Home »Forum»Feedback and Suggestions»Remixing from multiple tracks; notifying contributors

Remixing from multiple tracks; notifying contributors

posted on #1
Supporter
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.03.14
I just remixed one of my tracks using solo tracks from multiple other tracks. It would be nice if each of the unknowing contributors were a) notified via a tagging system, and b) would have the track show up under their tree as a redirect link to the new remix. And perhaps thumb counts could be added to their personal total if that is desired.

If this has been mentioned before I apologize but it seems fair for the other contributors to get credit other than just a shoutout in the new remixes comment box.
Edited by DannyK on 07-08-2016 21:11
posted on #2
Supporter
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.03.14
Even allowing BB Code so that one could link to the different source tracks would be a quasi solution.
posted on #3
Supporter
Posts: 2080
Joined: 30.12.10
Hey Danny,
The case you describe is what I would referr to as a cross-branch-mix, and speaking of branches: I still have no really good idea how to display such a cross mix in the remix tree as we know it today. There just does not seem to be a convenient solution to visualize what you (and many others) have done.
The cleanest way might be to allow an option to upload a track which is not labeled as "remix to ID 123", but where you can enter all involved tracks IDs your "merged". It would be possible to display all participating members that way, but the option to navigate to the parent template by removing the last musician in the remix chain would still not work as expected...
I'm affraid the option to allow BB-code links in the tracks description seems most convenient & easy to solve right now. The longer I think about it, the more I feel it might be wise to leave it at that for the time being, anything else would probably become very very complicated.
With the presence of single tracks, we need to keep in mind that even withing the "cross-brach-remixes" one would need to seperate two cases, being
1st: User merged two remix branches as they exist (easy) from
2nd: User merged single tracks collected from different branches, but left out part of one branch - in this case, there simply are no parent branches one could move up to, or the user experience would be very very strange because moving up the remix tree may come along with musicians showing up whom you left out in your cross-branch-mix... that would be very confusing in an ordering system whichs simplicity is based on the linear order in which tracks are chained together, I'm really not sure it would be worth changing that.

Last, about the notification issue - to offer an option to "please also notify the creators of track 123 about my upload, because I used some part of their tracks here" would be possible. It might quickly be abused by people who think this is a great way to get some more attention, so I'm really not sure we should encourage that....
just my .2 cent before the second coffee this morning... :)
"Sorry - had to do it!" - Les Claypool

yes, you are looking at the administrators signature.
posted on #4
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: 19.08.13
I never uploaded a soloed track but templates as the starting point of a composition. Using uploads outside a given branch is a very strange idea to my opinion.

For sure I will never notice it if it will happens - I don't expect it - but I totally disagree with this behaviour.

I really like remixes, composing and working together - but only in the copyright protected branches!

Please don't mind this point of view. I never signed a license that someone can cut loops out of my playing and use it at other spots.

For sure no reason for a storm in a glass of water. :)
Was born in an analog world.
posted on #5
Supporter
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.03.14
Neronick wrote: I really like remixes, composing and working together - but only in the copyright protected branches!

That would be private jams only, if I'm not mistaken.

Neronick wrote: Please don't mind this point of view. I never signed a license that someone can cut loops out of my playing and use it at other spots.

I'm pretty sure you did. See [url=http://www.wikiloops.com/publicl.php]http://www.wikiloops.com/publicl.php[/url] and for further detail § 6 Grant of right of use on [url=http://www.wikiloops.com/nutzungsbedingungen.php]this page.[/url]

If this behavior is unacceptable use please, someone, tell me.
Edited by DannyK on 08-08-2016 15:45
posted on #6
Supporter
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.03.14
Dick wrote: I'm affraid the option to allow BB-code links in the tracks description seems most convenient & easy to solve right now. The longer I think about it, the more I feel it might be wise to leave it at that for the time being, anything else would probably become very very complicated.


Sounds good to me. I hope you have had your coffee by now! I'm off to my first cup of the day. :)
posted on #7
Supporter
Posts: 75
Joined: 11.05.14
Curiously I did something very similar like Danny, but one hour earlier. (Synchronicity! ;))
I think, and here I contradict to Neronicks statement, it would be stupid in times of recordability of music, NOT to use such an option.
Of course it is a matter of courtesy to ask the or at least to inform the creator(s) of the used track(s) about this and to inform about their part of the creation by mentioning the track and the originator in the description of the track.
But there remains a poor taste and Danny already explains where it comes from:
Some of the participients are linked in the directory tree and the other ones are "hidden" in the description.
Hence I agree to Danny's and Dick's proposal, to allow BB-code links in the tracks description.

