Warning: mysql_get_server_info(): Access denied for user ''@'localhost' (using password: NO) in /home/customer/www/e-music.india-meets-classic.net/public_html/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/customer/www/e-music.india-meets-classic.net/public_html/wp-content/plugins/gigs-calendar/gigs-calendar.php on line 872
Indian E-music – The right mix of Indian Vibes… » News Feed

February Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters: License Renewals, EEO Reporting, KidVid Reports, Zonecasting Comments, FCC Open Meeting, and More

Delivered... David Oxenford and Adam Sandler | Scene | Tue 26 Jan 2021 3:48 pm

With the federal government and the FCC under new management, Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel may well take the Commission in a direction that aligns with the policies she supported during her time as a Commissioner.  It is notable that, no matter what policies she advances, the routine regulatory dates that fill up a broadcaster’s calendar are generally unchanged.  Some of the dates and deadlines which broadcasters should remember in February are discussed below.  Given the transition period that we have just been through, the number of February dates are somewhat lighter than in most months – but that is sure to pick up as everyone settles into their new roles at the FCC.

On or before February 1, radio stations in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma and television stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi must file their license renewal applications through the FCC’s Licensing and Management System (LMS).  Those stations must also file with the FCC a Broadcast EEO Program Report (Form 2100, Schedule 396) and, if they are part of a station employment unit (a station or a group of commonly owned stations in the same market that share at least one employee) with 5 or more full-time employees, upload to their public file and post a link on their station website to their Annual EEO Public Inspection File report covering their hiring and employment outreach activities for the twelve months from February 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021.  TV and radio stations licensed to communities in New Jersey and New York which are part of an employment unit with 5 or more full-time employees also must upload to their public inspection file their Annual EEO Public Inspection File report by February 1.

For the first time, TV broadcasters must submit a Children’s Television Programming Report that covers a full year and not just one quarter.  Following the FCC’s 2019 KidVid rule changes, which we summarized here, reports are now submitted to the FCC annually by January 30.  Because January 30 is a Saturday this year, the report is due to be filed by the next business day—Monday, February 1.  FCC rules also require that stations place in their public files by January 30 of each year records documenting compliance with the limits on the number of commercial minutes that stations can run during children’s programming.  Note that the commercial limits records are not formally filed with the FCC so arguably the January 30 deadline applies, although an FCC staff presentation indicated that the deadline is February 1.

Interested parties should be aware that comments are due by February 10 in the FCC’s FM booster zonecasting proceeding.  The proposal would allow FM boosters to originate limited amounts of programming (up to 5%—or 3 minutes—of any program hour) different from their primary stations.  Stations could target hyper-local content like local news, advertisements, and weather information to different parts of the station’s coverage area.  Reply comments are due by March 12.  See our blog post, here, for more information.

The FCC is scheduled to hold its next Open Meeting on February 17—the first Open Meeting under Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.  At the time of writing this post, it is unclear what will be on the agenda for the meeting.  The agenda will be available, here, when it becomes available.

Looking ahead to March, any analog LPTV or TV translator that believes that it will not be ready to digital operations by the July 13 deadline has until March 13 to file a request for an extension of that deadline date.  Also, TV operators may be interested in filing comments by the March 8 deadline in the Copyright Office’s Notice of Inquiry looking to assess the impact of the abolition of the statutory copyright license that allowed satellite television operators to import distant network signals into TV markets where there were households arguably not being served by a local network affiliate (see our article here).

These are highlights of the dates to watch in February but be sure to keep in touch with your station’s counsel to stay on top of specific dates and deadlines applicable to your operations.  As the new administration takes shape, watch our blog, the trade press, and the FCC website for more information on new FCC actions.

The Evolution of Music in Video Games

Delivered... Caroline Whiteley | Scene | Tue 26 Jan 2021 12:49 pm

A new look at electronic music’s female pioneers, in limited streaming now

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Scene | Mon 25 Jan 2021 9:17 pm

With film festivals online, many parts of the world get a unique chance to peek into a new feature documentary on women pioneers in electronic music history, Sisters with Transistors.

The post A new look at electronic music’s female pioneers, in limited streaming now appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.


Delivered... Spacelab - Independent Music and Media | Scene | Mon 25 Jan 2021 8:30 pm
There's no official word yet, but a report from a credible source this is in the early stages of being carried out.

