Warning: mysql_get_server_info(): Access denied for user 'indiamee'@'localhost' (using password: NO) in /home/indiamee/public_html/e-music/wp-content/plugins/gigs-calendar/gigs-calendar.php on line 872

Warning: mysql_get_server_info(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/indiamee/public_html/e-music/wp-content/plugins/gigs-calendar/gigs-calendar.php on line 872
Indian E-music – The right mix of Indian Vibes… » 2018 » January

Drunken in the Streets of Brussels

Delivered... Hannes Liechti from Norient | Scene | Wed 31 Jan 2018 7:53 pm

Stromae’s viral music video «Formidable» reached almost one 120 million YouTube hits in two years. We talked to Belgian music video director Jérôme Guiot about the process of creating buzz and how marketing strategies have become an integral part of producing contemporary music. From the Norient book Seismographic Sounds (see and order here).

Brussels Molenbeek (Photo © by Michielverbeek , 2015)

This is Not a Lesson

[Hannes Liechti]: You have been working with Stromae for quite a time now. Why do you like to work with him?
[Jérôme Guiot]: Because I think he’s genuine in what he’s doing. To be honest, I’m not really into his music in everyday life. But I’ve known him for a long time now—we’ve been studying together in the cinema school—and I know that he’s really dedicated to what he’s doing. He’s not just releasing products to sell.

[HL]: You’ve had your first success with Strome on «Alors en dance» in 2010. Apart from the official music videos, you’ve been and you still are releasing different video formats with him. What are they about?
[JG]: We have two kinds of what we call experimental web contents. First «Les leçons de Stromae» (Stromae’s lessons): short, viral videos of him, explaining how he’s doing his songs. Second, another format called «ceci n’est pas un clip» (this is not a clip), in which you can see him singing in front of the camera. «Formidable» was supposed to be such a lesson, but since it turned out to be a mix between both concepts mentioned above, we decided to create a new label for this video: «ceci n’est pas un leçon» (this is not a lesson).

[HL]: So «Formidable» was not intended to be an official music video at first?
[JG]: No. At the time Stromae’s second album wasn’t out yet. He was just about to begin the promotion of it. We were looking for different ways to make people discover the songs than through the usual method of sending them to the radio stations, launching a music video and waiting for the people to like it. So basically «Formidable» was an experiment.

Some Kind of a Scandal

[HL]: What was the idea behind the clip?
[JG]: There was a guy who filmed Stromae at a gas station, sitting in his car eating something he had just bought there. This little crappy clip became viral. For us that seemed completely absurd: we spend thousands of Euros for producing video clips and this guy has just been an asshole for five minutes and hit as many likes as we normally do with big efforts. We asked ourselves what people would appreciate more: a music video with real content or one with some kind of a scandal of a famous person? That’s how we decided to let Stromae play drunk in the streets of Brussels.

[HL]: Have you been surprised by the result?
[JG]: The reactions of the people were totally reversed from what we expected. For sure people recognized Stromae. But instead of helping the drunken man, people filmed him and uploaded the clips on YouTube afterwards. That’s really awkward. On the other hand, the cops who approached Stromae during the shooting tried to help him, which really is not what they usually do with drunken people. They only helped because Stromae was famous. Indeed, the video is not really expressing a world I’d like to live in. But I apparently do.

[HL]: Did you have contact with the policemen later?
[JG]: Yes, we did. First we decided to be careful and to blur their faces, but later we got in touch and one of them even got on stage at some of Stromae’s concerts during the performance of «Formidable.» He came and arrested him towards the end of the song. That was funny.

Was He Drunk?

[HL]: I’d like to talk more about the shooting of the video. Can you describe it in detail?
[JG]: We did everything with hidden cameras, the whole set was invisible. We had seven cameras, four Canon 5D’s and three GoPro’s. One was in a car, driving around the roundabout the whole time, and another one with a long lens was in a building next to the place. We also had a sound engineer—hidden of course. Stromae wore headphones in order to be in sync and to catch the right pitch. We arrived around 8 o’clock, started around 9 and finished already at 10. Stromae went through the song maybe four times, but he never sang the whole thing, just screamed parts of it. Since the passers-by didn’t hear any music they really had the impression that he was drunk. He was even covered with beer and smelled like a drunken person. That helped as well.