Good solution in my eyes.
Edited by will_C on 08-08-2016 16:50
Life is.
posted on #8
Supporter
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.03.14
Dick wrote:
Hey Danny,
The case you describe is what I would referr to as a cross-branch-mix [...]


This is an unhelpful addition to the thread's topic, but in keeping with the tree motif I like to call it "grafting". B)
posted on #9
Supporter
Posts: 500
Joined: 27.09.14
I am not sure what the solution will be, but I love the concept of sampling and looping, and I think it's a cool way to "recycle" music. And yes, it would be nice if there were a way of at least crediting someone other than mentioning his name in the description, as he might never read it. So a notification is needed.

From a visual point of view, I would do it as shown in the picture, and if you click on the session it will take you to the original tree - it it is technically possible I don't know.


Dick also wrote that he is afraid that someone would abuse the notification to get attention - and as always he is probably not wrong. Maybe it's worth a try though if the other way is not possible? If someone abuses it, we could always ask him nicely to stop, couldn't we?
TeeGee attached the following image:


posted on #10
Supporter
Posts: 32
Joined: 15.08.15
TGs picture is a good idea.

I've tried to follow the gist of this thread but am unfamiliar with some of the terms used so this may have been said earlier.

Maybe when the song is being uploaded, there could be a text box where the track numbers could be entered and at least this way the track used could be logged until the idea gets formalised.

Or the remix can appear in all of the stems from the tracks used but that would be messy I'd imagine.
posted on #11
Supporter
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.03.14
Jeebsie wrote: Maybe when the song is being uploaded, there could be a text box where the track numbers could be entered and at least this way the track used could be logged until the idea gets formalised.

Dick suggested as much. It's a good starting point.

Jeebsie wrote: Or the remix can appear in all of the stems from the tracks used but that would be messy I'd imagine.

As is my idea, a redirect (link to the original), but it could get quite messy.

Some BB code in the comments box to link to contributors would be best -- for now.
posted on #12
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: 19.08.13
Sorry to say but it seems, things turn to the wrong direction in a legal sense.
When I signed to jam with you, the presented concept was clear and easy. There were no remixertracks only, no recycling of music. Just use the tree and get your share of music rights, the glory and the missing money to come. Share the fun and the respect of the art of musicians.
Your partner in business is a german company called a "UG", court is "Aachen", which means german law.
You can't sell your "Urheberrecht", you can't recycle it. If you add a remix in a tree you do fine because the OLD license - I don't accept a new - gives you the right for the musical work-out. This is a protected right, too.
You proof your "Urheberrecht" by publishing your work in the internet.
A really good idea for componists. No need to recycle.

I never uploaded a soloed track to avoid abuse of the digital data.

I won't take a strange drumloop. Drummers are invited to use their drumloops twice by cut and paste. I wouldn't mind if it sounds ok.

Who and how do you proof your "Urheberrecht" in 10 years if you are already dead and the companies name has changed? Please keep it clear and simple and friendly and fair.
Edited by Neronick on 10-08-2016 08:39
Was born in an analog world.
posted on #13
Supporter
Posts: 2080
Joined: 30.12.10
@neronick -
I am sorry, but to try to mix legal copyright matters (in german!) with a feature request (what Danny started here) does not make sense at all.
If you do not share HD single tracks, why do you worry about something that does not apply to you?
As Danny clarified further up, there is no legal problem about creating cross-branch-remixes, the wikiloops public license does cover that, as long as all participating musicians are named (which is what we are currently discussing here).
The license has never been changed from day 1 of wikiloops, just to clarify that as well.
I would appreciate if you could return to either silent readership, or asking answerable questions if you may have any. To give advice (or your opinion dressed as advice) on legal matters here is not called for at all, nor does it help find a good solution for the problem we are trying to solve here.


Now, back on topic...
I've been thinking a bit, and -inspired by TGs picture- I came up with another idea on how to describe our "case". What we are talking about is not really "cross branch", because the mixed tracks do not resemble whole branches, but may as well be a collection of single tracks taken from several branches (thats what I described as the second case earlier).
So, visualizing that, these mixes connections to certain parts of different branches
rather look like a spiders (cob-)web built between various branches, so calling them "spider-mixes" feels most suitable.
To display these correctly on the limited space of the standard remix tree view seems impossible, and the usefullness for navigation use would be very limited (people wouldn't understand that without explanation I'm affraid).
To me, it seems most reasonable not to attempt that, but go another way:
If spider mixes with non-linear heritage could be shared as a different kind of track template, they would be marked as "something special" right away, and the needed "name involved track IDs here" field could be offered only on that special template-upload case.
The involved tracks could be linked from the appearing track in a different way than the remix tree offers, and one would have another five remix steps available to follow the track (which has been another common reason to create such mixes). Notifying the participants would be no problem either.
Sometimes its better to keep things split in different categories, instead of offering too many options within one global category, so taking the "spider mixes" into a class of their own does seem better than mixing them in the branched linear remixing where they will only cause confusion.
I'm open to your thoughts on this, but to tell ou the truth this feature will not make it into the 9.0 update right away... :)
"Sorry - had to do it!" - Les Claypool

yes, you are looking at the administrators signature.
posted on #14
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: 19.08.13
Yes, I have a questition.

