Greetings all,
First off, apologies for cross-posting...
I would just like to share the quick-and-dirty downmix of the premiere of my latest work "Symmetries" (that took place at the last-week's "Linux Audio Conference" in Karlsruhe, Germany) with the LAU/LAD as well as Pd community. Without you guys, this piece would never have been possible :-).
As my token of gratitude, in conjunction with this release I am also releasing the soundfont that I've built from scratch using exclusively Linux software (Swami, Rezound) and specifically for use in this piece. For more info on each of these please see notes below.
As always, your feedback is much appreciated!
About "Symmetries:"
Symmetries (for computer and optional violin) is an experiment in relegating musical structure and expression to the inherently stupid box of transistors. By concurrently utilizing various GNU/Linux audio software (Fluidsynth/QSynth, Pd, LADSPA, Jack-rack, JACK) it was composer's intention to generate a lush interactive texture whose frail balance engenders a consistent forward drive. In an ever-changing array of hierarchical probabilities no two instances are expected to ever be the same. The piece has been designed to be completely modular in terms of computer-driven sound diffusion and can utilize 2-8 channels.
For its premiere the piece used 8-channel diffusion. However, the recordings below are provided in a stereo-downmix form.
Hardware used in performance was eMachines m6807 laptop (64-bit AMD 3000+), RME HDSP Multiface, and a Peavey 1600x midi controller that I used to control some of the timbral nuances via Pd and Jack-Rack (LADSPA).
The violin part was played by Ania Zielinska (Poland) who commissioned the work.
There are 3 recordings available:
- 128-bit (fixed rate) 48KHz OGG recording of the premiere:
http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/Symmetries_LAC_2005_premiere.ogg (5.8MB)
- 128-bit 48KHz MP3 recording of the premiere:
http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/Symmetries_LAC_2005_premiere.mp3 (6.0MB)
- 64-bit 44KHz MP3 of the computer part:
http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/Symmetries.mp3 (2.8MB)
The soundfont is a based on series of recordings of solo violin playing straight tone "con sordino" sound. The recordings have been structured in a gigasampler fashion (minor 3rd apart, except for the open strings). It has 2 sets of samples, ones without limiter which have already been mapped, and other with the limiter which are in the soundfont but have not been mapped. The sample tuning has been adjusted "by ear," so it may not be mathematically accurate but FWIW it did pass my own scrutiny (which should be taken with a grain of salt as this piece is not as demanding when it comes to absolute preciseness of the tuning of individual pitches). The looping of sounds is measured to provide most seamless transition while accounting for the change of the direction of the bow. Conceivably one could create a sense of orchestral sordino by layering the same sound over and over. The soundfont does have reverb and chorus abilities enabled but IMHO it sounds the best without any chorus applied to it.
The soundfont is released under the "GPL/Artistic 2.0" license (for more info please see: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/rfc/346.html). Btw, I chose the art-related license simply based on my limited understanding that it is more appropriately tailored towards something that is not code-based. That being said, if anyone can explain me the difference between the two licenses, I would really appreciate it :-).
To download the soundfont please click here:
http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/Linux/violin_sordino.tar.bz2 (21.5MB)
NB: Considering that the Linux server that is hosting this may be on its last legs (strange noises from the HD), I would not mind if someone would consider mirroring this particular file. Many thanks!
Once again, I would like to extend my thanks to the developers and users alike of the open-source, and perhaps more importantly, Linux audio software!
Many thanks also go to the organizers of the Linux Audio Conference for making this performance possible!
Best wishes,
Ivica Ico Bukvic, composer & multimedia sculptor http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/
Le 29 Avril 2005 23:43, Ivica Ico Bukvic a écrit :
I would just like to share the quick-and-dirty downmix of the premiere of my latest work "Symmetries" (that took place at the last-week's "Linux Audio Conference" in Karlsruhe, Germany) with the LAU/LAD as well as Pd community. Without you guys, this piece would never have been possible :-).
Thanks a lot for sharing this mix with those of us who can't afford travelling that far. It is a beautiful piece, with a meaningful dialog between the violon and the computer part, (also beautiful alone).
As my token of gratitude, in conjunction with this release I am also releasing the soundfont that I've built from scratch using exclusively Linux software (Swami, Rezound) and specifically for use in this piece. For more info on each of these please see notes below.
Great! There's not many violon soundfonts available, and this is a nice one. Rezound is perfect to create loops; navigation within the sound is very effective.
The soundfont is released under the "GPL/Artistic 2.0" license (for more info please see: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/rfc/346.html). Btw, I chose the art-related license simply based on my limited understanding that it is more appropriately tailored towards something that is not code-based. That being said, if anyone can explain me the difference between the two licenses, I would really appreciate it :-).
This combination of licenses is for software (Perl in this case), Although it is called "Artistic", it was not designed to help distributing content. I would suggest to use a Creative Commons license. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3716218.stm http://creativecommons.org/ Maybe the new sampling license is appropriate for soundfonts? http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling -- Marc
On Apr 30, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 29 Avril 2005 23:43, Ivica Ico Bukvic a écrit :
I would just like to share the quick-and-dirty downmix of the
premiere of my latest work "Symmetries" (that took place at the last-week's "Linux Audio Conference" in Karlsruhe, Germany) with the LAU/LAD as well as
Pd community. Without you guys, this piece would never have been possible :-).Thanks a lot for sharing this mix with those of us who can't afford travelling that far. It is a beautiful piece, with a meaningful dialog between the violon and the computer part, (also beautiful alone).