Film still from Stromae (Music), Jérôme Guiot (Video): «Formidable» (Belgium 2013)

[HL]: How did you choose the spot?
[JG]: We’d been looking for a central location in Brussels that would feature a lot of people moving around, but only in passing. It was important that people didn’t stay there for too long. Then we planned to shoot on a busy day, in our case Monday. Finally the weather was perfect: raining and super cold. That added a lot of drama to the video. Stromae himself looked even more desperate in that situation. By the way, we only outlined a rough sketch beforehand about where to start, where to stay and where to go after receiving my call. Besides that he was completely free to act.

[HL]: Were there any reactions in the press the next day?
[JG]: A lot! We shot on Monday morning and somebody instantly uploaded a clip on YouTube. The day after, all of the Belgian newspapers printed headlines like: «Drunken Stromae in the Streets.» We decided not to respond and to wait for the video to be launched. Stromae even went a step further: on Friday he had to do a huge TV show in France and he played drunk on the set too in order to increase the buzz and the expectations of the audience about an explanation. Finally we launched the video on Saturday or Sunday. But we never explained anything; we just let the video speak for itself.

Creating a Buzz

[HL]: What do you think about the fact that you reached such a huge success with a video that was not even intended to be a music video, while other music videos you’ve been making with a lot of passion and energy remain unseen by the broader public?
[JG]: I ask myself this question often because, I mean, we achieved exactly what the guy at the gas station did. Of course, that’s frustrating and for «Formidable» we just had a lot of luck, regarding the shooting and the timing. But let’s be honest: although «Formidable» was an experiment, the success was not that surprising on the other hand. It’s of course much easier to do such a thing with a famous person like Stromae. But you really have to try not to come to wrong conclusions after hearing the story behind «Formidable.» It would be wrong to say in general that you shouldn’t put a lot of money in your videos to make them seen.

[HL]: If it was an experiment, are you saying you weren’t aiming to create buzz with «Formidable»?
[JG]: I wouldn’t say it that way. I mean, we should not hide ourselves about the goal of a music video: it’s always about spreading the music through the Internet and to make it known to other people. So even for «Formidable» there was kind of a strategy behind it, although we didn’t know how it would develop. People have been accusing Stromae of strategic marketing. But why not? That’s how it goes today: musicians need to promote their work and as you can see Stromae is really talented at doing that.

Jérôme Guiot directed his first short film as a final student project to complete INRACI cinema school in Brussels 2009. Since then he’s been working as a director, mostly shooting music videos.

The text was published first as a very short quote in the second Norient book Seismographic Sounds. Click on the image to know more.

Read More on Norient

> Maxime Pasques: «A «Formidable» Hype in Brussels»
> Jean-Martin Büttner: «Der Farbige»
> Wanlov the Kubolor: «In Ghana, Stromae Wouldn’t Be Lonely»

Erica are set to bring the 909 into the modular age with their latest gear

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Scene | Wed 31 Jan 2018 6:49 pm

Erica may be known for their tube-powered, retro-Polyvoks post-Soviet chic – but now they’re taking on the TR-909, in modules and a powerful drum computer.

This isn’t just another 909 remake, though. Take Roland’s legendary drum machine not just as a selection of well-known sounds, but as a way of thinking about synthesizing and sequencing percussion. Then, make those eminently patchable, so you can wire them into other gear and create some new, original ideas. Erica founder Girts Ozolins told me early on in starting the company that he thought the real appeal of modular was in customization – that it was something that allowed musicians to make something their own. And that seems to be the essence of the idea here. It’s a deconstructed, rather than reconstructed, 909.

On the sound side, then, you’ve got two friendly-looking, handsome, patchable modules. You can bolt these in and grab the knobs and it looks like you’ll be pretty happy. But there’s also plenty of CV when you want to get more modular.

On the sequencing side – and I’ll be the first to say this is what has me excited – comes a 909-style sequencer with accents, multiple tracks and banks, and extras like probability, track length (for polyrhythms), live and step modes, and more. You can sync it with MIDI, but there’s also an absurd amount of patchability.

And there’s modulation, too (here’s where we get way out of 909 territory) – two LFOs for modulating drums.

