general, how are you creating a pull and release with samples.

There are groups where there many groups for Orchestra mochup crap this is just one of them centered on there LIbs (respectively)

There is NS forum there is the Great(VI Pro Forum the most honest forum on the net!)

Go for it! with what you have buy Silver and start learning.
see yaz!

[bobbyem]

I wish Cubase Added a button "kill your darlings".