Stay A Lot More Than Six Feet From The NFL’s Trademarks!  2021 Update on Super Bowl Advertising and Promotions

Delivered... Mitchell Stabbe | Scene | Mon 25 Jan 2021 2:00 pm

For the last five years, I have posted guidelines about engaging in or accepting advertising or promotions that directly or indirectly reference the Super Bowl without a license from the NFL.  As hard as it may be to believe, the NFL has almost made its way this season to another championship game, so here is an updated version of my prior posts.

The Super Bowl means big bucks.  It is estimated that each of the three television networks that broadcasts the Super Bowl pays the NFL over $1 billion per year for the right to broadcast NFL games through 2022, including the right to broadcast the big game on a rotating basis once every three years.  The investment seems to pay off for the networks.  Reportedly, it cost $5.6 M for a 30-second spot during last year’s Super Bowl broadcast and national advertising revenue totaled $448.7 M, not counting income from ads during any pre-game or post-game programming.  (In addition to the sums paid to have their commercials aired, some advertisers spend millions of dollars to produce an ad.)  In addition, the NFL receives hundreds of millions of dollars from licensing the use of the SUPER BOWL trademark and logo.

Given the value of the Super Bowl franchise, it is not surprising that the NFL is extremely aggressive in protecting its golden goose from anything it views as unauthorized efforts to trade off the goodwill associated with the mark or the game.  Accordingly, with the coin toss almost upon us, advertisers should take special care before publishing or engaging in advertising or other promotional activities that refer to the Super Bowl.  Broadcasters and news publishers have greater latitude than other businesses, but still need to be wary of engaging in activities that the NFL may view as trademark or copyright infringement.  (These risks also apply to other named sporting events, for example, making use of the terms “Final Four” or “March Madness” in connection with the annual NCAA Basketball Tournament.)

Simply put, the NFL views any commercial activity that uses or refers to the “Super Bowl” to draw attention as a violation of its trademark rights.  Many of the activities challenged by the league undoubtedly deserve to be penalized.  However, the NFL’s rule book defines trademark violations very broadly.  If anyone were willing to throw the red flag to challenge the league’s position, a review from the booth might reverse some of those calls, but seeking review of the NFL’s play may be risky and would almost certainly be time-consuming and expensive.

Advertising that Merely Refers to the Super Bowl.  Under trademark law, use of a third party’s trademark is considered to be permissible “nominative fair use” if the use does not suggest a relationship between the advertiser and the trademark owner, and the trademarked goods or services cannot be readily identified without using the trademark.  Nevertheless, the NFL objects to any unlicensed third-party advertising that refers to the Super Bowl.®  For example, the use in advertising of taglines such as “Stock Up for the Super Bowl” for beer or snacks or “Get the Best View of the Super Bowl” for big-screen TVs has routinely led to the prompt issuance of cease-and-desist letters.  It is important to understand that the NFL may make a claim directly against the advertiser, as well as against a broadcaster or other news organization that publishes the ad.  (Whether a claim against the broadcaster could succeed will be the subject of a future blog post.)  As a result, many broadcasters may not want to accept advertising that specifically refers to the Super Bowl unless the advertiser first shows that it has NFL approval.

Other Marks.  To overcome these problems, many advertisers now replace any reference to the “Super Bowl” with “The Big Game.” When advertisers commonly began using this tactic, NFL Properties tried to register THE BIG GAME as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Over twenty different parties threatened to oppose the application and the NFL voluntarily abandoned the application.  We are not aware of any reported claims by the NFL against advertisers based upon the use of “The Big Game.”  (In addition to “Super Bowl®,” the NFL has federal trademark protection for “Super Sunday®,” “Gameday®,” “Back to Football®,” “1st and Goal®” and over a hundred other marks.)

Below are some examples of other activities that create a significant risk of an objection by the NFL:

“Super Bowl” Events or Parties.  A bar or restaurant that has a public performance license to show television programs on its premises has the right to show the Super Bowl broadcast to its patrons, but if it uses the words “Super Bowl” in its advertising to attract customers, the league will object.  Similarly, unless it is licensed by the NFL, a company should not be listed as the sponsor of a “Super Bowl” event or party.  (And, under copyright law, a fee should not be charged to watch the game.)

