Hi everybody.
I have noticed that several persons at this forum asks for copy of copyright material. Hey guys, if you want the styles from G-70. BUY A G-70!!! For christ.
We have several Style/midifile-making companies who's daily bread depends on that we buy our products legaly and not just copy it. If we give a shit, it will end up with no style/midifile making companies and NO NEW STYLES FOR US. We simply destroy our own possibillities for getting new styles and getting new inspirations.
Stop all copying copyrightet material, and pay the few dollars a new style cost.


Synthman

Looks like this topic is a kind of "never ending story".
http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/Forum37/HTML/010240.html

GJ

Whatever the legalities, I think it is wrong that styles are converted for use on competitor's machines as soon as a new arranger is released. I think there should be a self-imposed moratorium on converting styles from a newly introduced synth, maybe for a year after introduction. I would hate to have the manufacturers decide to use some technological approach to preventing conversion. We definitely should be able to convert styles from old synths to new ones.

Let's do away with all styles. Anyone who wants to use an arranger should learn how to use and edit the machine himself and make his own styles. No one should sound alike. If you can't make a good style, then that's too bad for you. Better yet, learn how to play correctly so you don't need an arranger. What are arrangers for anyway, just a buch of lazy people who can't or won't play the song the way it was written. And BTW, buy the d#$^ sheet music before you go playing someone else's songs.


[This message has been edited by cassp (edited 03-23-2005).]

Goodness this one may get ugly
Actually Cassp, you make an interesting point there. I would by a keyboard in a heart beat that had no preset styles, but the ability to write custom styles with arranger capabilities. When I buy an arranger keyboard it's not for the whole style. The only thing I really give a damn about in a style is the drum track and that's it. Drums really aren't the easiest thing to learn on a keyboard. Sure many of us can pull off good bass, sax, and guitar playing on the keys, but drums don't come as easy to most. Again I would love to have a keyboard that either had no preset styles, but all the function and ability to make them using arranger functions. Hope that made sense.

Squeak

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 03-23-2005).]

Who are you Synthman? In the last 6 months you had 7 posts. You said, "that we buy our products". OUR products? Was that a Freudian slip? Who do you work for?
Please Synthman, no cursing/swearing/or taking the name of the Lord in vain o nthis forum.
Starkeeper

just fishing for a little excitement

That will never happen. If mfgs. did this they wouldn't sell any arrangers to the general public.
Starkeeper

Yeah, Squeak I guess that is a decent idea (pat, pat). Don't the Korgs have that ability to either edit or create a style. I guess the Yammy's do too. But yeah, if making our own styles was a lot easier and intuitive, I guess I'd go for it too.

Gee, this could turn into a serious discussion - oh well.

edit: Starkeeper, the general public is only interested in them as toys anyway, so the toys could have some styles, but nothing any self-respecting musician would use.

Whoa, now I've really tossed a big one out there. Any big fish?

[This message has been edited by cassp (edited 03-23-2005).]

Yeah I think they do. The upper synths like the Tritons and Motif's have preset patterns (but not in the way an arranger works). They don't have dedicated fills/intros/endings, ect. They also do not operate like an arranger and utilize pattern chaining.

I think it would be great to buy a keyboard that had good sounds (with good voice editing) minimal 64 note poly, 16 track sequencing (real sequencing too, and fully editable), and also user slots for creating custom styles. Basically an arranger keyboard the replaces the 100's of preset styles with an empty bank for creating user styles. Now that I think about it isn't there an arranger or two out there that let you wipe out the internal preset styles and the ability to replace them all?

Squeak

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 03-23-2005).]

Your right Cassp. You can overwrite Korg styles with user styles. This is he right idea IMO. It would be great if I could overwite the polkas , techno, and piano styles (yuck) on my keyboard with user styles.
Starkeeper

[This message has been edited by Starkeeper (edited 03-23-2005).]

And we don't do that because...


Squeak, my Roland XP50 had a loop recording function that very easily could have handled multi-measure rhythms and styles. And, there could be many of them resident at the same time, all triggered by single keystrokes.