Just as promising, the whole thing comes from a collaboration with French DIY drum machine maker e-licktronic, who have made a name for themselves as a kind of cult-following underground drum machine maker for DIYers. The problem with e-licktronic was their projects required way too much assembly for all but the most dedicated soldering iron gurus. This brings some of their expertise to a wider market – niche, to be sure, but at least allowing you some time to, like, finish tracks and not just finish hardware assembly.

Full specs:

12x Accent outputs
1x CV/GATE track
2xLFO with independent or synced to the BPM frequency
Time signature per track
Pattern length per track
Shuffle per track
Probability per step
Retrigger per step
Instant pattern switching
Solo/Mute tracks
Step/Tap record modes
16 Banks of 16 Patterns
Instant pattern switching
Pattern linking
Midi sync in with start/stop
Track mode
Firmware upgrade via MIDI SySex

It also seems this is just the beginning – Erica have a whole drum module system in store: “Toms, Clap, Rimshot, HiHats, Cymbals, sample-based drum module and, to pull all system together – dedicated a drum Mixer with extended headroom and a limiter of unique design”

But you don’t have to wait long to get started. The kick and snare modules ship early March, alongside that sequencer.

Hey, Santa Claus! Yeah, I…. oh, wait, $#(*&, it’s March.

Hey, St. Patrick!

NAMM news: Drum Sequencer

NAMM news: Bass Drum & Snare Drum

The post Erica are set to bring the 909 into the modular age with their latest gear appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

This low-latency OS could change how music gear is made

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Scene | Tue 30 Jan 2018 8:01 pm

You want the flexibility of PC software, but the performance of standalone gear? A new music OS is the latest effort to promise the best of both worlds.

Sure, analog gear is enjoying a happy renaissance – and that’s great. But a lot of the experimentation with sound production occurs with software (iOS or Windows or Mac) simply because it’s easier (and cheaper) to try things out on an Intel or ARM chip. (ARM is the architecture found in your iPhone or iPad or Android phone, among others; Intel you know.) Some manufacturers are already making the move to standalone hardware based on these architectures – at AES last year, I saw Eventide’s massive coming flagship, which is totally ARM-based. But they’re typically rolling their own operating system, which provides some serious expertise.

MIND Music Labs this month unveiled what they called ELK – a Linux-based operating system they say is optimized for musical applications and high performance.

That means they’re boldly going where… a lot of players have tried to go before. But this time, it’s different – really. First, there’s more demand on the developer side, as more makers have grown intrigued by off-the-shelf CPUs. And developer tools for these options are better than they’ve been. And hardware is cheaper, lower-power, and more accessible than ever, particularly as mobile devices have driven massive scale. (The whole world, sadly, may not really feel it needs an effects processor or guitar pedal, but a whole lot of the world now has smartphones.)

ELK promises insanely low latencies, so that you can add digital effects without delaying the returning signal (which for anything other than a huge reverb is an important factor). And there are other benefits, too, that make music gadgets made with the OS more connected to the world. According to the developers, you get:

Ultra-low latency (1ms round-trip)
Linux-based, using single Intel & ARM CPUs
Support for JUCE and VsT 2.x and 3.x plugins
Natively connected (USB, WiFi, BT, 4G)

That connectivity opens up possibilities like sharing music, grabbing updates and new sounds, and connecting to wireless instruments like the ROLI line. There’s full MIDI support, too, though – and, well, lots of other things you can do with Linux.

(JUCE is a popular framework for developing cross platforms, meaning you could make one really awesome granular synth and then run it on desktop, mobile, and this platform easily.)

Now, having done this for a while, I’ve seen a lot of claims like this come and go. But at least ELK last week was demonstrated with some actual gear as partners – DVMark, MarkBass, and Overloud (TH-U).

1ms latency claims don’t just involve the OS. Here, ELK delivers a complete hardware platform, so that’s the actual performance including their (high-quality, they say) audio converters and chip. That’s what stops you from just grabbing something like a Raspberry Pi and turning it into a great guitar pedal – you’re constrained by the audio fidelity and real-time performance of the chipset, whether the USB connection or onboard audio. Here, that promises to be solved for you out of the box.

DVMark’s “Smart Multiamp” was the first real product to show off the platform. Plugin Alliance and Brainworx have signed on, too, so don’t be surprised if you’re soon looking at a dedicated box that can replace your laptop – but also run all your plug-ins.