Famously, in 2007, the NFL sent a cease and desist letter to an Indiana church group that had used “Super Bowl” to describe a viewing party for the game and would charge $3.00 per person to cover the cost of snacks.  Possibly as a result of the adverse publicity, the league now says that it will not object to religious organizations that refer to their events as Super Bowl parties, provided that no NFL logos are used.  Moreover, the NFL has said that it will not object to a church viewing party for the Super Bowl if it is held in the church’s usual place of worship and no fee is charged for attending.  Churches can, however, request donations to help cover the cost of the event.

Sweepstakes or Giveaways: Naming.  Promoters should avoid incorporating “Super Bowl” in the name of any sweepstakes or giveaway or as a prominent feature of their advertising for the sweepstakes or giveaway.  It will lead to a swift cease-and-desist demand based on the argument that consumers are likely to believe the sweepstakes or giveaway is sponsored by the NFL.  Although that argument is not ironclad, the NFL is sponsoring its own “NFL Super Bowl LV Fan Campaign Contest,” which would provide another basis for claiming trademark infringement, namely, that the public is likely to believe that the unauthorized contest is associated with the NFL’s contest.

Sweepstakes or Giveaways: Prizes.  The NFL takes the position that game tickets cannot be offered as a prize or award.  In most situations, the “first sale” doctrine under trademark law provides that the buyer of goods may do whatever it wants with its purchase, including reselling it or giving it away.  Faced with this argument some years ago, the NFL (as well as the other sports leagues) now includes language on the back of tickets (or with electronic tickets), prohibiting their use as part of a sweepstakes, giveaway or other promotion.  Tickets to an event are legally considered a license to attend the event, rather than a good that is sold, and therefore entry can be conditioned on any basis that does not violate public policy.  Although it can be argued that the purchaser of a ticket will not even see this language until after the purchase is completed and therefore the terms have not been agreed to and are not binding, this argument has not precluded sports leagues from bringing claims when broadcasters have tried to engage in unauthorized giveaways with tickets bought on the open market as prizes.  Given the actions we have seen taken by sports leagues in the past, we would caution against contests involving NFL game ticket giveaways unless authorized by the NFL.  (This caution is not limited to NFL games.  Other sports leagues have incorporated similar language on the back of their tickets as well.)

Names of Programs.  Even if a broadcaster is not with the network that carries the Super Bowl (this year, NBC), it may want to produce a television program about the game.  In years past, the NFL or a local team has challenged local broadcasters that include the name of a team in a weekly program dedicated to discussions about the team.  Thus, it would not be surprising if the NFL similarly objects to naming a pre-Super Bowl television program about the game if the program incorporates “Super Bowl” in the title.  Indeed, several years ago, the NFL opposed an application to register “Play Everyday Like It’s Super Bowl Sunday” for a series of books in the field of management, and the application was abandoned.  (As discussed above, there is a strong argument that such naming constitutes permissible “nominative fair use,” but it can be expensive to take on a major sports league.)

Special Advertising.  Newspapers and online news outlets frequently have a special “section” that is devoted to coverage of the Super Bowl.  The organization should be able to solicit advertising to accompany its stories, just as it does for any of its news reporting.  It would be risky, however, to have an advertiser “sponsor” the coverage itself, particularly if “Super Bowl” is part of the name of the section or used in the special advertising.

Disclaimers.  A disclaimer such as “Not an Official Sponsor of the Super Bowl” or “This Advertisement (or Event) Has Not Been Licensed or Authorized by the NFL” will not ward off a cease-and-desist letter.  Moreover, in the event of litigation, it is unlikely to provide a defense to a claim of infringement.  And, even if the defense were ultimately successful, the defendant would still incur significant attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses.

Masked Advertisements.  A broadcaster who accepts an advertisement from a company wishing good luck to the players or congratulating the winning team, but not expressly promoting the advertiser’s goods or services, still runs a substantial risk.  In recent years, some businesses that have run “congratulatory” pieces in honor of some achievement by an individual athlete have been sued.  In one case, a jury rejected the defense that the business was engaged in protected non-commercial speech and awarded $8.9 million in damages.  Although this verdict was based on a violation of the athlete’s right of publicity, it would not be surprising to see a similar claim made by a sports league based on its trademark rights in the name of an event or a team.

