|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 572
Journeyman
|
OP
Journeyman
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 572 |
Wish we could post BIAB recordings of cover tunes. Maybe there are others like me that don't compose original tunes (no interest here), but rather use BIAB daily with established, well-known songs. Maybe I need a web site. Never done that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,696
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,696 |
Strange isn't it? One of the primary uses of the PG software is the creation of backup tracks for live music presentation, yet to post these productions for "educational purposes" i.e. how to make better backing tracks, is a violation of copyright, because it could be construed that the cover song is being used to sell the software.
Not sure about the US but in Canada, bars that want live music with their license, pay a fee which is sent to performing rights organizations to be forwarded to, or available to, the writers of songs covered by the live band. However seldom do live bands file playlists of their cover songs with information about the copyright holder so that these songwriters can be compensated. Don't see why the same type of license fee couldn't apply to PG Music - not sure how that would work. One license fee for each performing rights organization. Still, it gets complicated.
That being said PG's position is difficult and could be misinterpreted as using copyright material to sell software.
I supplemented my income and raised a family for over twenty years singing cover songs.
I've always enjoyed hearing them on the forum site and would like to continue to do so.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Place the blame on the RIAA and other recording rights organizations.
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,696
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,696 |
In case I was misunderstood, I wasn't placing any blame on PG Music - they are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,109
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,109 |
Quote:
Strange isn't it?
Bars that want live music with their license, pay a fee which is sent to performing rights organizations to be forwarded to, or available to, the writers of songs covered by the live band. However seldom do live bands file playlists of their cover songs with information about the copyright holder so that these songwriters can be compensated. Don't see why the same type of license fee couldn't apply to PG Music -
BMI, ASCAP,SESAC hold the venue responsible for obtaining performance rights for songs played as part of their business whether it is live or recorded. Check out the Jukebox in your favorite bar. If its legal there are performance rights stickers on them. Performers don't submit lists because the performing rights organizations do sample surveys and complete counts in key venues and extrapolate the numbers of plays a song gets over the whole of their licencees to detemine how much an individual songwriter receives in compensation for his work.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that PG Music could get a performing rights licence from each of the performing rights organizations to allow people to post covers of someone else's song. And that would be another additional cost of doing business with what return benefit? I think it is kind of cool to listen to someone's own work and how they have used PG Products to put together a new song, but I personally can't get the least bit excited about listening to someone's cover of someone else's work. My vote is to not demand such from PG Music so that they can maintain their current profit margin and keep the products that we pay for inexpensive. Don't forget that every "Free" thing that you folks demand from PG Music tanslates into a higher purchase cost for everyone.  There are places like CD Baby where you can post covers after you prove that you have rights to them and people can purchase them if they enjoy listening to them.
Keith
2025 Audiophile Windows 11 RYZEN THREADRIPPER 3960X 4.5GHZ 128 GB RAM 2 Nvidia RTX 3090s, Vegas,Acid,SoundForge,Izotope Production,Melodyne Studio,SONAR,3 Raven Mtis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 12,672
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 12,672 |
Quote:
Place the blame on the RIAA and other recording rights organizations.
We should blame Congress too, especially with the passage of the "Sonny Bono", that extend copyrights to 70 years after the death of the composer.
Patents are only good for 17 years (I think that's right), after which it reverts to the publish domain and allows others to add/change/enhance/benefit from prior work. That's how we move forward as a society, where other brains can take old ideas and make them better. The originator gets his time (17 years), but after that, we all can take a stab at it.
Today, if someone writes a song at 15 years old (many do) and lives to be 100, then the copyright will be valid for 155 years. That's a lot of great, great, great... grandchildren later. By then, who i even interested in that song, much less can even find it?.
Likewise, if someone writes a song at 15 years old and sadly dies immediately, then the copyright is valid for 70 years. That seems like a huge discrepancy to me.
Just my opinion. It would literally take an act of Congress to change it.
John Laptop-HP Omen I7 Win11Pro 32GB 2x2TB, 1x4TB SSD Desktop-ASUS-I7 Win10Pro 32GB 2x1.5TB, 2x2TB, 1x4TB SATA BB2025/UMC404HD/Casios/Cakewalk/Reaper/Studio One/MixBus/Notion/Finale/Dorico/Noteworthy/NI/Halion/IK http://www.sus4chord.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021 |
It would cost about $0.85 per listen plus $13.00 upfront fee per song. You'd want to post covers real bad. 