And that’s the larger vision here – eventually ELK has its own plug-in format, and you should be able to move your favorite plug-ins around to connected devices, and access those gadgets from Android and iOS, But unlike using a computer or iPad on its own, you don’t have to sweat software upgrades or poor audio performance or try to imagine a laptop or tablet is a good music interface live.

This leaves of course lots of questions about how they’ll realize this vision and more questions if you’re an interested developer or manufacturer. I’m hopeful that they take the Eurorack market as a model – or even look at independent plug-in and app developers – and embrace a model that supports imaginative one-person developers, too. (A whole lot of the best music software and module ideas alike have come from one- and two-person shops.)

I at least like their vision – and I’m sure they won’t be alone. Best line: “Whether your idea of music is to be shut in a studio that looks like the bridge of a Klingon cruiser or you are a minimalist that wants everything to sound exactly like in 1958, we think you will be surprised at just how much smartness is going to affect us as musicians.”

I’ll throw this out here for now and let you ask away, and then we can do a follow-up soon. Loads more info at their site:


The post This low-latency OS could change how music gear is made appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

SoundExchange to Audit Records of Streaming by Alpha Media, Music Choice, and Google

Delivered... David Oxenford | Scene | Tue 30 Jan 2018 5:52 pm

Last week, the Copyright Royalty Board published a Federal Register Notice announcing that SoundExchange was auditing broadcaster Alpha Media as well as Music Choice and Google to assess their compliance with the statutory music licenses provided by Sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act for the public performance of sound recordings and ephemeral copies made in the digital transmission process. From the notice, it appears that SoundExchange is auditing only the webcasting activities of these organizations. Music Choice also provides a music service usually delivered with cable or satellite television services; a service that is subject to separate royalty rules though part of the same section of the statute. Google is somewhat of a surprise as most people don’t think of it as providing a noninteractive webcasting service – the kind of service subject to the statutory royalty which SoundExchange collects – but it must be doing so for it to be audited.

SoundExchange may conduct an audit of a licensee for the prior three calendar years in order to verify royalty payments. While, by statute, the notice of the royalty must be published in the Federal Register, the results usually are not made public. The decision to audit a company is not necessarily any indication that SoundExchange considers something amiss with that company’s royalty payments – instead they audit a cross-section of services each year (see our past articles about audits covering the spectrum of digital music companies here, here and here). SoundExchange is not the only royalty collection group who can audit music companies – though its audits are different because announcements are published in the Federal Register. All of the other performing rights organizations (e.g. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) can conduct audits from time to time. Audits are not limited to music, as television stations and other video companies can be audited to assess their compliance with program royalty obligations. We wrote more extensively about the royalty audit process here. So read our summary of the audit process, talk to your attorneys and accountants about the records you are keeping, and maintain those books and records to show that you have paid what you owed, as any company, big or small, could be the subject of a future audit to assess its compliance with its royalty obligations.

Sula-fest to send its fest-goers on an adventure-coaster – NYOOOZ

Delivered... "Indian Electronic Music" - Google News | Scene | Tue 30 Jan 2018 12:31 pm

Sula-fest to send its fest-goers on an adventure-coaster
Ranking Roger who have lent their music to some big, starry movies, Gypsy Hill- a band that plays an intoxicating mix of Balkan brass, Mediterranean surf rock, ska & swing, Grain- Gaurav Raina's solo project after the Midivial Punditz establishes him ...

and more »

Sula-fest to send its fest-goers on an adventure-coaster – Times of India

Delivered... "Indian Electronic Music" - Google News | Scene | Tue 30 Jan 2018 11:42 am

Times of India

Sula-fest to send its fest-goers on an adventure-coaster
Times of India
Ranking Roger who have lent their music to some big, starry movies, Gypsy Hill- a band that plays an intoxicating mix of Balkan brass, Mediterranean surf rock, ska & swing, Grain- Gaurav Raina's solo project after the Midivial Punditz establishes him ...

and more »


Delivered... Spacelab - Independent Music and Media | Scene | Tue 30 Jan 2018 12:00 am
Caspa, KOAN Sound and Mala headline! Also check out Joker B2B Hatcha B2B Youngsta B2B J:Kenko, Thriftwork, Mad Zach, Chee and more!


