-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 07:45:41AM -0500, drew Roberts wrote: Yeah, that's why I was asking. Let me ask it again in a different way: What is the simplest, easiest, fastest way to get us from "hey, let's do this" to actually making music? I love the idea of a linux-only, by-sa instance of cchost software, but I don't have the money pay for hosting something like that right now. I looked at the cchost docs and it seems pretty straightforward, so I'd be willing to install and set it up if someone wants to give me a login to a web host account somewhere. Then again, everyone on this list is probably more than completely qualified to install and configure a GPL PHP/MYSQL/Apache web app. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcHost Looks like the "killer web app" has already been written, and it is GPL, and someone just needs to install it and then let's start jamming! - -ken

Hi! As stated before: we can use lossy formats up close to the end. so if someone has to replay a track, because of the realisation that the original playing was to bad, it's smaller to re-upload and re-download. That should notch down the datastream and space-limits a bit. We should also agree on a sampling format (bit-depth, samplerate). Which is quite a big factor I believe. Kindest regards Julien -------- Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles) ======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ======== http://ltsb.sourceforge.net the Linux TextBased Studio guide ======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: ======= http://www.juliencoder.de

i did some quick "back-of-an-envelope" figuring while riding around on the bus today, and came up with this worst-case scenario (well... BEST-case, really.... he-he..): assume 44.1kHz/32-bit - that's around 11MB/track/min assume we want to produce a complete record (~60min) - that's about 2/3 GB per track assume we're going 24 tracks deep - that's about 16GB assume we need some headroom (text files, presets, screenshots, whatever) - call it 20GB instead assume we have 20 users, who ALL upload AND download EVERYTHING twice every week - that's somewhat less than 4TB/mo SO........ 20GB storage 4TB/mo. bandwidth and it'll almost certainly end up being a LOT less than that. works for me. i can probably set this up within a week or two. i would host it at whatever-name-we-choose.peterlutek.com for "whatever-name-we-choose", i was thinking of "laum" (LAU-Music), until i ran into www.inside.net/plugin/laum.htm and laum.univ-lemans.fr anyone else have any bright ideas for the name? also, do we in fact have concensus around the idea of using CcHost? -- .pltk.

frank -- i take your point, absolutely. initially, i was unclear on how the substitution of uncompressed tracks for compressed ones would be made, but i guess if there is a standard naming convention or session file with timestamps, that will not be a problem. when the suggestion of CcHost came up, i simply jumped on it as a way of getting the ball rolling, and began to imagine worst case scenarios, not wanting to jump into something i couldn't handle. upon sober reflection, a dead-simple repository of compressed tracks with a clear file-naming and/or session-file protocol is killer -- lean and mean. i like it. let's continue the discussion tomorrow... -- .pltk.

On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 09:59 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: Not to mention Marcs subversion. That would mean three tracks would have to be attempted using the different distribution methods. I recommend that the band work with all three at the same time to figure out which is most useful for collaborating with. Of course if you just want to do simple ftp there are thousands of sites that provide for that but I can set up an account for that purpose on my server too if it will be helpful. However I don't have time to maintain the wiki version so if someone else wants to take it on then I will give them a login account. Cheers. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd.

On 2007-11-16 03:03 pm, Frank Pirrone wrote: Storage is not an issue but bandwidth always is. I totally agree. There are at least 3 levels of involvement, a) anything light and simple to initially define a song, proof of concept songs only have to be MIDI tracks, using say the fluidr2 soundfont, along with live medium-fi vorbis tracks anyone gets to play on this level, even via 56k dialup from Nigeria (ooh, bad example) b) a semi-pro final mix using flac'd 16bit/44.1khtz audio tracks and as many MIDI tracks that can be rendered to 16/44 locally (without requiring any transfer of large wavs) a bit of a compromise but I'm sure the end result could be quite satisfactory, and so so much Better Than Nothing c) if a song, or piece, passes both the previous levels and is deemed worthy of super-pro mastering then those intimately involved with the piece can make their own arrangments to deal with transferring 32bit/96khtz master tracks to wherever is going to do the final mix(s) and perhaps use archive.org to hold the complete final master mix components I'd be impressed if I ever see a LAU based a) let alone a b). A c) by the end of the decade would be too cool. And just as a note, I am personally interested in GPL-like songs where the components that went into making the song are also available somewhere, hence the idea of using Subversion to deal with some, or even all, parts of a song and indeed it's entire life cycle of evolvement can be logged and this creative outline or path is ALSO of great interest to me. A bunch of guys using collab in "secret" and suddenly releasing a final mastered ogg to listen to is of little interest to me. How a song is created with access to the digital parts that make it up is what I find the most exciting part of this discussion. Oh, and actually listening to something, as well, would be kinda cool too :-) --markc

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:08:43 -0500 Frank Pirrone <frankpirrone(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've been keeping out of this up to now, as I've been very unsure exactly what people are proposing, and the complexity involved. However this last suggestions looks like something I would be able to work with (always assuming I can find some spare time!) -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk

ok.... at this point, i'm inclined to put up a simple ftp site with some clearly defined standard file-naming conventions. that's lightweight and easily accessible. right now i've got a rehearsal -- maybe this afternoon. and i like julien's name suggestion - lau-cb -- .pltk.