Oh wow, this is way too serious for what I intended

[This message has been edited by cassp (edited 03-23-2005).]

Cassp, I know what you mean about the XP-50. I used to have the XP-60. That was an awsome feature assigning patterns to the keys. Plus you could use that method to record. My old Yamaha EX-7 did this too, but it was a strictly a performance feature, and could not be used for internal recording.

Squeak

Fun doing the troll-thing to get some action going ain't it? And so healthy for a forum, but most people don't get it...

Anyway, screw it all... as I write this I am in the middle of a massive project to record all of my midi files through my 9000 Pro into my computer to be recorded as MP3 files. These will go into my laptop for playback as accompaniment when I play a grand piano, which is happening more often these days (twice this week). In fact, this is the culmination of much hand-wringing and self-recrimination over using recorded tracks on stage, which I've never done until now. I've been using my midi files and Yamaha's defunct XG softsynth and trying to get something approaching quality sound out of my laptop, but it's just not working out. It'll never sound as good as my 9000 Pro, and I don't know what the point is to try to make my laptop into a SMF player anymore. As usual, Yamaha has been no help at all - there's been no upgrades or replacements for the SYXG50 program in a long time and probably never will be. So now my laptop will be used as an MP3 player, and once I get over that shock I may even just use a cheap little MP3 player with my Motion Sound KP-100s for acoustic piano backing.

This has nothing to do with arrangers (like many posts here these days) except to show how little arrangers apply to my gigs lately. They aren't much use with a grand piano. I suspect the next-generation arranger will use MP3 files for styles anyway so maybe all this recording work is inevitable anywho.

Jim, I have been working that way with the band for 3 years..

I add additional vocal backgrounds as well..we work primarily as a trio..two keyboards and lead vocals..

You are right..this is the easiest way to have the quality sounds you are use to..I record my G1000 this way..Until recently this was the only way I found to get quality synth sounds to MP3...but my Hyper Canvas does a super job, converting sequences to wave/MP3...

Oh, my God!!! Don't do it!!!
Do not convert any sounds to mp3 if you plan to use it as a style sometimes again. You loose quality of your original sounds if you do so. You will never get them back into wave-quality!!!

CASSP: You're right to say good arrangers create their own styles. All my sounds and styles I'm actually using are self-made products. Okay, some sounds were originally made by factory but I bought my synth so I have the right to use the sounds in all ways I want to (including the right to sell each sound I created on it).

SYNTHMAN: I hate you!!!

------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 03-23-2005).]

Actually you could use a product by Moog called the PianoBar. MOOG Music PianoBar

This device sits at the back of the keys on any acoustic vertical or grand piano and generates MIDI note and velocity data. This data is then used by the PianoBar module to access the internal sounds and also to control external MIDI equipment.

What's another $1495.00 for the pleasure of playing a real piano while still being able to use an arranger keyboard or module?

Dave


------------------
Wm. David McMahan
Nat'l Product and Support Manager
Generalmusic USA
GEM Community Forums

this is quite interesting...I use the arranger functions on my keyboard quite extensively but hardly ever use the original preset styles. The presets may spark of the creative ideas but i always then modify it or pullit apart to create the grooves that i like....Its not difficult to create completely original patterns. Maybe what we ought to be doing is swopping original styles that we have created ....If i knew how toconnect my keyboard to the computer and store my files i would love to start our own library of original styles off. We could get jazz specialists to create that genre and blues specialists etc. We couldturn this forum into a whole new thing .....what do you think?

If Roland or anyone else did not want their styles copied and/or converted, then they should have written them in their own proprietary style language. But since they (and all other manufacturers) decided not to write styles in a proprietary format, they did so knowing fully well that the styles would be copied, converted, tweaked and reused.
R-

Do you (generic for anyone) want fries with that?

Spalding,
This already exists. http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/yamaha-psr-styles/messages
Starkeeper

I think Synthman may have had a previous identity on this forum. The writing and attitude seem familier.

I sort of agree, there is so much more pride in writing your own styles and performing them.