Delivered... Spacelab - Independent Music and Media | Scene | Tue 30 Jan 2018 12:00 am
Adam Beyer and Carl Cox headline! Dubfire B2B Nicole Moudaber B2B Paco Osuna, J.E.S.u.S., Jamie Jones, Joseph Capriati, Maceo Plex, Sasha and John Digweed are also in!

Video of some of the best new gear from NAMM – and no talking

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Scene | Mon 29 Jan 2018 10:39 pm

“Hi, we’re here at NAMM 2018, and –” No. Here’s the actual sound of the new Korg, Pittsburgh Modular, and Radikal gear, minus trade show noise or voiceover.

First, the KORG Prologue, the fascinating new polysynth from KORG with open programmable bits. (We’ve got a separate QA and more details from KORG coming soon!)

The Pittsburgh Modular Microvolt 3900 rides the wave of new desktop semi-modulars – standalone instruments that still provide tons of patching options, just without needing a rack of different modules to set up. And it looks like a fine instrument – though you may opt for the Lifeforms SV-1 if you prefer the flexibility of bolting into a Eurorack later. Price: US$629.

What sets this one apart from semi-modular rivals: performance-friendly and intuitive design, and a really flexible patch bay.

And lastly, there’s the Radikal Technologies Delta CEP A. Like the Pittsburgh piece and Arturia, it pitches itself as an entry point to modular – use it on its own, or as the first steps toward building a modular system. What you get is a paraphonic synth voice. There’s onboard MIDI to CV, so it can interface nicely with your computer or existing MIDI gear. You can choose between onboard digital and analog filters. And effects are built in – plus envelope, and LFO.

If all that sounds a little dull, here’s the juicy bit: you get a “swarm oscillator,” with eight tunable oscillators you can use for “chords, clusters or fat detuned multi-oscillator sounds.”

Mmmmm, swarms!

For good measure, here’s Waldorf’s flagship Quantum, which we first saw last year in Frankfurt.

Thanks to Bonedo for the great videos! More are coming, our friends there tell us!

The post Video of some of the best new gear from NAMM – and no talking appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.


Delivered... Spacelab - Independent Music and Media | Scene | Mon 29 Jan 2018 9:00 pm
Stereophonics, Liam Gallagher and Arctic Monkeys headline! The Script, Courteeners and Interpol also top the lineup!

Copyright Royalty Board Decision Will Raise Royalties Paid to Songwriters and Publishers By Digital Music Services

Delivered... David Oxenford | Scene | Mon 29 Jan 2018 6:04 pm

The amount paid to songwriters and publishing companies for the making of “phonorecords” will be going up after a Copyright Royalty Board decision just released to the parties to the case. A summary of the findings have been published on the CRB website, here. The new rules are available here. A full decision explaining the CRB reasoning will follow at some later date.

These royalties are not ones paid by broadcasters or non-interactive webcasters or internet radio stations. Instead, these are the royalties paid under Section 115 of the Copyright Act for the making of copies of musical compositions when making a sound recording (this would include the amount paid by a record label or performing artist to the composer of a song or the composer’s publishing company for the use of the composition in a CD or for a digital download) and, more importantly in today’s world, in connection with on-demand or interactive music services. While one might wonder if an on-demand stream really makes a reproduction of a composition when it is sent to a customer to enjoy, by tradition that has grown up over the last decade, these royalties are paid by these services (though, in one case, Spotify questioned whether they were legally required).

The Section 115 proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to set royalties began two years ago. Certain parties entered into a settlement on the royalty for making reproductions of the compositions in connection with the making of sound recordings including CDs, LPs, digital downloads and ringtones (see the Federal Register Notice of that settlement here). But the interactive services (including Spotify, Amazon, Apple and Pandora) all continued to litigate over the royalty for interactive streaming services, apparently leading to the new decision which over five years would raise songwriter royalties as much as 45%. The new royalties, set out below, are set both as a percentage of revenue and as a percentage of “content costs,” which means the total cost paid by the service for both the rights to the sound recording and the musical composition. The new royalties are proposed to be:

  • In 2018, 11.4 percent of revenue or 22.0 percent of total content cost
  • In 2019, 12.3 percent of revenue or 23.1 percent of total content cost
  • In 2020, 13.3 percent of revenue or 24.1 percent of total content cost
  • In 2021, 14.2 percent of revenue or 25.2 percent of total content cost
  • In 2022, 15.1 percent of revenue or 26.2 percent of total content cost

This decision obviously raises questions, as digital music services have reported financial losses on a regular basis. Many press reports have indicated that sound recording royalties already result in services paying more than one-half (and in some reports as much as 70%) of the revenue of the service. Adding a royalty for the musical composition that can be as much as one-quarter of the sound recording fee leaves little money for the service to pay all of its other operating costs. Will sound recording royalties decrease to accommodate the higher composition royalties? That certainly has never been the case in the past, but we will have to see how these royalties affect that dynamic.

