To build a community

Louigi Verona · April 07, 2009, 07:35:47

There are a lot of people who seem to be using MPT, but in releases I only see mp3. Why not release it and xm? Because I think it will help build a community with people being able to look at how music was done, etc.

Nahkranoth · April 07, 2009, 08:35:36

Because many of us are using VSTi's, so not to bother the listener with downloading every needed VST, tracks are saved to mp3.

Rakib · April 07, 2009, 11:49:05

true, but if you want the .it files i can upload it for you.

Sam_Zen · April 07, 2009, 13:48:25

A lot of material one can find at the ModPlug Download Center, divided in categories IT - XM - MOD - S3M.
Of course, to see how things are done basically, it's better to have modules with only samples.

Saga Musix · April 07, 2009, 16:56:21

Quote from: "Nahkranoth"Because many of us are using VSTi's, so not to bother the listener with downloading every needed VST, tracks are saved to mp3.

I will never accept that as a reason. It implies that you think that you are the only person in this world who has the VSTi, and that the tracked material is completely unusable. It is not. Even if you don't have the VSTi, you can still look at the samples and the notes, to see how others may do it. That's what I love so much about modules - unlike with streamed media, you can still have a look at the original sources and learn from them. I can't understand those paranoid people who think that everyone will steal there great melodies/sampley/whatever as soon as they publish their sources. It does not happen very often, and those who do it do it in a very obvious way and get caught very soon.

Sam_Zen · April 07, 2009, 23:03:42

I agree with Jojo. Even when a module is used with VST instruments, there are still relevant codes in the patterns.
So still one can read how things are done, and learn. I never did care about publishing songs in a module format.

I always first start with the assumption of dealing with civilised people, so they would mention me as a source,
whether using my patterncodes, or self-made samples.

As said, the big difference remains between a tracker module and a mp3 mixdown :
The first one publishes the composition, the second one the result, under certain circumstances.

Old composers couldn't publish a recording of a performance, they had to publish the score on paper..

Nahkranoth · April 08, 2009, 07:15:05

Jeez, how many conclusions can be made from one innocent post!

Quote from: "Jojo"It implies that you think that you are the only person in this world who has the VSTi

Wut? Have I said something like that?! It saves the trouble of downloading every vst used in a track, nothing more. Got a track made of samples only? Go on, upload the source, so the people can learn.
If someone upped a source of a track made with his EWQL or some other <insert any number here>-Gigs library, what will you do then?

Quote from: "Jojo"I can't understand those paranoid people who think that everyone will steal there great melodies/sampley/whatever as soon as they publish their sources.

I'm too. Timbaland won't steal my great melodies anyway

residentgrey · April 08, 2009, 14:37:29

Then here is an idea, a mod to MPT to grab the plugins used and package it.

psishock · April 08, 2009, 15:06:19

it doesn't working residentgrey, with commercial VST(i)s will be always trouble, also with 5-6gigs library grand piano like ones (example Omnisphere rules with ~50gb size =). Also some of the authors of free VSTs may not like their software to be packaged with other programs.
Most of the more complex VST(i)s need installations, configurations. Not to mention that they would sound most likely different on the other systems without the proper patches and setup. It could easy happen' that the song will be unplayable or even "unloadable" if the user don't have the required hardware (very strong processor or/and the sufficient amount of ram).

With samples, the situation is/was much easier. They were mostly "stolen" (ripped from other musics/cds) to start with, but nobody seems to complained for that more seriously, it's impossible to follow all their traces anyway. Of course, they were a lots of freeware, selfmade or similar ones 2. Compatibility was simply depended from the tracker host, and it's requirements.

Saga Musix · April 08, 2009, 15:40:43

psishock: Actually, I don't know any VST that *needs* installation. The only reason why they're packed in installer routines is that they search for the common hosts (like Cubase et al) and put the VST in their plugin directory.

psishock · April 08, 2009, 15:53:31

we're talking about VSTs that comes with premade patches, sample libraries, or additional configurations. Some of them uses the installation to modify the registry and/or contact the VSTi author website to verify that you've bought the software. The plain .dll (if you could get that from the package) that is the core of course, don't need installation, but nobody will guarantee, that it will work alone. (They could b made of course, VST technology allows that, but programmers can get very creative, when it comes to copy protection or other stuff). =)

Saga Musix · April 08, 2009, 16:19:25

you don't necessarily need an installation for that (and I hate any installation program that's not necessary). Registry keys? Only for registering in common hosts, maybe. Registration/Verification? Can be done inside the VST.

psishock · April 08, 2009, 16:29:00

Quoteand I hate any installation program that's not necessary

yea, i'm avoiding installations at all cost 2, but sometimes it just cannot be avoided. Some corporations tend to make installation packages anyway, just to make our life a bit harder. Like you've said, in the end everything could be made inside the VST .dll, but some people seems to not like that idea and making separate registration/monitoring tools like "service center" and such.

(don't get me wrong i'm on the right side too Jojo, just giving a view from another angle(s). I hate monetary system to the core, it poisons everything, but we are living in it.)

Sam_Zen · April 08, 2009, 22:29:14

I think these complications concerning VST plugins adding to a composition package illustrates my restrictions about this.

I don't like too any unnecessary setup-procedure, while it should be a matter of just adding a *.dll file in the right place.
And I hate it if even the dreadful registry would be involved as well.

Talking about avoiding things, it's better not to judge a VST plugin just with its fine possibilities, but also by things like this.

So if someone publishes a composition in module format, and one or more plugins are needed, added in a package or pointed to with a link, only such VST's should be selected under these straightforward circumstances. No fuzz.

bvanoudtshoorn · April 09, 2009, 03:29:49

Well, I use giant VSTs (like Kontakt), which I doubt many people have, and I use it in a fairly customised environment. For a while, though, I released both the sources and the bounced versions of my tracks. The reason I don't any more? I don't think very many people actually bothered with it. If someone wants to look at the way I do things, I'm more than happy to provide them with the source.