I really agree with not ripping off styles from other companies. I mean they worked hard to made a really great board and then people just rip off the heart of the unit and dont buy it. I know its not that easy, and I am not innocent of dubbing cds ect. And its not that easy to afford something worth thousands and thousands of dollars. But give them a break and either use what ya got, of make your own.

Phil

Listen keyboard manufacturers:
Next Arranger Keyboard will be without styles or patterns, eh?
Then double the price for the keyboard itself, and sell the styles
for double of the cost as now to earn lots of money.
Since this was my idea, give me some percent of the profit.
GJ

Synthman sounds like he is SYNTH_GUY.

SYNTH_GUY hasn't posted in a while, I wonder if he reincarnated?

Merriam-Webster:
Convert verb, to make over to a radically different form, composition, state, or disposition.

Dear Jonny;

If they do that, manufacturers can expect zero sales. At double the price you will have the Oasis ( 8k). Jonny, you must be independantly wealthy [ or else be a kept man ] because the top model arrangers are already exorbently priced for what one receives. What we need is new & eager Chinese or Korean Keyboard manufacturers to jump in an obliterate the competition at half the price. Maybe Alesis will make an arranger version of their Fusion available. They already make a workstaion that eats the competion at a lower cost. Companies should stop watching the net and work on their R & D ( i.e. stop rehashing the same technology & come up with new ideas) New realeased flag ship arrangers should be leaps and bounds ahead of their company's last KB. I can't wait for some small tech company to make a softsynth arranger that is modular and infinetely upgradable, with state of the art sound generation, in which one can easily create styles sounds etc... at a reasonable cost, since it is based on computer technology readily available, from a plethora of computer manufacturers. Then the big 3 can keep their styles in a vault & protect them.


Regards;
BN

No Sir, you're wrong, if so I would bought both the keyboards and
hired a well trained keyboardist to play it for me.
GJ

Btw, thinking about it, I'm probably going to be able to do just
that after my idea mentioned above.

[This message has been edited by Gunnar Jonny (edited 03-23-2005).]

Dear Jonny;

Better yet, you could hire a harem of belly dancers -- one to play the KB & 4 to dance for you. You could start a group, "Jonny Be good " or " Jonny & his legs"


BN

Boy, did I pick the wrong fishing hole. Time to move on.

Hey Cassp,
Have you ever written/created any new styles from scratch? I'm not being sarcastic, just a serious question. Your problably not in the mood for serious questions. Just curious.
Starkeeper

What is all the moaning about?
If you want a board that does not play styles then buy a motif or a triton or whatever.... but please leave the musical snobbery out of it. I will never get it when folks who buy arrangers insist they never use the arranger functions. (implying that to do so would somehow compromise their musical integrity! Get over it!)Somehow it is supposed to make it OK to play styles if you make them yourselves? Behave. I like to drive my car but I let Mazda make it for me so does that mean I am not a 'real' driver? POPPYCOCK!

So what if the G70 styles are converted to play on other boards. No matter how well the conversion is done they will never sound as good as when played on the board for which they were intended anyway. I doubt Roland is losing any sleep over this common practice.

When I had the 9000pro I had all the Tyros styles converted for it. I liked the styles so much I eventually bought the Tyros. First time I played the Tyros I realised that while the styles sounded 'familiar' they were infinately superior played on the TY than when played on the 9000pro.

Heck most manufacturers support conversions via Styleworks and such programmes anyway.

I have the G-70 conversions and to be frank there are not many in there that I would use over the styles I have that were specifiaclly written on/for the ty. HOWEVER I bet I would like the G-70 styles a whole lot more if I played them on a G70
I don't see the problem. (But I did enjoy venting )
Tony

Kevin, I can't say that I have. I've never been one for editing anything - sounds, styles, whatever. I did create a neat B3 simulation on my Juno 106 that i was pretty proud of and I used to make patterns on my old TR505 drum machine, but I haven't gotten the guts to learn the ins and outs of styles. Sorry.

And as far as being serious, I thought this was a good topic "tease" some of our newer members. Seems they are all way too serious about everything. But some very good comments and ideas have been brought out in this thread, so I guess it's time to step aside and let it ride.