It is also interesting that this decision was released just as Congress seems to be getting some traction on a bill, the Music Modernization Act, which would reform the way that these royalties are paid – setting up a collective which would function somewhat like SoundExchange does for collecting sound recording performance royalties from non-interactive digital music services, and changing some of the criteria for determining the rates to be paid by the services. This legislation seems to have the support of the major representatives of songwriters and publishers, as well as the digital services. On Friday, the NAB lifted its objections to the proposed House and Senate Bills. Will this decision upend that agreement? We will write more about that proposed legislation soon, and will provide more information about the Section 115 decision when it is released.

Comment Dates Set on National TV Ownership Caps – Can and Should the FCC Amend the 39% Audience Cap?

Delivered... David Oxenford | Scene | Mon 29 Jan 2018 5:49 pm

At its December meeting, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to review the national ownership cap for over-the-air television, which limits one owner from having attributable interests in television stations reaching more than 39% of the national audience. That Notice was published in the Federal Register on Friday, setting February 26 as the date for initial comments, and March 27 as the date for reply comments. When the FCC last year reinstated the UHF discount (see our article here), one of its justifications for the reinstatement was that the elimination of the discount could not be done without a full review of the national ownership rules – as the elimination of the discount could affect the video marketplace, and any potential adverse effects should be studied before abolishing the UHF discount (the discount counts each UHF station as reaching only one-half the audience of a VHF station). When the FCC reinstated the discount, the Commission promised to initiate this rulemaking proceeding.

The NPRM basically asks two fundamental questions – does the FCC have the authority to amend the cap, and if does, should it use that authority to make changes now? The initial question is based on the fact that the 39% limit is written into statute by Congress. Obviously, this is a fundamental question, and the usual political party divide over the interpretation of ownership rules is not fully in evidence here. Republican Commissioner O’Rielly indicated in his statement supporting the initiation of the proceeding that he believes the FCC does not have the power to change the cap – only Congress can do that, as Congress set the cap and did not provide explicit authority for the FCC to review or amend it. The two Democratic Commissioners also questioned that authority – so one of these three Commissioners would have to change their initial understanding of the law for any change to become effective, or Congress would have to step in.

But even if the FCC does have the authority to change the cap, should it do so? If it does, what kind of change should be made? The Commission asks a series of questions on these issues, including:

  • If a change is made, to what level should the cap be adjusted?
  • How should compliance with any cap be measured? Should the FCC continue to attribute all the households in a DMA to a station that operates in that market, or would more precise coverage metrics be more appropriate?
  • Would a change affect network/affiliate relationships? Or would changes in the marketplace, including the rise of large independent television groups like Sinclair and Nextstar, mitigate any risks that might exist?
  • Would a change affect localism – and how should that effect be measured?
  • Does greater ownership diversity breed innovation in programming?
  • Do recent changes in the dynamics of the video marketplace affect the issues to be considered – as many competing program services (e.g., cable channels, Netflix, etc.) have no national cap, and in fact have a nationwide reach?
  • Should there now be a VHF discount, as VHF stations are perceived to be weaker than UHF stations?

In addition, the Commission asks for a cost-benefit analysis of any changes. And, it asks what to do with groups that don’t comply with any new standard. Should their ownership be grandfathered if they own more stations than allowed under any new cap? If so, for how long should any grandfathering last?

Given that the Chairman at least initially seems outnumbered on this issue, it will be interesting to see how this decision plays out. It will also proceed under the shadow of the appeal of the reinstatement of the UHF discount (see our article here), so any court decision in that case may provide some insight on the issue of whether the FCC has the authority to change the cap. There are many moving parts in this proceeding to watch during and after the just-announced comment period.

10 Artists Who Will Definitely Break Through In 2018

Delivered... By EB Staff | Scene | Mon 29 Jan 2018 12:08 pm

The post 10 Artists Who Will Definitely Break Through In 2018 appeared first on Telekom Electronic Beats.

