5 Free piano instrument in SFZ, Decent Sampler format

[enroe]

@MTorn: Nice comment, but ... ehem ...

... pretty much everything you mention here, I see exactly
the other way around.

Part of what makes things so complex with SFZ instruments (and several other formats) is that every instrument has two distinct components: the sample set, and the SFZ text file.

No, the separation of samples and definition makes it
easier because it is more modular. On the contrary: The
monolithic samples of proprietary manufacturers -
consisting of only one file - are completely inaccessible -
and can only be used with their one product.

The sample set is fairly fixed, and can generally be attributed to one person or company, the one who recorded and edited the original samples.

There are sample sets that are composed of many
different samples. A well-known example is the "Virtual
Playing Orchestra" by Paul Battersby. So what you
are saying here is not true.

However, for any given sample set an infinite number of SFZ files can be made. They can span from the bare minimum (basic key range assignment) to something quite creative and complex. In many cases an SFZ can even be produced through automation, so no human at all can be attributed with creating it.

Yes, but in any case there is always an author. And depending
on the license that the author specifies, he must be named!

This is exactly the same as any other creative effort. Whether it
is software, image processing or a sfz.

So who made the SFZ instrument?
The person who recorded the samples? Those samples may not have been intended for an SFZ in the first place. Maybe recorded 30 years ago.

A lot of great things, commercial or free, are a product that a
lot of smart people worked together on. This is rather the
normal standard.

And so it is with the samples and associated sample playback
definitions - no matter what format (CDR, Halion-FXP, Kontakt,
GIGA, Decent-sampler or whatever): Many people together
are the authors!

Or did the SFZ author make the instrument? If I find a set of samples on some sharing site, and make a quick SFZ mapping, did I make this instrument?

That is actually quite simple, too: Of course, you didn't do
"THE sample". But you did create an SFZ for that sample set.
So you are the "author of that specific SFZ". Really easy -
what's the problem?

When it comes to sharing free instruments, there has to be a certain
amount of throwing caution to the wind. Most people don't understand,
or care, about the intricacies of a creative commons license.

No no. The problem of your performance being stolen is much greater with
commercial products! That's why they are protected by I-LOKs, CR systems
and whatever else I know. And yet - or precisely because of it - these are
often cracked and hijacked.

Even if you are employed by a company as a developer, you are indeed the
author of your development and the company has the exploitation rights.
And if any time in doubt, the company will decide whether you will be
named or not. Your rights are rather few there.

When you have "free" software, and "free" instrument sets, it's almost inevitable that people will use them without too many thoughts about usage rights. If you want to retain full control and credit for your work, it's probably best to avoid the "free" environment altogether.

The only difference between free software / free sample sets and paid
products is usually that they do not have copy protection. But for people
with a high level of criminal energy, copy protection is usually not an
obstacle. Unfortunately.

The misunderstanding here is different: You and Kinwie act a little as
if the authors of free products do not have any rights to their products.

But that's not the case: Authors of free software or free sample sets are just
as much the authors as the authors of commercial products. And the
Creative Commons licenses are ONLY a help in formulating the will of the
authors in a legally correct manner.

With the help of CC you can say, for example, that YOUR NAME must always
be mentioned for your SFZ. This also includes a link to your website.

You can also instruct that your SFZ may not be changed. And you can instruct
that someone else is not allowed to make any money with your SFZ. These
Creative Commons instructions are legally valid!

I'm in the process of producing a massive library that I intend to share when it's complete. I'm hoping that a lot of people will have use for it, but I have no expectations that it will remain unaltered for very long.

No, no, please don't be so pessimistic!

You go to the Creative Commons page and
there you choose YOUR license-model. For instance: "CC - by - nd - nc".
When presenting and publishing your work (SFZ, sample set, ...) you
indicate this license - done!

With the "nd" in the license specification you have "no derivatives".
This means that your sample set or your SFZ must not be changed
by anyone! And if someone does it even though, your lawyer will be happy about a
warm rain of money!

[enroe]

Sfz format belongs to the world, so let more other people create and share sfz mappings ...

Mmmh, yes, the SFZ format also has an author. It's René Ceballos
(founder of RGC Audio).

Nevertheless, everyone can use it freely! And it is even changed
by others - and René allowed that and is happy about it.