Tony, I agree with everything you said, and I might add that once converted, those conversions do not represent the G-70 styles. They are essentially new styles that are the result of someone's creativity and software engineering expertise. Lets face it, no keyboard or synth manufacturer created the ballad, swing, jazz, foxtrot, etc. Those styles were the creations of musicians at a time when most of us were not alive--even old farts like me. Each of those styles have been modified many, many times, yet if you look at your style selection on your keyboard, it says swing, etc. Does Roland, Yamaha, Korg, or any other manufacturer own those styles? NOT!

A parrallel of this would be an ordinary kernel of corn. When cooked in hot oil, the moisture expands and causes it to be transformed into pop-corn. It no longer is an ordinary kernel of corn, but instead, it just became a new product, one that was created by someone who modified the kernel using his or her creativity. Now, does the farmer who sold the corn have legal rights to all modifications to the corn? How about when the corn is converted to fuel, booze, candy, flour? Should the farmer get a royality because he grows hyrid corn that he developed in his greenhouse before selling it? Case closed!

BTW, most of the conversions are mediocre at best, many I would not use for performances, and some, after lots of fine tuning, changes in OTS, etc, may end up in my archives. Then again, I may dump the entire file.

Bigger and better fish to fry Cass,

Gary

Hi Tony,
couldn't agree more. They never sound the same as on the original keyboard.
Keyboards handle styles differently, so how can a style sound exactly the same .
If manufactures wanted to stop us converting styles they'd have the style conversion software removed from the marketplace. You couldn't convert a KN7000 style for the first couple of years or so, not till they actually stop making them ( from memory).

Sharing commercial styles, to my mind is a totally different thing again, that's not the right thing to do, as obviously these guys are trying to make a living from it.

best wishes
Rikki

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tony W:
[B]

So what if the G70 styles are converted to play on other boards. No matter how well the conversion is done they will never sound as good as when played on the board for which they were intended anyway.

That's an amazing analogy Gary! And Roland must realize that their Styles will always sound the best on the Keyboard that the Styles were designed for, in this case the G70. But possibly what they don't realize is that the conversion of their G70 Styles to other Keyboards gives other Brand keyboard owners a 'glimpse' of what the G70 is capable of as far as the Styles go. >> That is if the conversions are up to snuff. What it does is spark 'interest' in the "Keyboard" the Styles were created for, again in this case the G70. If the Styles happen to be converted outstandingly then that fuels the interest all the more and for some it could possibly mean selling their present Keyboard and getting the G70. As Tony did regarding his Tyros after listening to the Tyros Styles on his PRO.

Or even supplementing a current keyboard with a G70.

And especially since Roland is really limiting their sales of the G70 by selling them only through independent (mom & pop) retail establishments, that is all the more reason in my opinion for them to allow this additional 'exposure' by allowing the G70 styles to be converted and posted on the Net if people so choose to convert them and post them.

We all realize that a Keyboard is MUCH more than just the Styles. For instance; the G70 has one of the best key action and feel of any Arranger on the planet. Plus it has a plethora of other advanced features and of course a multitude of great sounds. Being able to listen to the G70's Styles on another Brand Keyboard (whatever one that may be), and realizing the potential that they have: could in my opinion, sway many a person to take the plung and get the G70.

But not being able to do so because of Rolands prohibitiveness of not allowing any G70 conversions to be posted on the Net could quite frankly backfire and hinder possible additional sales of it.

Best regards,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 03-23-2005).]

Hi Everybody

>I think Synthman may have had a previous identity on this forum. The writing and attitude seem familier.
IP< *SS*

>Synthman sounds like he is SYNTH_GUY.
SYNTH_GUY hasn't posted in a while, I wonder if he reincarnated? Oh Yeah!

No I'm just Synthman.

It seems that this is a delicat issue.
My point is just to remind all the people that just copy styles or midifiles from everywhere to think how they would do, if there suddenly were no style/midifile making companies to do all the hard work for us, who isn't capable to program very professionel styles and midifiles.