Until today I can see each upload of a musician's music in his profile under "my tracks". This is a legal proof of his "Urheberrecht". And I can check any use of this music by name and date. Called list of remixes. There is no hidden abuse or unknown use - which is the same - of any track. If someone downloads a track, he sees the names of the owner's of the rights in the tags of the file.

Do you want to change or weaken this system?
Edited by Neronick on 10-08-2016 11:32
Was born in an analog world.
posted on #15
Supporter
Posts: 19
Joined: 10.09.14
Spider mixes - sounds sticky... and complicated. Good luck!
posted on #16
Supporter
Posts: 75
Joined: 11.05.14
@neronick
neronick wrote:
"Who and how do you proof your "Urheberrecht" in 10 years if you are already dead and the companies name has changed? Please keep it clear and simple and friendly and fair."

As your native language is German, you should perhaps study this wikipedia article:
[url=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinfreiheit#Public_Domain] Gemeinfreiheit[/url]

for those who don't understand German, this English version of this article may be helpful:
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain] public domain[/url]

Moreover, I think, we should focus on enjoying free music on this phantastic site instead of concerning about legal rights on music from which no participient never expects any financial income. these concerns are waste of time and energy and this site offers a way for not wasting this time and energy.
Life is.
posted on #17
Supporter
Posts: 37
Joined: 03.11.15
Come on guys we're losing the plot here, this great site is all about us self-minded people who enjoy jamming and making music with other Muso's from all over the world.Its all about the joy of music,what does it matter if someone use's a track or part of say my music, well then I'm honoured that someone thinks its good enough to go to that effort. Dicks got enough work to do all ready without overloading him,so come one guys give him a break and be thankful for this Great community
posted on #18
Supporter
Posts: 2080
Joined: 30.12.10
@neronick
The answer is no. Nobody said anything about weakening anything, nor about changing legal matters.
You are simply mistaken by believing that wikiloops has ever promised you to inform you about all remixes made of your music.
The system will notify you about remixes uploaded to your tracks, but that is not the same thing.
To believe there was no "unknown use" (or abuse, as you call it) is totally wrong, anyone using a downloaded track at home is doing just that, and you do not get notified by wikiloops either.

Back on topic -
the issue remains, and it is an important thing to solve in the long run, so if anyone feels like commenting on my proposed solution, go ahead.
"Sorry - had to do it!" - Les Claypool

yes, you are looking at the administrators signature.
posted on #19
Supporter
Posts: 333
Joined: 27.02.15
It's a difficult (and technically complex) area. Danny's request is a very good one. Perhaps the solution could be the ability to not only 'tag' the other stems (as mentioned above) but, as a product, email the contributer to the stem it was taken from? Going further, could they be tagged as a 'contributer' to that track so they get notifications of updates when new adds occur. That would also work for the point I'm going to make below.

As a follow on from Danny's request, there's been quite a few occasions where Loopers have used a drum upload I've done to another track as the backing for a brand new template. I, of course, have no problem with that and I find it an honour in truth, but people tend to use the track 'as is'. Which is fine, of course, but I would actively encourage people to chop my track up to fit their structure. I suspect it isn't clear that people are welcome to do that so I'm asking should such things be encouraged?

Personally, I'd prefer it if someone uses a drum add I've done and edits it to fit better with their new piece. It drives me potty hearing me switch to the ride or something halfway through a verse riff or fills resolving in the wrong place!!
Edited by mpointon on 10-08-2016 15:56
posted on #20
Supporter
Posts: 102
Joined: 24.03.14
You got me with "Potty", :o Never heard that before.

I am not wild about the whole idea of mixing HD tracks from this mix or that. It becomes a bit like Frankenstein, and goes a bit out of the direction of the jam... maybe the place for this kind of mix is in the forum section "Crazy Re-Mix Board"....

As far as chopping up drum tracks, I agree, you can do it with mine as well, anything to stop the scourge of the potato drums! :D
rp3 (Raymond)
wikiloops online jamsessions are brought to you with friendly support by:
anonymous

"wikiloops has helped so much in my quest to learn. such a great site. and thanks to all the musicians out there that have uploaded some awesome music."

wikiloops.com uses Cookies to provide you the best possible browsing experience.
Read more in our data privacy policy.