Last edited by silvertones; 07/28/10 11:35 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,109
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,109 |
Quote:
We should blame Congress too, especially with the passage of the "Sonny Bono", that extend copyrights to 70 years after the death of the composer.
Don't suppose that just because a copyright term has expired and a work has entered the public domain that someone hasn't subsequently found a way to claim it. I once had the bright idea of recording a bunch of public domain folk songs until I did some research on the subject and read about the legal woes of the Kingston Trio over their hit with "Tom Dooley".
As you probably know, the song Tom Dooley is an old Appalachian Mountain folk tune that had been handed down in various forms from generation to generation and no one could really claim authorship. The Kinsgton Trio specialized in modernizing some of these old songs and credited Tom Dooley as a traditional song arranged by Dave Guard on their record. The KT was sued by a gentleman named Frank Warner who went around and collected old folks songs by listening to the people in the mountains that performed them. His publishers, John and Alan Lomax, also claimed the publishing rights. Although the Trio claimed that they had learned the song just by listening to other performers (and there is no doubt that their arrangement was quite original) they were unable to prove in court that their knowledge of the song did not trace back directly or indirectly to the published work of Frank Warner. They ultimately lost the lawsuit and were forced to pay both real and punitive damages to the copyright holder. One wonders, that if a copyright is created at the moment a work is created, why the performer that Warner took the song from couldn't sue him and the Lomax brothers for violating his copyright. Oh, well. 
Keith
2025 Audiophile Windows 11 RYZEN THREADRIPPER 3960X 4.5GHZ 128 GB RAM 2 Nvidia RTX 3090s, Vegas,Acid,SoundForge,Izotope Production,Melodyne Studio,SONAR,3 Raven Mtis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,109
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,109 |
Quote:
It would cost about $0.85 per listen plus $13.00 upfront fee per song.
You'd want to post covers real bad.
LOL.....my point exactly. One would find out pretty convincingly how popular listening to cover tunes would be. 
Keith
2025 Audiophile Windows 11 RYZEN THREADRIPPER 3960X 4.5GHZ 128 GB RAM 2 Nvidia RTX 3090s, Vegas,Acid,SoundForge,Izotope Production,Melodyne Studio,SONAR,3 Raven Mtis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 12,672
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 12,672 |
Hi, Keith -
I suspect the problem with songs like Appalachian folk songs is that they were never written down in the first place. So it's a simple matter claim ownership of such a song with no one to dispute it. However, I think it would be much more difficult to do that for a piece that was actually previously published and for which records (paperwork trail, not 33 1/3 disks) exist.
Obviously, you can't record the same arrangement as someone else (on a public domain song) and claim ownership of it; however, melody and lyrics allow you to use them as you wish.
Sometimes you find errors in music scores, because they were intentionally placed there to prevent someone from taking your transcription of a public domain song and copying it to claim as your own new version. The errors give it away to show that yours was not a derivitive work of the original, but a copy of a new derivative.
I still maintain that songs (and other works of artistic expression) should enter the public domain much sooner than they do. Not for my benefit, but for the benefit of all.
John Laptop-HP Omen I7 Win11Pro 32GB 2x2TB, 1x4TB SSD Desktop-ASUS-I7 Win10Pro 32GB 2x1.5TB, 2x2TB, 1x4TB SATA BB2025/UMC404HD/Casios/Cakewalk/Reaper/Studio One/MixBus/Notion/Finale/Dorico/Noteworthy/NI/Halion/IK http://www.sus4chord.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 572
Journeyman
|
|
OP
Journeyman
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 572 |
Just curious. If potential legal problems are at issue with posting BIAB arrangements of copyrighted songs, how do other sites get away with posting hundreds of songs, mp3s, midi files, etc. of standard tunes played on arranger keyboards? One site, in particular, features Yamaha keyboards with many contributions by amatuer and hobbyist players, like many of us using pgmusic products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021 |
They shouldn't be unless the fees are paid. If theres enough advertising dollars spent and they're willing to keep track it may be worth it. Would it be worth PG Music pursuing this? I think it would. I bet there are thousands of potential customers out there that only play covers and would love to hear what others are doing with covers & BIAB & RB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,696
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,696 |
It would definitely be good for showcasing what can be done with the software. It would also be good if each user who does covers posted their website link in the signature area of their thread posts. Where is your link John? I'd like to listen to your productions? You posted it once before but I think you should have it up here permanently.  Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021 |
Ian,
I don't have a site. I was using Box.net. They have the same restrictions on copyrighted material. I guess since the Napster issue things have really tightened up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,696
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,696 |
John - are you allowed to post your link in your signature?
