One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[Eauson]

https://archive.org/details/OSC94Synth1

All free.

[rghvdberg]

https://archive.org/details/OSC94Synth1

All free.

The reason for me (and others) wanting to put it on Spotify and similar services is convenience.
So much easier to open a Spotify client and play a tune than archive.org
Soundcloud is ok, but I always have to explain what it is.

That's all.

btw I've retracted the tracks from iTunes

[rghvdberg]

Compyfox,

Just curious what your part is in our little competition;

Do you make songs for the osc? (you stated before you don't)
Do you vote on the tracks?
Do you comment on tracks ?
Do you give advice on mixing, sounddesign, arrangements?
Are you on our Slack channel just to hang around, get direct feedback, post pictures of your dog, show Lego sets you've build,etc, etc ?
Do you suggest synths we should try out and 'stress test' them to see if they work properly in a OSC project?
Do you help fellow OSC members with technical difficulties?
Do you support your OSC buddies when they are having personal problems?

The OSC is more than just a bunch of songs spit out by some anonymous folks. It's actually a community, anyway that's how I feel about it. It's not a closed group with some top down management structure. A lot of people contribute in myriad ways to this, to the best of there abilities. And I think this is a beautiful thing that should be treasured and indeed protected.

I've taken the liberty to search all the topics you're involved in, in the instrument section of the forum.
On the first 10 pages I could only find 1 post in a OSC thread by you (besides this thread). This maybe the result of my limited understanding of the search engine on the KVR forum but it seems you aren't heavily involved in the OSC.

It seems this is not your game, so why do you want to define our rules ...

[Compyfox]

Okay, at this point, I'm not only getting a little bit annoyed, but also massively ticket off.

"what is your part in our little competition".

Excuse me?! (queue: "u wot mate?!")

The OSC might be currently the longest running competition/challenge on KVR (aside from who has the bigger studio or the best cat pic), but this sentence alone already ticks me off massively.

Listen - I don't even know you, rghvdberg, neither did I read your name that often in OSC's, or I just overlook it (take your pick). But your so called "little community" is but a part of KVR. And I'm a part of KVR since 2003 (well, sooner considering my lurking) and I think I did more(!) for the KVR community as a whole, than you ever did.

Now that we have this "e-penix competition" out of the door - let's answer the questions.

Do you make songs for the osc? (you stated before you don't)

No, I'm not skilled enough as a sound designer/song writer). I could join at some point, but I'd be reliant on other presets or good stock sounds. And even then, I can't hold a candle to the top spots. I'm an audio engineer first and foremost.

Do you vote on the tracks?

No, but I do listen to some entries from time to time

Do you comment on tracks ?

Not in public

Do you give advice on mixing, sounddesign, arrangements?

As part of "an OSC thread", no. As part of KVR audio... by backlog and KVR Marks should speak for itself.

Are you on our Slack channel just to hang around, get direct feedback, post pictures of your dog, show Lego sets you've build,etc, etc ?

If you mean with "slack channel" this thread, then I mostly hang around. If you mean with "Slack Channel" the actual developer/company chat platform... are you for real?! You're using an engine like that? So the OSC is a business after all?!

And even then, isn't that only for the "headmasters"?

Do you suggest synths we should try out and 'stress test' them to see if they work properly in a OSC project?

No

Do you help fellow OSC members with technical difficulties?

Not for the OSC - behind the scenes is a complete different thing (again, take a dive into my backlogs, oh wait... you already did)

Do you support your OSC buddies when they are having personal problems?

As if you hop into your car and drive over to their place....



Honestly... what the fork are you trying to pull here?!
I'm not that often in the Instrument section, so I'm not "qualified" to be a member of this forum?
Am I not "allowed" to join the discussion and give suggestions or feedback?!

Because now I have the impression, that I clearly don't.

It seems this is not your game, so why do you want to define our rules ...

First and foremost, this particular thread here is a "general discussion" thread. That means that anyone and everyone on KVR can read/post/suggest things. I happen to be one of those people - and you can do the same for the MCSC/Music Cafe Songwriting Competition and the Mix Challenge btw! Sometimes "outsider opinion" is just the fresh air you need.

