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 » 29

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.

TunePlus Wordpress Theme