As my token of gratitude, in conjunction with this release I am also releasing the soundfont that I've built from scratch using exclusively Linux software (Swami, Rezound) and specifically for use in this
piece. For more info on each of these please see notes below.Great! There's not many violon soundfonts available, and this is a
nice one. Rezound is perfect to create loops; navigation within the sound is very effective.The soundfont is released under the "GPL/Artistic 2.0" license (for
more info please see: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/rfc/346.html). Btw, I chose the art-related license simply based on my limited understanding that
it is more appropriately tailored towards something that is not
code-based. That being said, if anyone can explain me the difference between the
two licenses, I would really appreciate it :-).This combination of licenses is for software (Perl in this case),
Although it is called "Artistic", it was not designed to help distributing
content. I would suggest to use a Creative Commons license. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3716218.stm http://creativecommons.org/ Maybe the new sampling license is appropriate for soundfonts? http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling -- Marc
There is nothing wrong with distributing media, or anything for that
matter, under the GNU GPL. If it has the terms that you desire, then
you should use it. It is much better than almost all of the CC
licenses for something like a soundfont, I believe.
For example, if you include the Attribution clause, then if someone
wanted to include CC soundfonts in their app, they would have to
attribute every one of the soundfont authors whenever that app is
mentioned. Then if a Linux distro wanted to distribute those
soundfonts, they would also have to mention each author every time that
distro is mentioned. Then we are back to the old BSD license problem.
The UC Berkeley ditched the attribution clause for this very reason.
CC licenses are good for final products (pieces of music, movies,
etc.), but attribution clauses can cause big problems with tools. The
CC sampling licenses would be even worse in this regard. Neither could
be included in Debian.
.hc
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. -David Zicarelli
Le 1 Mai 2005 13:58, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
There is nothing wrong with distributing media, or anything for that matter, under the GNU GPL. If it has the terms that you desire, then you should use it.
The GPL was designed to distribute software, not content. There's nothing wrong to use the GPL for content, but it's not an easy fit, because it is not universal; it refers to software, code, libraries, linking and binaries...
The FreePats project is distributing a huge collection of samplings for Timidity (called "patches", which are like soundfonts), but with a *modified* GPL license explaining that music created using these samplings can't be considered like derivative works. This clause is useless, because this is already the case with any GPL software; contents created using a GPL software have no obligation to use the GPL (http://alsa.opensrc.org/index.php?page=FreePats). It's only an example to show that using the GPL for something else than software can cause some confusion.
It is much better than almost all of the CC licenses for something like a soundfont, I believe.
Is it because you consider that a soundfont is like a software?
For example, if you include the Attribution clause, then if someone wanted to include CC soundfonts in their app, they would have to attribute every one of the soundfont authors whenever that app is mentioned.
Of course, it would be ridiculous for a musical work to detail credits of each soundfont used to create it. Listing the soundfonts should be more than enough, if not optional. A soundfont based on some other soundfonts is a derivative work, but a musical piece using a soundfont is not a derivative work. Imagine if a symphonic orchestra had to list all people involved in the evolution of all instruments used in the orchestra, each time a new musical work is performed...
We need to clearly define what a soundfont is before choosing a license. Is it like an instrument? Or is it like a collection of samplings, in a format that allows instant use? Is it any different from a cd full of samplings intended to recreate or simulate an instrument tessiture on a hardware sampler?
Then if a Linux distro wanted to distribute those soundfonts, they would also have to mention each author every time that distro is mentioned.
Then we are back to the old BSD license problem. The UC Berkeley ditched the attribution clause for this very reason.
I understand the similarity between the old BSD licence and the CC licenses with the Attribution clause; it was added to the 2.0 version of the CC license collection. So maybe using a 1.0 CC license would solve this problem. It is important to note that there's a bunch of different licenses under the CC umbrella, and even the GPL is part of it.
CC licenses are good for final products (pieces of music, movies, etc.), but attribution clauses can cause big problems with tools. The CC sampling licenses would be even worse in this regard.
It's true that the CC sampling license would be inappropriate for a soundfont. All 1.0 licenses looks ok. A soundfont could be distributed with an appropriate CC license from a package repository not hosted at Debian.org... I wonder if it would be possible to distribute a Knoppix livecd with such soundfonts.
Neither could be included in Debian.
People often use the GPL for anything, not because they understand it, but because it just works, and to avoid problems with the Debian community. The CC is a legal framework, which is much easier to understand than the GPL and the DFSG. It offers many options, so people can choose their poison.
We better get used to the CC scheme, because we'll have to deal with it, like the Debian people do, working with the CC to fix incompatibilities. I understand why they recommend not to use CC licenses until these incompatibilities are resolved, but not everybody are concerned about the Debian effort. The CC licenses are worth it, despite Debian...
According to this message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00406.html "The Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses, however, seem to be intended to make works Free in a way compatible with the DFSG." So there's hope.
-- Marc
Thanks a lot for sharing this mix with those of us who can't afford travelling that far. It is a beautiful piece, with a meaningful dialog between the violon and the computer part, (also beautiful alone).
<snip>
This combination of licenses is for software (Perl in this case), Although it is called "Artistic", it was not designed to help distributing content. I would suggest to use a Creative Commons license. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3716218.stm http://creativecommons.org/ Maybe the new sampling license is appropriate for soundfonts? http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling --
Thank you very much for your kind compliments! As per your suggestion, I will look into the creative commons license more closely in order to see whether such packaging should prove to be more appropriate.
Best wishes,
Ivica Ico Bukvic, composer & multimedia sculptor http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/
-
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Ivica Ico Bukvic -
Marc Lavallée