Ken Restivo wrote: See my postings detailing both the steps and the sequence. Generated little comment so I assume little interest. Frank

You guys are funny. People spend months/years arguing with, fighting with, crying over, and struggling to find people that they can compatibly make music with. Sometimes, it never works out. So you remove the human interaction element, throw in a bunch of technology and expect to find some way to work cooperatively and productively on something where the tiniest variation in aesthetic judgement can mean the world. you're all much more optimistic than me, thats for sure. --p

On Thursday 15 November 2007 23:08, Paul Davis wrote: On the contrary, enabling people to find others to make music with over the internet, without having to hop a plane or plumb the depths of local "musicians wanted" ads, should create more opportunities for group composition. It also provides a way for people who really dislike live music to find people to work with without the annoying "Hey man, let's get together and jam" booty call equivalents. Besides, what is this list if not interactive? Rob

On Friday 16 November 2007 12:31, Frank Pirrone wrote: I actually named my nonexistent band "world plus dog" for exactly that reason, and grabbed a couple domains for it about 5 years ago... without taking strangers on a mailing list into account, there are some people I've worked with in the past whom I hoped would be into doing the internet collaboration thing, and a cute euphemism for "everyone" seems appropriate for this kind of thing. Rob

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 07:01:51PM -0500, Frank Pirrone wrote: All excellent. I'd add "Herding Cats" to the list. I'm fine with just calling it "LAU" though. Will there be a place in the directory tree on the FTP/HTTP site for random loops and riffs and beats, not associated with any song, so that if someone wants to make a song out of them, they can use them for that purpose? - -ken

i still like "cloud", myself. sure.... make an appropriate directory if you like! -- .pltk.

On 16 November 2007 at 19:01, Frank Pirrone <frankpirrone(a)gmail.com> wrote: Spare time signature song/band -- Kevin

glad to see we've managed to provide a little entertainment already, paul! -- .pltk.

Kevin Cosgrove wrote: LOL. I wish I had a dime for every naysayer I've heard re: Linux and its software since 1995, I'd be a rich man now. Best, dp

Ken Restivo wrote: Ken, oh ye of little faith! I'm grooving on the tunes others posted and working on the chords for mine. I'm going to post a guitar part and maybe a lyric concept to that 552.ogg bass part you posted - very cool, and work up a guitar part for Phillippe's "Under My Neon Sky" - another very cool piece, and loved Julien's "Summer Sorrow," I swear there's a vocal coming and some riff fills, and in Drew's lyrics with Jeff's take on them I might add a second guitar accompaniment, some fills, maybe a harmony or counterpoint vocal, or maybe a different interpretation since Drew only posted the lyric. Problem is, I haven't recorded a single second of music! Moved all the gear around, polished a couple of guitars, gargled to clear out my throat, touched my toes ten times, but not a second of music. Still...it's coming, it's coming. You can count on me for at least vocals and rhythm and lead guitars...been doing this for a while and only suck a little! Frank

Ken Restivo wrote: Ken and the Band! Verbose? Oh, that was my brother The Evil Frank. Yeah, he's got a problem in that regard. I felt that even what you list above with loops, samples, and mixes is an over-complication requiring both more software support and more administration. I'll, er...The Good Frank will make this short: * Everything is posted, downloaded and uploaded as compressed tracks * Each track would be a few megabytes in size so bandwidth, as well as storage should be no problem * There aren't that many "band" members so bandwidth should be no problem * Let's say I lay down a concept in Audacity, save the project, export the base track as Ogg-Vorbis. * Folks grab the track, import it into Audacity, add their contribution, uploading just their compressed track * Each track aligns to the base track, whether loops or samples or MIDI source and is an .ogg * If someone wants to submit a "replacement" track "improving" on an existing one, go for it * Anyone at any time can take what's already done, and "fork" it to their heart's desire * When a call goes out "FINI" the "main branch" of the work is done and the tune is ready for mastering * Folks "chosen" as "winning" tracks will upload the full-fidelity version of their track * Mastering will be done as decided by the group - again, perhaps by several folks * Each mix-masterer will upload a compressed stereo file for the group to review * If something significant is going to be done with the finished tune (it turned out great) the "winning" mix will be uploaded full fidelity. The only reason I addressed the process to the extent of my several other postings was as an attempt to short-circuit days of single issues being addressed. I figured I'd lay it all out for critique and improvement, and for the missing parts to be completed by folks with other expertise. There are a few "decisions" still required by the group: Who ups the base track (Ken, Charles)? How many base tracks before we exclaim, "That's it" and how much of a consensus is acceptable? Other related issues: "Losers" will still have the completed tune in any form they wish - both with their "losing" track and with the "winning" track. Mix-masterers can also treasure their final versions even if the group favors a different one. If this first tune kills, we can go for a complete "work" or "album" and post it for sale as an international collaborative virtual band project - ought to be some real interest. Please excuse the obnoxious use of quotation marks to indicate terms with shades of meaning or usage. What say? The Good Frank