For me and I think for many others, it would be very bad.
So why not give the few dollars a style cost so we all can continue to get a lot of new inspirering styles and midifiles.

Hope this is clearing up my purpus with this issue.

Regards
Synthman
A hardworking musician and musicteacher from Denmark

[This message has been edited by Synthman (edited 03-24-2005).]

Hej Carsten.

Yepp, this is a hot topic discussed both here and elswhere many times,
and I think most people agree in that copyrighted midi files and styles
made to be sold commercially should not be spread around or offered for
free at the web.

Btw, I can see in another tread here that it is dangerous to be danish,
but you're most likely off of the 3 months in bed and got your sense of
hearing back?

Happy playing and converting.
GJ

( Kikket innom hjemmesiden din, den ser fin ut. )

What is the difference between emailing a midi file or style-for free to someone, or playing on the actual keyboard you own the midi, or style for a fee in public. If the file is truly copywrighted, and you didn't pay the royalties to the author-you both are breaking the law right? I think if a file is free to play in public-royalty free it is free to trade, and if it isn't free to play in public royalty free, than you can't trade it either. How many arranger keyboard performers actually seek out the royalty companies to make sure they are paying the correct fees? I bet not even half of them.

I agree that sending copyrighted midi and style files in their orriginal format is wrong. That's essentially theft. However, any modification of that style renders it into a new product, one that in many cases is nothing like the orriginal material. Let's see now, every keyboard I've owned had a Big Band Fast, Swing and various Jazz styles. Who was the first to have those styles, and did they actually invent Swing, Jazz, etc...? Nope! In most instances, the only part of the style that is the creation of the keyboard manufacturer are the intros and endings, and some coming from third party, independent suppliers sound almost exactly like internal styles from various keyboards I've owned. My point is that reconstituted stles are new creations--not duplicates of the orriginal. If you want the orriginal, you'll have to buy the keyboard, which is what many of us do.

From a personal standpoint, I believe that if I were to compose and perform a beautiful love song, one that was later being performed throughout the world by a huge number of entertainers, I would be the happiest person on earth. I wouldn't be trying to take legal action to prevent them from performing the songs--hell, I would be trying to find ways to have them perform it more often. Not only would I be flattered, I'd also be quite rich because it would inspire a lot of other folks to purhcase the orriginal. Think about it!

Cheers,

Gary

Ha, ha... good reply and good thinking - except that the arranger hasn't been made that can follow a real pianist and probably never will be. Thanks for reminding me about the PianoBar though.

One more thing needs to be added to this discussion: any "song" which does not include the melody is not copyrightable in the US. In fact, I can go right now a print out the chords to "As Time Goes By", with the song title printed boldly at the top, and sell them a dime a copy with no legal restrictions at all. Many websites offer such. So what's the big deal about styles or even midi files and copyrights? To my knowledge, if it doesn't include the melody it's mine and yours and everyone's to use freely. Not so?

Not really.
Wouldn’t it be the case that if you use a midi file or a style that uses or tries to use the same type of sounds and accompaniment as the original song, even though the style or midi song does not have a melody, it will be copyright infringement?

If I were to arrange a popular song today in to a midi file with out the melody and put it on the internet for sale, could I do so with out any legal implications?


Regarding styles, if the keyboard manufacturers can show that they have copyright to the styles, then I would think that they would have the right to prevent any modifications of the work. Don’t they have the right to control derivative works?

No, at least under US copyright law. You can even use the song title, you just can't use the melody.

Quote:

If I were to arrange a popular song today in to a midi file with out the melody and put it on the internet for sale, could I do so with out any legal implications?

Yes, at least under US copyright law.

Quote:

Regarding styles, if the keyboard manufacturers can show that they have copyright to the styles, then I would think that they would have the right to prevent any modifications of the work. Don’t they have the right to control derivative works?

A derivative of something that is non-copyrightable is still non-copyrightable as far as I know.

Here's the real caveat: take arrangements as an example - they are not copyrightable in the US. So my arrangement of "As Time Goes By" cannot be copyrighted here, but it can be copyrighted in France where arrangements are recognized by copyright. The US has intellectual property right treaties with France so we are bound to recognize their laws and copyrights...so I can copyright my arrangements in France and they can be enforced here in the US.