I'm done for the moment. This issue scares me away.

Sorry. What can I do?

I've deleted my unnecessary comments in this thread.
I just point out that anybody else could be ripped-off too.
All your sfz and samples suddenly available at this guy website with new name without you knowing.

And anyone can be betrayed, robbed and looted! The world is bad.
Sometimes, anyway.

Yeah...it's free world...Anybody can do anything to it...

There is a lot of pain through that.
I don't know what to say.

[enroe]

So ... I support Kazi's proposal. Especially in the light of the previous
plagiarism problem with the author "Kinwie".

@Luiscameron: How about translating the following libraries into
the SFZ and the decent sampler format? I think the KVR community
would really appreciate it and would be delighted.

Here are a few currently Kontakt-only libraries listed in the Highlights section of Pianobook:

https://www.pianobook.co.uk/library/the-hoffman/

https://www.pianobook.co.uk/library/marimba/

https://www.pianobook.co.uk/library/con ... t-celeste/

https://www.pianobook.co.uk/library/joshuas-martin/

https://www.pianobook.co.uk/library/hohner-guitaret/

[surreal]

Guys,

I have just completed improving the Decent sampler version of the following piano instruments, and created both the SFZ (and when possible the SF2 versions) of them and provide the download links here:

1. Yamaha C2 MVP piano
https://apiano.co.uk/free-soundfont-yam ... and-piano/

2. 88 Keys Baldwin piano
https://apiano.co.uk/free-piano-instrum ... mpler-sfz/

3. Yamaha DiskLavier Pro piano
https://apiano.co.uk/free-piano-instrum ... tic-piano/

4. Improved Yamaha C3 Grand Piano (provided by Bengt Nilsson and Sfzinstruments)
https://apiano.co.uk/free-piano-instrum ... oom-piano/

5. Yamaha C3 Grand Piano
https://apiano.co.uk/free-piano-instrum ... mpler-sfz/

More piano instruments will be improved and converted to both Decent Sampler and SFZ later and I will keep you guys posted.

thanks for the heads up

[MTorn]

I'm trying to avoid making the post thread too long, but here are some thoughts.

No, the separation of samples and definition makes it
easier because it is more modular. On the contrary: The
monolithic samples of proprietary manufacturers -
consisting of only one file - are completely inaccessible -
and can only be used with their one product.

I don't disagree with this. The point I was trying to make was that the issue of origin and authorship is a bit messier, since every instrument deals with two very different modes of creation. One is pure audio data, the other pure text. The audio data can very easily be separated and repurposed, which is a double-edged sword. And the text data can be seen (by some) as disposable.

There are sample sets that are composed of many
different samples. A well-known example is the "Virtual
Playing Orchestra" by Paul Battersby. So what you
are saying here is not true.

Well, yes, but I'm sure you'll agree that in the vast majority of cases, the sound data inside one single sound is recorded/created by one person/company/collective.

Yes, but in any case there is always an author. And depending
on the license that the author specifies, he must be named!

This is exactly the same as any other creative effort. Whether it
is software, image processing or a sfz.

I think the issue of the license is at the heart of much confusion. Most people don't know what license any given set of sample are released under. In fact, I'm sure most people don't have a clue of what a creative commons license, or any other license, is. And a lot of those people don't care.

I think it's unrealistic to expect that people will behave differently.
"Hey, cool, a free SFZ crumhorn! I'll download that. Hmm, the SFZ programming is clunky, I'll make a better one."
Five years later... somebody asks online:
"Hey all, does anyone have a crumhorn SFZ sound?"
"Yes, I think I have one somewhere. Here it is, enjoy!"

In that scenario all mentions of creator credit are lost, no idea what the license was. Is it ideal or technically legal? No. But is it malicious and evil? I don't think so. Just human.

The only difference between free software / free sample sets and paid
products is usually that they do not have copy protection. But for people
with a high level of criminal energy, copy protection is usually not an
obstacle. Unfortunately.

A big difference, of course, is that with free material there's no exchange of money involved. You can't claim loss of income on something you've offered for free.

With the help of CC you can say, for example, that YOUR NAME must always
be mentioned for your SFZ. This also includes a link to your website.

You can also instruct that your SFZ may not be changed. And you can instruct
that someone else is not allowed to make any money with your SFZ. These
Creative Commons instructions are legally valid!