Hi Frank! I still have a little problem with the "loosing" "winning" idea. Ok: we might say we get a simple choice on track most wanted and definitely up them to the main server. But what about using simple .html file with listings and enable others to include "loosing" tracks into the lists. So everyone can VERY easily download EVERYTHING and do what they want. Because: It might just be, that someone has a great idea with a "loosing" track, that is an absolute killer-mix/master. Besides that, I still agree. Simple enough and generally effective enough. But with the.html solution, we could more easily split up the project-data, if it get's to big or to much bandwidth consuming. I think there are a lot of us with enough storage, but lacking the bandwidth. About timestamps: Why not take seconds or samples (in 44.1kHz). I know ecasound is able to go by samples (which is maximum accuracy. What about the other apps: ardour, audacity, etc...? Finally about MIDI: Why not have a midi-basetrack. Produced the most easily, easily aligned to perfect notes. And I assume everyone has a midi-sequencer and something to export midi. It's posibble with timidity, ecasound(using timidity), probably fluidsynth... It's small, simple, clean, you can read notes from it if necessary, it's standard and everyone has it. Kindest regards Julien -------- Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles) ======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ======== http://ltsb.sourceforge.net the Linux TextBased Studio guide ======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: ======= http://www.juliencoder.de

Hi Plutek! 1. .html-files: I meant instead of simple ftp-site have .html-files with lists. So you can easily include files from othe sites/servers. 2. MIDI: I didn't mean sending in MIDI-tracks as real treacks. Just as a possibility for the starter track. The monitor, if you like. 3. About the looser: I know we wouldn't loose anything really. But Frank Pirrone suggested only uploading the "winning" tracks in hifi-quality. that I didn't like to much. I just meant: We could still have ALL, REALLY ALL, tracks in hifi-quality, if we can distribute them. I think the greatest problem, that Frank correctly saw, is bandwidth. But with multi-server distribution, the problem is'nt anymore. Kindest regards Julien -------- Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles) ======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ======== http://ltsb.sourceforge.net the Linux TextBased Studio guide ======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: ======= http://www.juliencoder.de

ahh.... that's what i was missing -- the concept of including files from other locations. makes good sense. ok, that's probably workable, although i'd probably render an audio track, at least for my personal consumption. ;-) yes, multi-server again. and the only other caveat i would insert is that there are likely to be a bunch of tracks NOBODY wants in the end, so there's no point including that hifi content in your "ALL, REALLY ALL". i'd say hifi content should be on a request basis -- i.e. the default is to always minimize bandwidth, until anyone needs to make a high-quality mix including any track. -- .pltk.

Julien Claassen wrote: Good points Julien. No, I wouldn't want anything to be deleted or dropped. It's only when we're ready to mix/master that we'd use the "winning" tracks. I used those terms - winning and losing just to make my suggestion clear. Personally, I'd hate to think of anything anyone did as losing in any way, even if someone else did something way better. It may also turn out that a track that doesn't quite burn in one tune starts something new in a different direction. One thing that should come from this collaboration is the stimulation of ideas and cross-pollination of a high order. For me, as a performer, the most sublime and even inexplicable experience is "finding" myself someplace I don't recognize! I didn't head there, never been there before, don't know how I got there...but am really digging it. This almost mystical bond and communication between musicians is...well, I was going to compare it with sex but that might have suggested some mutual-exclusivity and an inapplicable zero-sum nature! Seriously, when someone in a conversation says something that prompts a thought or a response, that's an intellectual delight...so what is it when your bandmate's riff pulls something out of you in response that you never knew was there? Actually, it probably never was there until just that moment - that inspirational, catalytic moment. Sorry for the tangent...now, back to the show: I haven't used ecasound in quite a while, and don't know it well enough to tell if it could handle importing and playing all the tracks as they start showing up on the server. I also don't know about alignment capabilities. I'm also not sure about using MIDI as the base track - I like your use of "basetrack" better. It still seems to me that exporting everything as a low-res OGG file keeps things dog-simple and pretty fool-proof. Frank p.s. Hey, let us know any limitations of your reader or what problems you'd have with certain software. I'm sure there's a work-around for everything. Anyone looked at the source for Audacity or other GUI app to see if its core functionality could be accessed from the CLI?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0500, Frank Pirrone wrote: Actually, I've thought about it a little bit more, and your suggestion is great, but if there's already cchost software, and it's GPL, I can't see any reason not to use it. - -ken