Then this thread also discusses the rule set. So should I feel confident enough some day to join, I know off hand what's going on, how to communicate, how to evade problems (and challenge limitations - and boy do they not make sense sometimes), who to contact, etc.



I don't want to "define" your rules - I criticize your (intransparent) behavior with the upload to SPOTIFY and iTunes without even contacting the users in question (read: lack of prior/open communication), or informing participants outside of the challenge.

As somebody that has to take full credit for mess ups with another challenge, I merely try to point this out. Apparently - not welcome, in fact I'm not even welcome to "your" community if I trust your recent words and question pyramid, especially if I do not "contribute" or are an otherwise "participant" of the OSC.

And if I think back to what happened about 1,5 years ago with "former" OSC members and headmasters in the Site Stuff thread (where I asked for possible dedicated sub forums for our challenges, to not clog up KVR - and I was "barked at" for even daring to "speak for them")... I think I've seen enough now.




I honestly have to thank a lot of OSC participants that jumped over to the OSC and helped out (among them: bzur, 7th Pyramid, Photonic, ThePresent, Satyatunes, just to name a few), and/or are now regulars. Without them, the challenge would have ended long ago.

Which is why I'm here, to comment, to cross-promote, to be a good forum fellow and friends with certain people in question.



But it looks like - that is not welcome anymore.
With just a couple of sentences, you not only scared of a possible interested participant, but also a cross promoter.

Good job, rghvdberg.
This is how you do and promote "your" challenge.




I'd paddle back real slow and careful at this point if I were you... especially if you're not part of the headmasters of the OSC.

[rghvdberg]

I've apologized to the affected persons via pm and explained in detail what happened, and my reasons behind all this.
4 of them replied immediately, waiting for number 5 although he said he has no problem with it in this thread.

[wagtunes]

As somebody who has participated in the OSC quite often and hopes to someday come back when time permits, I have to admit that Comfyfox is right.

In short, there is simply not enough transparency here. Had I not stumbled onto this conversation, I'd have no clue that this was going on. And I certainly have enough OSC tracks out there to be put up for income earning, not that any of them are any good. But that's another issue.

Whether or not an OSC participant can request that their tracks be removed from Spotify or wherever they are is not the issue. The issue is that there has been no formal communication. I certainly didn't receive any emails or PMs to my in box. In fact, for this to be truly run correctly, the following procedure SHOULD be in place.

No tracks should be posted at all by default. In order for a track to be posted of anybody's music, a formal contract needs to be sent out to each member who will then have to read, sign and send back. The contract should state very clearly exactly how this thing will be run in complete detail.

That's the proper way to do this.

Anything else is simply making too many assumptions about people's willingness to participate or their knowledge of the whole thing to begin with.

Personally, I don't care what you do with my songs. If any of them can help the community in any way at all, I'm all for it.

But I can't speak for the whole community. That is why everybody, including myself, should have a clearly stated contract to sign. And that contract better be as comprehensive as the song contract I signed in 1990 for my song "And The Angels Sing" which is the closest I've ever come to having a hit on the radio. You should have seen all the paperwork in regards to royalties. It would have made your head spin.

There is no question this has been handled improperly.

However, it is not too late to make the necessary changes so that this can actually become a possible boom to this community.

My 2 cents as a published songwriter for close to 30 years now.

[z.prime]

@Compyfox, you're blowing this whole thing way out of proportion. Not only have you not been impacted by this at all, you've failed to acknowledge the likelihood that the majority of participants may actually be happy for their music to be heard by a larger audience, and to those who do not, it's simple: just say you don't want your tunes distributed in such a way.

I am sure that rghvdberg has no intention of monetizing other people's tracks. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's well aware that the likelihood of any amount of substantial revenue from these is close to nothing and to say it's not is idiocy.

So, in this case it was probably a simple slip up about posting the tracks before approval by the authors. It's fixed now, the tracks are taken down off the portals. It was fixed promptly. You don't need to vilify someone for attempting to give people an avenue to reach a larger audience, at some amount of personal expense to his own time.

The right thing to do may be as wagtunes says with contracts and such, but that's just not realistically feasible to ask... lawyers need to be hired to verify the contracts are correct, etc. people need to sign things with notaries, and what about international laws? But for simplicity, at least a bit of rule and prize updates could solve this: after each round, the top 5 has an option to have their tracks added to these download portals, any revenue from them will go directly back to the OSC prize fund. Problem solved. Everything is opt-out by default, the top 5 have to each individually send a PM to Brian (or whoever is in charge at the time) in order to opt in.