Again, while legally valid, it's just not how people behave.
Free is free is free. (is what a whole lot of people think)

I'm in the process of producing a massive library that I intend to share when it's complete. I'm hoping that a lot of people will have use for it, but I have no expectations that it will remain unaltered for very long.

No, no, please don't be so pessimistic!

You go to the Creative Commons page and
there you choose YOUR license-model. For instance: "CC - by - nd - nc".
When presenting and publishing your work (SFZ, sample set, ...) you
indicate this license - done!

With the "nd" in the license specification you have "no derivatives".
This means that your sample set or your SFZ must not be changed
by anyone! And if someone does it even though, your lawyer will be happy about a
warm rain of money!

Oh yuck, I have no interest in doing any of that stuff! What's the fun in that?
If I wanted to get into that kind of messy stuff, I think I'd just use the effort to produce a commercial product instead.

It'll be more of a "Here, everybody, here's some toys. Have fun!"
If I see the stuff distributed elsewhere, with somebody else claiming credit, that's fine. At least it's getting out there, with other people finding it useful.

[enroe]

Oh yuck, I have no interest in doing any of that stuff! What's the fun in that?
If I wanted to get into that kind of messy stuff, I think I'd just use the effort to produce a commercial product instead.

It'll be more of a "Here, everybody, here's some toys. Have fun!"
If I see the stuff distributed elsewhere, with somebody else claiming credit, that's fine. At least it's getting out there, with other people finding it useful.

Yeah. Just put these two lines (in red)

License = Creative Commons by - nd - nc
Author = ... , always name the author, no changes allowed, no commercial use

into the header of your SFZ and the "readme"-file, an that's it.
No messing around, no second thoughts. Just do it! And have fun!

[Tj Shredder]

Copyright infringement happens often. But if you attach a license to your work explaining what your wish is, you can protect it. The most common one is NC - non commercial - for a good reason. If you are poor you don’t want someone become rich with your work. Now, if someone just grabs your work, attaches his own name to it and starts to sell it, it needs to be public (or he won’t make much money). The chance isn’t too bad that you will stumble over it and recognize your work. Then get a lawyer and ask for compensation or a share of the profit. You could still sell a license for commercial use.
A friend of mine once wanted to test Googles search engine to find pictures. He is also a painter beside being a musician. He just took a photo of one of his paintings at the wall, and in the search result was a page from an American university using his picture (it looked a bit like an image from a bubble chamber). They never asked for permission and I am sure he would have given the permission for free if they had asked… I didn’t follow what happened, but I am sure he could easily get some cash out of it…

[MTorn]

Yeah. Just put these two lines (in red)

License = Creative Commons by - nd - nc
Author = ... , always name the author, no changes allowed, no commercial use

into the header of your SFZ and the "readme"-file, an that's it.
No messing around, no second thoughts. Just do it! And have fun!

That's good advice, perhaps I should do that.
The messy part is to follow through, possibly legally, if you spot some infringement. Yuck again.

[MTorn]

Copyright infringement happens often. But if you attach a license to your work explaining what your wish is, you can protect it. The most common one is NC - non commercial - for a good reason. If you are poor you don’t want someone become rich with your work. Now, if someone just grabs your work, attaches his own name to it and starts to sell it, it needs to be public (or he won’t make much money). The chance isn’t too bad that you will stumble over it and recognize your work. Then get a lawyer and ask for compensation or a share of the profit. You could still sell a license for commercial use.
A friend of mine once wanted to test Googles search engine to find pictures. He is also a painter beside being a musician. He just took a photo of one of his paintings at the wall, and in the search result was a page from an American university using his picture (it looked a bit like an image from a bubble chamber). They never asked for permission and I am sure he would have given the permission for free if they had asked… I didn’t follow what happened, but I am sure he could easily get some cash out of it…

My day job is as a photographer, so that kind of thing is something I have to keep in mind for my work. Luckily the kind of pictures I take usually aren't of interest to anyone but the client, so it hasn't become a big issue at any point.

Perhaps that's why I like the happy-go-lucky approach for the music stuff.
Oddly, if I were to put out some free materials and found that somebody grabbed it and started to make money from it, I'd probably just think of it as an encouragement to start making new ones and try to do it for a living! Very naive, admittedly.