Don’t Get (Too) Cute.  With tongue planted firmly in cheek, Stephen Colbert has poked fun at the NFL’s enforcement efforts by encouraging advertisers to use “Superb Owl” instead of “Super Bowl.”  See here.  Last year, an Arizona company tried to register “Superb Owl” as a mark for running events.”  It was presumably no coincidence that the Superb Owl race was scheduled to take place in Phoenix, where the Super Bowl was being held, on the same day as the game.  In addition, the company used the mark with slogans such as “Start Superb Owl Sunday Morning right with a football-themed tailgate party.”  It should have come as no surprise that the NFL opposed the application, which was ultimately withdrawn.  Other marks opposed by the NFL include “Superbowling Spectacular” for charitable bowling events, “Souper Bowl” for soups and “Supa Bowl” (“Supa” means “large” or “big” in Pidgin English) for restaurant services.  None became registered marks.

So, How Close Is Too Close?  On the other hand, the NFL took no steps to oppose an application to register “Superb Owl” for an online column that promotes entrepreneurs.  In addition, it has twice taken steps to preserve its right to oppose applications to register “Super Brawl” as a mark for boxing or wrestling matches, but ultimately backed off.  It has also considered opposing an application to register “Phil’s Grill Burger Bowl” on a design that resembles the Super Bowl trophy, but with a burger on top, rather than a football.  See here and here.  In that case, it could have been reasonably argued that the applicant was trying to get customers to make an association between the restaurant and the Big Game.  On the other hand, it could also be argued that the trophy design was a parody.  Ultimately, the league took a pass and the mark is now registered.  So, where is the invisible line that advertisers should not cross?  Probably somewhere near the ten-yard line.  (In other words, there is no way to know.)

Risk Analysis: The policy underlying protection of trademarks is to protect consumers from deception and prevent customer confusion.  That said, is there a meaningful difference between, for example, an ad that invites consumers to “Stock up for the Super Bowl” as opposed to one that says, “Stock up for the Big Game”? Do they convey different messages?  Is one more likely than the other to confuse consumers into believing that the product being advertised is sponsored by, endorsed by, or otherwise affiliated with the NFL?  Probably not.

So, why is the NFL so aggressive? The answer almost certainly lies in the fact that “official sponsors” of the Super Bowl and other trademark licensees would not be willing to pony up the huge sums they pay if a competitor could freely use the “Super Bowl” trademark to promote itself without also paying a license fee.  This risk is particularly high for those who have been promised exclusivity in a given category and the right to promote themselves as “The Official _____ of the Super Bowl.” Thus, the NFL has a huge incentive to prevent any advertising that may cross the line.  Aggressive enforcement also has a significant deterrent effect on businesses who might be tempted to engage in Super Bowl-related advertising or promotions.

These limitations apply to commercial uses of the NFL’s marks.  To be clear, however, news organizations, however, have the right to use “Super Bowl” or other NFL marks in reporting on the game.  (If they could not, viewers, listeners or readers might find themselves very confused!)  That said, a news organization that wants press credentials for the game faces an additional risk if it accepts what the league considers to be unauthorized Super Bowl-related advertising.  Although news organizations are not required to have permission to report on an event, as a practical matter, their ability to do so from inside the stadium will be hampered by a refusal by the NFL to issue press credentials.  (And, yes, we have seen professional sports leagues make such a threat.)

For these reasons, for most broadcasters and other news organizations, the better course is to be aware of and avoid any possible pitfalls, rather than run the risk of litigation.

This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: January 16, 2021 to January 22, 2021

Delivered... David Oxenford and Adam Sandler | Scene | Sun 24 Jan 2021 5:44 am

Here are some of the regulatory developments of the last week of significance to broadcasters, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • President Joe Biden named Jessica Rosenworcel as Acting Chair of the FCC, where she will set the agenda for the Commission until a permanent Chair is appointed (and she may be a candidate for that permanent position). The Biden administration has not said when it will name a permanent chair.  (News Release)
  • The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Prometheus Radio Project, et al., the Court’s review of the FCC’s 2017 media ownership rule changes. The changes at issue include the abolition of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule and several local TV ownership restrictions.  A decision in the case is expected by early summer.  Audio of the argument and a written transcript are available, here.  In an article, here, we looked at the argument and how the Court’s decision could impact the future review of ownership issues by the Commission.
  • The FCC issued new technical rules regarding the use by TV stations of Distributed Transmission Systems (DTS) (also known as single frequency networks). The new rules expand and clarify the permissible range of “spillover” beyond a station’s protected contour.  DTS gives stations a more uniform signal strength throughout their service area which would be beneficial to new services that can be offered with the ATSC 3.0 (Next Gen TV) transmission standard.  (Report and Order)
  • A Georgia low power FM station settled an FCC investigation by acknowledging it violated the underwriting rules for noncommercial stations and agreeing to pay a $10,000 fine. The station was paid by a for-profit entity to air nine announcements that included prohibited promotional references.  (Order)
  • As we noted in last week’s summary, the Department of Justice declined to act on the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. We took a deeper look, here, at what this means for the future of the consent decrees and the state of play in the music licensing world.