[rghvdberg]

Compyfox

Sorry man, I over reacted.

@wags
Good idea. We need some sort of contract.

Who can provide a template for this.

[rghvdberg]

@Compyfox, you're blowing this whole thing way out of proportion. Not only have you not been impacted by this at all, you've failed to acknowledge the likelihood that the majority of participants may actually be happy for their music to be heard by a larger audience, and to those who do not, it's simple: just say you don't want your tunes distributed in such a way.

I am sure that rghvdberg has no intention of monetizing other people's tracks. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's well aware that the likelihood of any amount of substantial revenue from these is close to nothing and to say it's not is idiocy.

So, in this case it was probably a simple slip up about posting the tracks before approval by the authors. It's fixed now, the tracks are taken down off the portals. It was fixed promptly. You don't need to vilify someone for attempting to give people an avenue to reach a larger audience, at some amount of personal expense to his own time.

The right thing to do may be as wagtunes says with contracts and such, but that's just not realistically feasible to ask... lawyers need to be hired to verify the contracts are correct, etc. people need to sign things with notaries, and what about international laws? But for simplicity, at least a bit of rule and prize updates could solve this: after each round, the top 5 has an option to have their tracks added to these download portals, any revenue from them will go directly back to the OSC prize fund. Problem solved. Everything is opt-out by default, the top 5 have to each individually send a PM to Brian (or whoever is in charge at the time) in order to opt in.

Maybe we should use opt-in, only publish when you send approval. That was my intention al along and that's where I cocked up.

There was talk of that the publishing thing could be an extra prize; I do not feel at ease with this because it feels like I'm selling a product or a service. I don't.
Also if we say it's a prize I think the creators of the song should see the profits in return.
I estimate the revenue so low that it's not feasible to pay it back and it will probably cost more in transfer costs.

However we should/might include something that if a track gets over a certain threshold, let's say I dunno $15 - $25, I do split it and pay the artist, if he/she wants that; again optional.
I know some people don't want any money for their tracks because that's not why they do it.
No problem for me. I don't wanna see any money from this OSC project either. I'm frankly offended if people think that of me and that can make my reactions to some posts a bit too emotional.
Not gonna remove these posts, they only show me for what I am ; a human being.

As a sidenote; it's also an interesting experiment how well our music is received outside the OSC

[wagtunes]

Compyfox

Sorry man, I over reacted.

@wags
Good idea. We need some sort of contract.

Who can provide a template for this.

At one time (before the Internet) I could have. But now, there is just too much involved. The world of mechanical royalties (records, CDs), airplay and sheet music is dead and buried. Sure, we still have those things, but with the Internet, they are but a drop in the bucket compared to the potential of today's reach. A kid with a laptop in his basement can reach millions of people.

I wouldn't even know where to begin to draw up a contract covering every contingency for today's world.

There are days when I long for when things were relatively simple.

[fluffy_little_something]

I would not publish anything via the Internet by myself (i.e. not under the wings of a label with a legal department) today, unless I don't mind it being used and abused by total strangers for free. I think that is a realistic attitude...

[rghvdberg]

I would not publish anything via the Internet by myself (i.e. not under the wings of a label with a legal department) today, unless I don't mind it being used and abused by total strangers for free. I think that is a realistic attitude...

That's ok, no one is forced to do have his music published online.

[Compyfox]

@Compyfox, you're blowing this whole thing way out of proportion.

Looks like I struck a couple of nerves - which is good in this case.

I'm sorry for being insensitive, but "who are you" in this game?!
Are you "in the "higher ranks" of the OSC or something?

Not only have you not been impacted by this at all,...

I am personally not impacted currently, but I might be in the future.
Others on the other hand - different story.

...you've failed to acknowledge the likelihood that the majority of participants may actually be happy for their music to be heard by a larger audience, and to those who do not, it's simple: just say you don't want your tunes distributed in such a way.

So you do try to speak on the behalf of all other OSC participants?