It's possible that world-wide manufacturers such as Yamaha can claim the copyright protection of any country they sell to and force near-universal compliance through international treaties. For that reason, it may be possible that styles in arrangers are protected under international intellectual property rights, and thus the US. There had to be a catch, eh?

Hi again

Hey guys. Don't you read what I write before you hurry to the keyboard and answear the topics?????

My hole intension with my topics is to clear up: What do we do, if no style companies sees a business in making styles and midifiles. I think it's only maybe 5% of the users of arranger keyboards who's capable to make there own styles or midifiles from scratch.

This is the issue in this discussion.

And further more there is the discussion of copyrights.
I see it straight from a performers viewpoint.

Regards
Synthman

Dear Synthman;

Do you actually think that manufacturers or aftermarket companies are going to stop making styles/sounds etc,, because some people copy some material? They won't! If that was the case the singers/song writers would stop producing music because a percentage of the population chooses to burn CDs of their material. Synthman you will just have to accept the practice, because in our technological age it has become common place. Further, their are companies out there that propagate these practices!! Sony who has a record label, makes CD-r, MDs, MP3,DVD-r players that can be used to copy their own artist. How does one dismiss that?

I seriously don't think that Yamaha, Korg, or Roland is going to go out of buisness, because some fellow in Denmark copied some styles. There is enough profit built into these KBs to accommadate these practices. You have to realistic.

Reagrds;
BN

But don’t you have to answer the question whether or not the midi file makers and style makers have copyright in the work before you can talk about rightful compensation?

I would think that style makers, if they create a work that does not substantially sound like another song, they have the copyright to that new creation in a style. If that style is viewed as a new original work, then they would have the right to control modification of the work, any derivatives of the work and distribution of the work.

I would agree that the sheering of styles made by an independent style maker will hurt the individual style maker and probably put them out of business. However, I don’t think it will hurt the manufacturers as much because as part of the keyboard the majority of people want internal styles.

As much as I would not mine an arranger without any preset styles, I don’t think that will happen because the majority of the arranger market wants every thing done for them already. So a keyboard manufacturer would not make a keyboard without styles because they would not sell.
From a performer’s viewpoint, it is better when the performer creates the style because it will fit the playing style of the performer and will give an individual twist to the style.

That's a "hole intention" alright - you can't limit this question to something that simple-minded I'm afraid. A "performer's viewpoint" is hardly what determines whether copyrights are at the heart of this topic or not - they are, period.

Ever seen one of those "50,000 MIDI files on one CD for $25" on the web? They were scabbed off of the alt.binaries.music.midi newsgroup years ago when people used that forum for exchanging midi files. I happen to be very good at making midi files and I used to post a few now and then for others to use and enjoy... I was hopeful of even selling some of them someday... but this ripoff changed that. Once I checked and found out I couldn't copyright arrangements in the US, which is what my midi files are, I realized that my hard work would simply be resold by people who put no actual effort into the content and would likely sell my work for cheaper than I could.

Of course this is strictly from a MIDI file producer's point of view, which you may or may not share, but it does affect why you can't get MIDI files as easily as you may like as a performer: copyrights have their limitations and I can't afford a fleet of lawyers.

Should have gone fishing.

when video recorders were first put on the market in uk,there was alot of talk about not taping the films off the telly cause they were copyrighted and it was against the law ,when one of the manufacturers was interviewed he said that they (VCRs) are for playing your own bought films in the house and not for copying,he was then asked then WHY was there a record button on these devices,his reply well um you can copy it for your own use so long as you dont sell them on ,all this copyright crap, if goods were sold at a reasonable price in the first place pirating would not be so much of a problem,mike

On another topic in this forum I think midi spot was making the point to think of a midi file or a style as software not as a song. Song copy rights might not apply but software copyrights do apply.
That was the point the guy from midi spot I think was trying to make.

That's why I put the link for it as the first reply in this tread.

http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/Forum37/HTML/010240.html

GJ