Audulus kicks off 2018 with version 3.5: New UI, iOS 11 Files Integration, and more

Delivered... Ashley Elsdon | Scene | Mon 29 Jan 2018 12:21 am

Audulus have started off 2018 with a significant update to Audulus 3. Version 3.5 integrates iOS11’s new file system / browser, which will make moving patches around far more fast and convenient. Coupled with that is a new streamlined patch browser, giving users the ability to sort patches into folders, mark favorites, and more easily share patches.

The Module Library now arranges modules in a folder hierarchy, which makes finding modules much faster. And now you can search for modules and nodes by name, as well as drag and drop patches from iCloud storage. On your iPad, the Module Library remains open as you patch. This can save time, especially when building large patches.

Automatic highlighting is new to Audulus 3.5, simplifies understanding patches. Select a node or group of modules, and their output wires highlight while all others dim. Audulus 3.5 comes with an expanded library of examples accessible from the create document menu. The new examples include previews of an upcoming module library redesign. This massive expansion uses graphical symbols instead of text abbreviations for control labelling.

Under the hood Audulus 3.5 has been redesigned to make it easier to release smaller updates such as adding new patches, tutorials, and modules. And finally, Audulus now runs in portrait mode on iPhone!

Audulus is on the app store now:

The post Audulus kicks off 2018 with version 3.5: New UI, iOS 11 Files Integration, and more appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

Time for the FCC to Review Children’s Television Educational Programming Obligations of Broadcasters?  Commissioner O’Rielly Thinks So

Delivered... David Oxenford | Scene | Sun 28 Jan 2018 5:36 pm

Last week, Commissioner O’Rielly published an article on the FCC blog, suggesting that one of the next steps in the FCC’s Modernization of Media Regulation initiative should be the review of the FCC rules setting obligations for television stations to air educational and informational programming directed to children.  Stations are required to air an average of 3 hours of educational and informational programming per programming stream, and there are a host of related obligations generally requiring that the programming be run at regular times and be at least 30 minutes in length.  The rules also limit the ability to count repeats of such programs and requires that this programming be advertised in local programming guides.  We have written about fines or warnings that the FCC has issued in many cases, including questioning whether programming classified as educational and informational really should have been classified in that manner, for failing to have an onscreen “E/I bug” labeling, for counting one-time programs to meet the requirement for 3 hours of regularly scheduled programs, the programming as educational, and for failing to publish information about these programs in local program guides.

The Commissioner raised the question of whether the obligation, adopted in the 1990mos (see the FCC order here) really continues to make sense in today’s media marketplace.  So much has changed in the last 23 years, including the explosion of different sources of educational programming for children – including cable, Internet and other sources.  No longer are TV stations the only sources of video programming – and, in a world where even Big Bird has moved to a cable platform, there is a real question as to whether over-the-air television stations are even the best platforms for the delivery of such programs.  With so many competing sources of children’s programming, the Commissioner asked whether there is really a need for each station to do 3 hours of such programming on each of its channels.  Certainly, there have been questions of whether quality programming can be produced to meet the obligations for each channel and subchannel, when the new program sources are splintering the potential audience for any such programs.  The Commissioner also suggests that the current rules limit creativity in programming – forcing broadcasters to spend money on 30-minute on-air programs and not on other potential ways of meeting the needs of children, e.g. through short-form programs or online information.

While the requirement for television stations to meet the educational and informational needs of children is written Communications Act, the specific rules are not.  The statute, Section 303b of the Act, only says that the FCC must evaluate the efforts of TV stations to meet the educational and informational needs of children at license renewal time – not specifying how much time must be devoted to such programs or how it is to be delivered.  That is all left up to the FCC.  Thus, the FCC can reevaluate these issues – and we will be interested to see if this effort goes further in the near future.  The FCC has already tackled several long-standing day-to-day obligations that had imposed significant burdens on broadcasters – for instance modernizing EEO outreach obligations by allowing recruiting to be done online (see our articles here and here) and eliminating the main studio and local staffing requirements (see our articles here and here).  So even long-established rules are subject to the current Commission’s long overdue fundamental review – and the time seems to be coming to look at these children’s television obligations too.

Next Page »
TunePlus Wordpress Theme