Triple J’s Hottest 100: Heat Waves by Glass Animals tops annual Australian song poll

Delivered... Katie Cunningham | Scene | Sat 23 Jan 2021 10:31 am

The English group hit No 1 on a predominantly local chart that even features Victorian premier Daniel Andrews

The UK band Glass Animals have taken top spot in the Triple J Hottest 100 with their song Heat Waves.

The pop group edged out a number of hotly tipped local artists to hit No 1 in Australia’s biggest song poll, which was broadcast on Triple J on Saturday. Heat Waves was one of three tracks from the group to place in this year’s countdown.

Related: Billie Eilish becomes first solo female artist to win Triple J Hottest 100

Happy @triplej #hottest100 day to every artist who released music in a year of zero touring and limited social interaction. You’re all winners!

Continue reading...

Inside KORG’s Modwave – sound design tips for this upcoming wavetable synth

Delivered... Francis Preve | Scene | Fri 22 Jan 2021 10:34 pm

KORG's Modwave synth isn't even out yet, but CDM sonic wizard-at-large Francis Preve was one of the people making sounds for it. Time to go 20,000 leagues under the sea with this monster wavetable hardware.

The post Inside KORG’s Modwave – sound design tips for this upcoming wavetable synth appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

CTM Festival is live now, from anywhere (not just Berlin or passholders)

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Events,Scene | Fri 22 Jan 2021 10:13 pm

Berlin's CTM Festival "Transformation" is online now to tune in anywhere in the world, featuring unique online features, audiovisual shows, talks, and more, with events through the end of the month.

The post CTM Festival is live now, from anywhere (not just Berlin or passholders) appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

The Supreme Court Argument on Media Ownership – What’s Next?

Delivered... David Oxenford | Scene | Fri 22 Jan 2021 6:30 pm

On Tuesday, as has been covered in most of the broadcast trade press, the US Supreme Court held its oral argument in the Prometheus case.  In this case, the FCC and a number of media companies seek to overturn the Third Circuit’s decision that threw out the FCC’s 2017 media ownership rule changes.  As we wrote here, these changes included the abolition of the newspaper-broadcast and radio-TV cross-ownership rules, the abolition of the “rule of eight” that requires that there be eight independent TV owners in a market to allow the common ownership or control of two TV stations in a market, the allowance in some cases of the common ownership of two of the top 4 TV stations in a market, and the determination that TV joint sales agreements are not attributable.  When the Third Circuit overturned the 2017 decision, those changes were undone (see our article here).  In addition, the Third Circuit’s basis for its decision was that the FCC had done an inadequate job assessing the effect that relaxations in the media ownership rules might have had on minority ownership in the past and how diversity of ownership would likely be affected by the 2017 changes (looking for historical information the FCC claimed not to have).  As a result, all other changes in the FCC’s media ownership rules have been put on hold, including proposed changes to relax the radio ownership rules because if the Third Circuit decision is upheld, any further changes in the local ownership rules have to make that same showing.

The argument on Tuesday went like so many court arguments – there were lots of questions directed by the Justices to all parties in the case.  While there were some questions about whether the FCC had adequately justified its 2017 decision, there seemed to be many questions focused not on whether to overturn the Third Circuit decision, but instead on whether to overturn it on narrow grounds (that the FCC had justified the need for reform of its ownership rules despite any impact it might have on minority ownership and the courts should defer to the opinion of the expert agency), or whether to come out with a more sweeping ruling that says that the statute calling for Quadrennial Reviews of the FCC’s ownership rules makes competition issues the guiding factor in assessing whether or not to relax existing ownership rules, and that ownership diversity is at most a collateral or secondary consideration.  If the Court in fact decides to overturn the Third Circuit, the basis of the decision could impact future ownership proceedings.  What is next for those proceedings?