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021 |
Not according to the forum rules:
8. Posting (or requesting) links to songs, music or other copyrighted material is forbidden. You are allowed to post links to your own original songs.
PG has been fairly lenient though however I don't think in my position it would be right to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,199
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,199 |
Hi, I don't do cover songs. I don't totally understand people that can play very good cover songs but can't come up with an original one of their own. Surely people that can play instruments in their sleep can do better than cover songs. It's just chords and melody Just my opinion. Best regards Michee
Windows 11 64 bit, Biab 2024 1111, Realband 2024
i7 Desktop Computer 16Gb Memory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021 |
I won't touch that comment with a 10' pole Michee!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Enthusiast
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89 |
I dont think It's hard to understand at all. Great musicians are often relegated to cover bands because they spend all their time working on their chops and becoming a good player. Writers spend their time becoming better writers.
If you work on both you can become good at both, but writing doesnt happen automatically u have to learn how.
Playing covers involves no creativity, just chops, unless of course, you do something different with the cover then you enter into the creative zone. ie different arrangements, feels. But that involves the other band members too.
How come some guitar players can play every Eddie Van Halen solo or every Jim Hendrix solo there is
and play it great, but when it comes to soloing on something original they fall way off the mark?
Cause they learned how to copy and didnt learn how to write/compose a solo. They dont have Jimi's thought process or creative process, they just have his riffs down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®: VST3 Plugin Support
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® now includes support for VST3 plugins, alongside VST and AU. Use them with MIDI or audio tracks for even more creative possibilities in your music production.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Macs®: VST3 Plugin Support
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®: Using VST3 Plugins
Join the conversation on our forum.
Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Mac Videos
With the release of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac, we’re rolling out a collection of brand-new videos on our YouTube channel. We’ll also keep this forum post updated so you can easily find all the latest videos in one convenient spot.
From overviews of new features and walkthroughs of the 202 new RealTracks, to highlights of XPro Styles PAK 8, Xtra Styles PAKs 18, the 2025 49-PAK, and in-depth tutorials — you’ll find everything you need to explore what’s new in Band-in-a-Box® 2025.
Reference this forum post for One-Stop Shopping of our Band-in-a-Box® 2025 Mac Videos — we’ll be adding more videos as they’re released!
Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Mac is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac is here, packed with major new features and an incredible collection of available new content! This includes 202 RealTracks (in Sets 449-467), plus 20 bonus Unreleased RealTracks in the 2025 49-PAK. There are new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 4, two new sets of “RealDrums Stems,” XPro Styles PAK 8, Xtra Styles PAK 19, and more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac with savings of up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special—available until July 31, 2025! Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page for all the purchase options available.
2025 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
We've packed our Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK with some incredible Add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is automatically included with most Band-in-a-Box® for Mac 2025 packages, but for even more Add-ons (including 20 Unreleased RealTracks!) upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for only $49. You can see the full lists of items in each package, and listen to demos here.
If you have any questions, feel free to connect with us directly—we’re here to help!
Band-in-a-Box 2025 Italian Version is Here!
Cari amici
È stata aggerate la versione in Italiano del programma più amato dagli appassionati di musica, il nostro Band-in-a-Box.
Questo è il link alla nuova versione 2025.
Di seguito i link per scaricare il pacchetti di lingua italiana aggiornati per Band-in-a-Box e RealBand, anche per chi avesse già comprato la nuova versione in inglese.
Band-in-a-Box 2025 - Italiano
RealBand 2025 - Italiano
Band-in-a-Box 2025 French Version is Here!
Bonjour à tous,
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 pour Windows est disponible en Français.
Le téléchargement se fait à partir du site PG Music
Pour ceux qui auraient déjà acheté la version 2025 de Band-in-a-Box (et qui donc ont une version anglaise), il est possible de "franciser" cette version avec les patchs suivants:
BIAB 2025 - francisation
RealBand 2025 - francisation
Voilà, enjoy!
Band-in-a-Box 2025 German Version is Here!
Update Your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 to Build 1128 for Windows Today!
Already using Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Windows®? Download Build 1128 now from our Support Page to enjoy the latest enhancements and improvements from our team.
Stay up to date—get the latest update now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums58
Topics84,300
Posts777,468
Members39,614
| |
Most Online25,754
Jan 24th, 2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean