| The ones that I like the best are people who actually do their own cover of the song and call it "Nightcore". Even though its technically not nightcore at all, its just a cover of a song |
| It could be seen as trans-formative for many, but thats up to interpretation. The problem comes along is when people try to use these types of work to earn money and whether that violates any laws |
Peaceful_Critic said: Nightmare21st said: To be clear you are talking about covers correct? Or are you talking about Nightcore?It could be seen as trans-formative for many, but thats up to interpretation. The problem comes along is when people try to use these types of work to earn money and whether that violates any laws I am talking about nightcore. Covers have no legal standing in court, because they don't own the lyrics and your basically making your own song. Taking someone elses work then speeding it up and calling it new is fine until money becomes involved |
| im not sure what "copyright-wise similar to covers" means since i do not listen to nightcore music even though i hear it for years and even have some youtube recommendations about it that i do not click (yet) but anime english covers is not a direct copy of the original japanese lyrics anyway considering english and japanese have different syllables so the music will be off overall, so because of the change in lyrics thats why i think anime english covers are protected by fair use |
| I'm a music freak and adore nearly all types of music, including nightcore. I made a playlist here: https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=638241#msg55146553 Peaceful_Critic said: I personally think Nightcore sounds good though very samey if I'm judging it as music. When you say samey, do you just mean it sounds almost the same as the original song? Or that all nightcore sounds too similar? Originally, nightcore focused on a few genres of electronic music, but nowadays it can be any style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightcore Peaceful_Critic said: Copyright-wise though Nightcore like covers uses a song they don't have permission to with pretty much only the vocals changing(and in Nightcore's case speed up music alongside the differing voice), so due to that would it be just as transformative? FYI, most covers are full covers, with the artist(s) redoing both the music and vocals. (And of course, some songs are instrumental without vocals.) Peaceful_Critic said: Or do you believe covers are more transformative? Depends what you mean by transformative. Generally, covers contain more unique content. On the other hand, speeding up a song can make it more engaging and potentially more enjoyable. I'd assess this on a case-by-case basis in terms of emotional transformation. Peaceful_Critic said: I know covers are more moral since there is a considerably more work put in, but would it be judged the same in court? Are you implying nightcore YouTubers will get sued? I think you should worry about that once you have concrete examples of this occurring. Peaceful_Critic said: Covers aren't protected. They don't have the rights to the lyrics or music. It isn't transformative enough to be protected. Actually, if you submit the relevant paperwork to a record label or other copyright owner and pay the royalties whenever you make money from it, covers are not only protected under copyright law, but the copyright owner cannot refuse you. You can do whatever you want with covers as long as the rules are followed. You don't need to get permission per se. However, this applies to a proper cover; not a partial karaoke-style cover. |
SmugSatokoMay 29, 2019 11:47 PM
 |
| A large amount of it is pure trash. Just shitty remixes a child could do that uses pitch shift or speeds up the tempo. Some decent ones exist though where they actually add a beat and make it more like Happy Hardcore or something. No it's not like a cover it's a remix. |
Peaceful_Critic said: That seems like it would be based on experience. Caleb Hyles is a metal coverist I like and Lizz's musicbox covers are also good. However, most covers I come across just have differing vocals. I'm not sure what most covers are, but to count as one you only need to change the singer. I was referring to covers overall, particularly in the music industry and featured on albums for sale. Obviously, most covers by YouTubers are karaoke-style, but that doesn't account for most covers in existence. YouTube has only been around since 2005 whereas musical recordings have existed since the 1800s. Peaceful_Critic said: Not really, I asked the question because I'm curious if it was taken to court would it be treated similarly to covers. Nightcore is still a niche for the most part, so I don't think they are many cases on it. Considering the countless number of nightcores on YouTube and elsewhere, I don't see how they could have a case. Peaceful_Critic said: What do you mean by a partial cover? What would qualify as proper? Simply signing over is a cover by definition, isn't it? "...simply cover, is a new performance or recording by someone other than the original artist or composer of a previously recorded, commercially released song." Performance could mean a lot of things which would include singing. As I said, a full/proper cover is when you cover the entire song by rerecording it all, whether it be music + vocals or just music. In my opinion, karaoke (singing over the original recording) is not truly a cover since it's not a 100% new performance (it still has the original performers) and has little artistic integrity. Traditionally, covers involve rerecording the music. Here's something interesting I found. When your cover song is recognized by the system, YouTube will automatically split the ad revenue between you and the copyright owner in most cases. On a related note, when there's an official alternate version of a song featuring different vocalists, I don't consider that a cover per se either. An example would be the dubbed version of the ED for School Rumble: Second Semester. The English voice actors sing over the original music. It melts my heart and I like it a lot more than the Japanese version of the song. Examples of covers I hate would be some of the more recent dubbed Dragon Ball OPs/EDs. They rerecorded the music and vocals, but it's so cringeworthy. It astounds me how thoroughly they ruined the original songs, plus they're shortened to accommodate American television time slots. |
SmugSatokoMay 30, 2019 12:39 AM
|
traed said: A large amount of it is pure trash. Just shitty remixes a child could do that uses pitch shift or speeds up the tempo. Some decent ones exist though where they actually add a beat and make it more like Happy Hardcore or something. No it's not like a cover it's a remix. Nightcore is indeed defined as a remix, albeit a simplistic one. I don't think changing the speed and/or pitch automatically makes something bad, though. In fact, I prefer many songs at a faster speed than the original version. The main thing that can be annoying is when the vocals start to sound like chipmunks. Peaceful_Critic said: I don't mean the whole nightcore library. I meant a nightcore song. That's what I meant: If you single out one nightcore song to sue over, you'd have to try suing all the others for it to make sense, unless you could find something specific that differentiates it from the rest and is separate from the fact that it's just a remix. Peaceful_Critic said: If it is 100% new performance just be a new song all together? Like the lyrics, music, and singer would all change. I think that would be more of a remake than a cover. Like this, for example, remade the original Stronger Than You entirely. The other song should hold up in court as it transformed the work into something new. lol. No. Recording a song with music and lyrics based on another song is literally what a cover is. A remake is a type of cover. (Or in some cases can be a remix.) When I said new performance, I meant that someone else is performing all of it, but the composition would be the same or similar. If both the music and lyrics are different enough, then it wouldn't be a cover. Whether something holds up in court depends on so many factors that there's no use speculating, since it can go either way. Peaceful_Critic said: Where did you quote that from? Quora.com. |
|
SadMadoka said: traed said: A large amount of it is pure trash. Just shitty remixes a child could do that uses pitch shift or speeds up the tempo. Some decent ones exist though where they actually add a beat and make it more like Happy Hardcore or something. No it's not like a cover it's a remix. Nightcore is indeed defined as a remix, albeit a simplistic one. I don't think changing the speed and/or pitch automatically makes something bad, though. In fact, I prefer many songs at a faster speed than the original version. The main thing that can be annoying is when the vocals start to sound like chipmunks. It works with electronic music a lot of the time but when they do it to songs with live instruments ....ehhh There does exist the opposite as well called Daycore which is a down shift in pitch and or tempo. |
| I like nightcore untill it sounds like a good remix not like a too speed up songs in which you can't understand anything or when it sounds like of one of these squirell from movie , squirell Alvin or what that was etc. To show you maybe what type of nightcore I like well there is 2 which fit to it ideal , one of them is created by me btw : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlzRBaIeJWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Fko6pk0pY About copyrights well I don't know too much but from nightcores which in past I tried to do by myself I have 11 copyrights warning on youtube channel :/ |
traed said: It works with electronic music a lot of the time but when they do it to songs with live instruments ....ehhh True. Many genres/songs just don't sound right nightcored. Peaceful_Critic said: Why would you need to do that? If your song has a cover/nightcore of it, you only need to sue that specific cover/nightcore. You aren't responsible for everyone else. Would it make sense to sue all Nightcore? Yes, but you don't need to. Sorry, I was thinking about the government prosecuting a nightcore YouTuber rather than an individual copyright owner going after them. Peaceful_Critic said: I noticed Wiki said it had issues at the top, so I'm going to use something more trustworthy. Cover: "record or perform a new version of (a song) originally performed by someone else." To be defined as a cover you don't need to have new lyrics, singer, and music. Someone just needs to perform a new("not existing before") version. it's still new even without most of it changing. Though that's relative on what you would consider new. A cover typically has the same (or at least similar) composition and lyrics, but is a new recording of that song by another artist. (Hence new version.) If you use the original recording (or perhaps an instrumental version without the original vocals) of the music and sing over it, it's not a new version of the music; it's just karaoke. That would still be called a cover by most, but would not be considered a real cover by myself. What's important is who is performing. If part of the original recording is still on the new recording, it isn't a proper cover even if it's technically a cover. Peaceful_Critic said: They are similar, but I don't use the words the same though: Making something(the song) differently I'll use it more extremely than simply performing a new version. Both have a new or different product but perform could just stop at singing in making a different version. In a remake, you need to make the thing differently, not just produce a different version if that makes sense. "Making the thing differently" and "producing a different version" can mean the same thing. Like I said, a remake is a type of cover (or sometimes remix); if it wasn't a cover (or remix), it would just be a new original song with no relation to the first song. All commercially released covers I know of are entirely new recordings based on another artist's work; normally with roughly the same composition and lyrics. They can alter the composition (or lyrics) enough for it to be called a remake by some, as long as it's still close enough to the original...but it would still be a cover. Remake is not a term the music industry uses in this context. Remake can refer to an official remake of a work (often by some of the same people), such as Final Fantasy VII (original on PS1; upcoming remake on PS4) and Hunter x Hunter (original anime in 1999; remake in 2011). Some artists remake their own songs too, which usually entails rerecording them and making slight alterations to the composition. Peaceful_Critic said: I browse and post on that site. Unless the guy had proof or had qualifications, I wouldn't trust it. You are free to conduct your own research into the matter if it interests you. Peaceful_Critic said: What's so cringe-worthy about it(I haven't listened to it)? Missed this edit of yours. Erm...the vocals sound really cheesy and untalented. (Not epic like the original.) |
SmugSatokoMay 30, 2019 3:25 AM
|
| I'm not well versed in law so idk how Nightcore would hold up legally, but I feel like it almost isn't fair to compare them to covers. Because well, making a Nightcore song hardly takes any effort. I used to make a few when I was like 12 and it literally took like 15 minutes. And all I used was some free audio editing program and Windows Movie Maker. Now I'm sure there are people who put a lot more effort into their Nightcore'd songs, but I'm just saying my 15 minute creations sound pretty much the same as any other Nightcore song I've heard. Covers have much more effort put in them, especially since in most covers I've heard they even recreate the instrumentals (well at least in most anime related covers I've seen). So Nightcore definitely isn't as transformative as a full on cover imo. |
 |
| As music itself? Liked a few songs back when I was like 14 or something but grew out of it. As talent? Not even going to go there buddy. |
 |
| I listened to a few nightcore songs once. It's trash and cringy af, largely thanks to the fact that anime is involved |
| Nightcore isn't a real music genre, and anyone who dares claim the opposite doesn't know what they're on about. As for the question regarding copyright, I honestly don't think speeding up a pre-existing song and claiming it as a transformative work would hold up in court. It inches very close to the borders of what's fair use and what isn't. As far as I'm concerned, nightcore was only invented in order to avoid such consequences, and its prominence is alarming. |
Peaceful_Critic said: So it doesn't need to change, the cover just needs a musician replaying it? It seems as if I lost you at the definition of new, not particularly what you said. Someone's voice sounds different from the original, so I would consider that new. Simply doing the same thing with the same instruments isn't something I consider new in this instance. As I implied here: " Both have a new or different product". I'm using different and new interchangeably, You're confusing yourself with vague terminology. I clearly explained what a cover song is: a new recording (or performance) of a song originally composed/performed by another artist(s). The composition and/or lyrics have to be somewhat faithful to the original for it to be a cover, but it also needs to be a new recording or performance. (Rather than copy/pasting the original recording instead of performing the same or similar music yourself.) To make things more clear, let's take lyrics out of the equation. If person A just uploads person B's instrumental music recording to YouTube, it's not a cover; it's someone else's material entirely. Person A would need to perform and record the song on their own for it to be a cover. And if person A recorded a song with entirely different composition, it would just be his own original material; not a cover, and not having anything to do with person B. Peaceful_Critic said: It can, but you do agree there is a difference, correct? As I stated before making something differently does produce a different version("Both have a new or different product "). So in that way, I would agree with what you said in that remakes are a type of cover. However, I still would use them differently. Again, you are saying vague things that could mean more than one thing. Try to be more precise in what you are saying. Peaceful_Critic said: Why doesn't the industry use it in that context? It's just called a cover. That's the official term for any recording or performance that is based on the composition/lyrics of another. Remake is a term customarily reserved for when an artist makes a new version of their own work. Peaceful_Critic said: You might want to fix your wording there though I think I agree. My wording was perfectly clear. |
|
Peaceful_Critic said: I know the definition, we are using a different term was my point. The "new" part of the definition is important here. That's the reason why I'm addressing that we are using totally different definitions of "new". The thing you described isn't what I would consider "new" as the instrumental still would sound the same as the original. Person A didn't make anything new, the song was copied, but just with their own instruments. No, it's the recording (and corresponding performance) that is new. (Hence new recording.) The composition is identical or similar. Yes, he did create something new: a new performance and recording! And, as I covered (pun intended), a cover can be somewhat different than the original composition. Plus, even when the composition is identical, it can still sound very different due to different instruments, audio production techniques, etc. Heck, even remastering the same recording can make it sound pretty different. There are also cross-genre covers, such as a metal cover of a pop song. Peaceful_Critic said: You could assume what I meant through what I quoted and the context on what i said before. "Making the thing differently" and "producing a different version" can mean the same thing, but you do agree there is a difference, correct...However, I would still use the words "remake" and "cover" differently. I could assume any number of things, but try to avoid that, since it inevitably results in misunderstandings. The main takeaway from this is that words have meanings, and if you make up your own definitions or utilize words in the wrong context, you may veer from the general understanding of things. Peaceful_Critic said: Eh, you used remake to define remake("Remake can refer to an official remake of a work"), look at what I underlined. You weren't perfectly clear. Incorrect. "Remake can refer to an official remake of a work" means that is one thing the word remake can refer to. I wasn't defining it. If that was not perfectly clear to you, it is likely a consequence of not reading what I said. Or perhaps you want me to write an article about what a remake is...? |
SmugSatokoMay 30, 2019 5:00 AM
|
 You don't get the basics, so I'll have to break it down for you... Peaceful_Critic said: The recording wouldn't be any newer than taking a live performance of the original. The performance also wouldn't be new in just doing all the things another musician did, Each time someone records something, it is by definition a new recording. Each time someone performs something, it is by definition a new performance. You may be somehow mistaking these things for the composition of a song. (Basically the structure of a musical piece; the songwriting that differentiates it from another song.) Peaceful_Critic said: that's not a cover, but a ripoff. No, that's (close to) the definition of what a cover is. The fact that the composition is the same or similar (but performed by someone else) is literally what makes it a cover. Peaceful_Critic said: Not that it matters, because we aren't going to get anywhere if we don't address the differing definitions we are using for new. You don't need to repeat yourself 3 times. What "new" are you using and why are you using it? Um...the actual definition...because that's how it's supposed to be used. XD Peaceful_Critic said: I didn't make up my own definition and I believe you are using the wrong definition of "new" as well. It's probably not the word new that either of us are confused about; you are simply misunderstanding the music terminology I've been...covering. ;) Peaceful_Critic said: Assume wasn't a good