First, we need to see what the Supreme Court does in its decision.  That decision is expected in late Spring or early Summer before the Court recesses for the summer.  If the Court does overturn the Third Circuit, the 2017 rules would likely be reinstated.  The FCC would then have to deal with its pending Quadrennial Review of the ownership rules, begun in 2019.  That proceeding principally looks at the radio rules – but also includes a review of the dual network rule (whether common ownership of 2 of the Top 4 TV networks should be permitted), the Top 4 rule for TV ownership (trying to decide if there are more definitive criteria that can be established as to when two of the top 4 TV stations in a market can be commonly owned); and whether there should be any rules limiting shared services agreements between non-commonly owned stations.  The FCC may well ask for further comments on the issues raised in the Quadrennial Review in light of whatever standards are set out in the Court’s decision.  So, even if a Supreme Court decision overturning the Third Circuit comes out in May, June or early July, don’t expect a quick resolution to any of the pending matters.

There are other factors at play as well.  Of course, the Supreme Court could uphold the Third Circuit decision, in which case the FCC would have to try to gather historical data on ownership diversity before moving forward on any changes in its ownership rules.  Also, no matter which way the Court rules, we will have a new FCC considering the ownership rules.  As of yesterday, Commissioner Rosenworcel became Acting Chair Rosenworcel with her appointment to lead the agency while the new President determines who will lead it permanently (and she may well be one of the candidates).  She dissented from the 2017 media ownership changes and expressed concerns about some of the further relaxation of the ownership rules proposed in 2019, and those decisions may well inform her view of further changes to the rules.  Commissioners Starks and Simington were not on the FCC when either of these actions were taken, so we will have to see how they react both to the Court decision and to the record developed in the comments filed in the FCC’s proceeding.

So, as is so often the case in any broadcast proceeding, we may not see any changes in the FCC’s ownership rules in the short-term except those that may result directly from the Supreme Court decision, to the extent that the Court’s decision reinstates the 2017 changes.  As we wrote here, in one of his final speeches Chairman Pai called for a relaxation of more of the ownership rules given the real and growing competition to the broadcast services coming from digital media.  We will be waiting to see how the new FCC reacts to that changing competitive environment, and the instructions from the Supreme Court that may well guide the FCC’s decisions.

Madlib: Sound Ancestors review – hip-hop visionary tells wondrous stories in sound

Delivered... Tayyab Amin | Scene | Fri 22 Jan 2021 10:30 am

(Madlib Invasion)
Arranged by Four Tet, the producer’s stunning album is poignant and sincere, combining beats, jazz, reggae toasts and vocal snippets into a kind of folklore

There are more ways to fall in love with Madlib’s myriad music projects than not. For many it’ll be his charismatic beats for the late, great MF Doom, his collaborations with fellow sampling pioneer J Dilla or more recently, his sleek instrumentals for rapper Freddie Gibbs. Then there’s his remixes of the Blue Note Records archive, his one-man-jazz-band Yesterdays New Quintet, and Lord Quas – his satirical, pitched-up alter ego MC. Madlib’s ability to speak a universal language through so many modes is hip-hop in technique but something much broader in essence. On Sound Ancestors, his creations are arranged by producer, DJ and longtime friend Four Tet. It’s through the idiosyncrasies of this collaboration (such as an abnormally clean mix with uncharacteristically prominent drums) that Sound Ancestors achieves its mission to deliver a no-guest vocalists, start-to-finish-listen Madlib album experience.

Continue reading...

Meet River Moon, South Africa’s Loveable Agent of Chaos

Delivered... whitney | Scene | Thu 21 Jan 2021 8:59 pm

Meet River Moon, South Africa’s Loveable Agent of Chaos

Delivered... whitney | Scene | Thu 21 Jan 2021 8:59 pm

Here’s a free pack to get MIDI Polyphonic Expression under your fingertips

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Scene | Thu 21 Jan 2021 7:21 pm

MIDI Polyphonic Expression, once considered exotic, is now in favorite tools like Ableton Live 11, Xfer Serum, and Arturia Pigments. So where to get started? Our friends at Sensel just made a handy free preset pack.

The post Here’s a free pack to get MIDI Polyphonic Expression under your fingertips appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

Chocolate and peanut butter for visuals: Houdini and TouchDesigner, in a free talk today

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Scene | Thu 21 Jan 2021 4:18 pm

It's a procedural visuals dream team. It's what would have happened if Darth Vader and Leia actually teamed up and overthrew the Emperor. (Come on, you know you wondered.) And if you're curious why, there's a free talk.

The post Chocolate and peanut butter for visuals: Houdini and TouchDesigner, in a free talk today appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

Next Page »
TunePlus Wordpress Theme