Once more - I am pointing out the lack of communication, and that did(!) get down the wrong pipe so far already. If you're okay with "changes without you knowing", fine - more power to you. But that's far from being transparent.

This topic should have been addressed MONTHS ago (revenue gathered or not - doesn't matter)... I mean, look at the feedback so far. Regulars of the OSC write "I didn't know this - thanks for bringing this to my attention".

If nobody talks about it, or calls things into question, it's like having an EULA that nobody gives two sh*ts about, and then wonders years later "wait... what?!". What is now happening, is "damage control" - something that should ideally not happen at all.



Sidenote: I seem to run into a constant Deja Vu with this. Since end of 2015, for the most part of 2016, now in 2017 as well. Communication is key - some people seem to have lost the means to do so (in a calm, collective manner especially). I feel like being stuck in the movie "Idiocracy" (2006) - including jumping to idiotic conclusions, and low flung insults.

I am sure that rghvdberg has no intention of monetizing other people's tracks. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's well aware that the likelihood of any amount of substantial revenue from these is close to nothing and to say it's not is idiocy.

That is not the main point here, the finances are a "bonus point" (I still don't believe these numbers).

The main point was, that it "happened" without suitable communication. There is no mention (so far) about this on the official homepage either. And I do not consider an "off-comment" in a gossip thread to be an "official announcement".

So, in this case it was probably a simple slip up about posting the tracks before approval by the authors. It's fixed now, the tracks are taken down off the portals. It was fixed promptly. You don't need to vilify someone for attempting to give people an avenue to reach a larger audience, at some amount of personal expense to his own time.

I'm not vilifying anyone for "trying to expand" (that lies within the eye of the beholder), I criticize how it was done.

It sparked an obviously needed discussion - and that's good IMO. I've seen way too many communities trying to "lock audio content for mass distribution" and pee on certain people's turfs in the process. Our three challenges (OSC, MC and MCSC) draw attention to KVR Audio, even though KVR "doesn't give back" (anymore).

If the OSC wants to go "commercial" or "further reach" - fine with me. But do it right and inform the participants beforehand - so that each individual can decide if he/she agrees to the "challenge terms" or not.


This is why the Mix Challenge rules resulted in mixed opinions (some even overly negative - and even after adjustments, these people "never joined - just because")... let me quote "they're uninviting, they're too much". But they are(!) necessary to rule out such eventualities.

But feedback is important one way or the other.

Sorry man, I over reacted.

Yes you did. You leaned a bit too far out of the window, acted like you spoke on the behest of the OSC "head masters" (unless you are one of them - which is not documented!)... and put good relations with a collaborating party at risk in the process.

This is why I want(!) a listing on the official OSC homepage as to who is currently in charge of what. I personally don't like poking around in a bee's nest without knowing who might sting back. And if sh*t hit the fan, I'd like to know who to talk to, that has the final word in all this. Sometimes the world is small, and things can turn really awkward.





Either way - the discussion has sparked, work with it. Other than that, you folks need to get this stuff sorted. Best if it already happened "by yesterday"...

And if you'll excuse me, I'm off to prepare Mix Challenge #29, with another one of the OSC regulars as client (ThePresent).

[Frostline]

Okay, at this point, I'm not only getting a little bit annoyed, but also massively ticket off.

"what is your part in our little competition".

Excuse me?! (queue: "u wot mate?!")

The OSC might be currently the longest running competition/challenge on KVR (aside from who has the bigger studio or the best cat pic), but this sentence alone already ticks me off massively.

Funny that it is acceptable for you to be upset over being questioned yet you turn around and do the exact same thing to Z.Prime

I'm sorry for being insensitive, but "who are you" in this game?!
Are you "in the "higher ranks" of the OSC or something?

Hypocrite much?

And just incase you didn't know, they (Z.Prime) are the person who has won or placed 1-3 in this competition more than anyone else in the OSC history. They are also a person who has been quite helpful to many other participants in this contest.

If you mean with "Slack Channel" the actual developer/company chat platform... are you for real?! You're using an engine like that? So the OSC is a business after all?!

And even then, isn't that only for the "headmasters"?

What makes using a Slack channel a business?

If you have bothered to investigate instead of just casting wild guesses at how it is run you would know that the general Slack channel and the new channels created for each month's specific OSC are open. They let me in and I am not in any management hierarchy.

BTW Headmasters are people who are in charge of boarding schools

head·mas·ter
ˌhedˈmastər/
noun
noun: headmaster; plural noun: headmasters
(especially in private schools) the man in charge of a school; the principal.

Honestly... what the fork are you trying to pull here?!
I'm not that often in the Instrument section, so I'm not "qualified" to be a member of this forum?
Am I not "allowed" to join the discussion and give suggestions or feedback?!

Because now I have the impression, that I clearly don't.

You are allow to post.
I am not required to bow down and thank you for deigning to bless us with your time though.

How would you feel if I just bulled into the mix challenge and started making demands on how it should be run? Given that I had never before participated and made no indication on participating in the future?

Sometimes "outsider opinion" is just the fresh air you need.

Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes it is just a bad smell instead of fresh air.

I don't want to "define" your rules - I criticize your (intransparent) behavior with the upload to SPOTIFY and iTunes without even contacting the users in question (read: lack of prior/open communication), or informing participants outside of the challenge.

Just because you or someone else did not see the information about the plans for this does not mean they were intentionally kept from you.
Many channels of communication are open to those who wish to make use of them. Failure of an individual to participate in those channels is not a valid excuse for not knowing what is being discussed.
You can't claim lack of getting a phone call caused you not to get information when you refuse to power on your phone. The same way you can't claim lack of seeing posting about something when you refuse to read the available information.

Which is why I'm here, to comment, to cross-promote, to be a good forum fellow and friends with certain people in question.

A "good forum fellow" would have quietly sent a PM or either BJPorter or rghvdberg asking for clarification prior to creating a big drama in the general discussion thread.
Or maybe bothered reading other OSC threads where people were thanking rghvberg for taking the time and trouble to provide this increased exposure to their songs.
I guess that was too untransparent for you being in a public OSC thread and all.

I mean, look at the feedback so far. Regulars of the OSC write "I didn't know this - thanks for bringing this to my attention".

That is a completely disingenuous notion. Again, just because they failed to read the information that this was purposed and put in practice does not mean that the information about it was not available. Their failure to read does not equate to a lack of transparency.

If nobody talks about it, or calls things into question, it's like having an EULA that nobody gives two sh*ts about, and then wonders years later "wait... what?!".

Again, disingenuous. It was posted about, and thanks for doing it were given. Nary a word of dissatisfaction at the time was uttered.

Sidenote: I seem to run into a constant Deja Vu with this. Since end of 2015, for the most part of 2016, now in 2017 as well. Communication is key - some people seem to have lost the means to do so (in a calm, collective manner especially).

Communication is not just one person talking. You actually have to stop and listen, maybe do some research and maybe even realize that you are making a mountain out of a molehill(sometimes).

That is not the main point here, the finances are a "bonus point" (I still don't believe these numbers).

What evidence do you have that the numbers presented are not truthful or factual?
Or is this just wild speculation that does nothing but attempt to besmirch the character of the person providing the numbers?

And I do not consider an "off-comment" in a gossip thread to be an "official announcement".

Wow, you are a bit repetitive on this incorrect point. It was brought up, in places other than this thread (which is not a 'gossip' thread since we do not deal in rumors here). Your failure to make use of those other sources of information is a failure on your part for open communication. It is not a failure of rvdgberg's communication. Their intent and idea was make very clear prior to any song being listed outside the OSC.

And finally back to this little gem,

Good job, rghvdberg.
This is how you do and promote "your" challenge.

I had thought a good bit about one day joining the mixing challenge. I think it would be a wonderful learning experience, much the same as I consider the OSC.
However your behavior and false accusations in this thread have now cemented that a contest that you are in charge of is something I would not wish to ever participate in.
Take that as you will.

[Aliens]

KVR has no place letting a third party upload contest entries to make money off them. What was the osc organiser thinking to get on board with this unwise enterprise? Resignation in order, perhaps?
That the money is supposedly to go to fund prizes is irrelevant. To ride roughshod over the legal rights of the participants is unforgivable. The community should expect better.

This idea should be now dropped, never to be repeated on this forum, but then since the spirit of the osc is already ruined by the allowing of external processing and effects, who knows what 'progress' will be coming next.