word, maybe heavily implied. Anyway based on the context you would've easily known what I meant. I don't need to clarify what I mean by "it" every time I use the word. What you said then was incredibly vague, especially considering your elementary misconception of essential nomenclature. Peaceful_Critic said: Remake can refer to an official remake is obvious. What's the purpose of saying a remake can refer to a remake? I did not merely say a remake can refer to a remake; I specified that one thing the word remake can refer to is an official remake of a work, such as a movie, television series, video game or song; often with some of the same people involved. This is more commonplace than other types of remakes like unofficial fan remakes. Peaceful_Critic said: If you use different methods of producing the same piece it would be a cover ofc. Even through my definition of "new", as something different was produced. The method of production is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that there is someone other than the original composer/performer who is performing the song, as that is the literal definition of a cover song. Even if I were to perform and record a song in a manner that makes it sound as close as possible to the original version (composed, performed and recorded by other people), it would still be a cover, by definition. There are plenty of purists out there who insist covers should be faithful to the original. (Although I personally prefer mixing things up to make it more interesting.) I don't mean to come off as condescending, but I've been a musician since the 1990s. I know how this stuff works. |
SmugSatokoMay 30, 2019 7:58 AM
|
| The original songs are generally better, though there are a few Nightcore songs I like just as much if not more than some of the originals. |
| There's a few people out there who will make their own beats to the vocals of a song making it sound a bit more unique though that still wouldn't hold up in court.~ |
 サディスティックな考え "JUST KILL ME." サディスティックマインド |
| Are we actually having a serious discussion on Nightcore... Lord forgive us for what MAL has become, I hate it. Ruins so much Lolicore for me which I find to be superior cause Nightcore is basically speeding up a song to give you "uwu" vocals or whatever the fuck they are while Lolicore is basically Breakcore with loli anime samples, welp one is much more creative than the other isn't it Also lol you do know Nightcore doesn't get copyrighted on youtube because it's a sped up/modified version of the original piece right? So many people do that to avoid copyright claims for anything. |
  Ascended Taste I only came back to this site for the forum sets and to promote my RYM list... Anilist ftw still :dab: |
| Nightcore is shit. If you appreciate such laziness in music editing and production, you have no serious opinion in music. I'd rather listen to contemporary music than listen to another pretentious anime song, and worse, with a nightcore cover. Oh God end my life. |
| nightcore is just free promotion for the original artist, in today's age you'd have to be a complete idiot to sue or pursue legal action over it. That being said please eradicate nightcore from existence |
 |
Peaceful_Critic said: Just keep repeating yourself as if that would get us anywhere. Well, you don't seem to get it, so a degree of reiteration feels warranted. Peaceful_Critic said: I didn't define a cover. I didn't claim you did. Peaceful_Critic said: I wasn't saying ripoff = cover, I implied the opposite. You said it was not a cover...and I corrected you. O_O If you acknowledged it as a cover and shared your opinion that it's not a good cover, I would be inclined to concur. Peaceful_Critic said: There are several definitions of new. There isn't 1 definition of it that applies every time someone uses the word "new". Here's the one I'm using: "different from a recent previous one"-Default dictionary under 2 once expanaded Or " being other than the former or old" I'm using those definitions as in this seems the most fitting. It is made as a comparison to a previous one(which would be the original non-cover of a song). I know what words mean... -_- The definitions of the word new are variations of one central idea. If you want to make an argument, then demonstrate it and stop quoting dictionaries as if I wasn't over a decade older than you. If you understand that "new recording" refers (in this context of a cover song) to a recording someone made after (and based on) the original recording of a song by the original artist(s), then what exactly are you not getting here? Peaceful_Critic said: Yeah, I know("Remake can refer to an official remake is obvious.") This may come as a shock, but I'm posting for others to see; not just you. I was merely mentioning one thing the word remake is officially used for, since it isn't really a music industry term. You said there was something wrong with my wording, but there wasn't. Peaceful_Critic said: That doesn't mean anything to me since you just acknowledged your attitude and did nothing to fix your tone/wording or apologize. All I'm saying is: No offense, but you're having some sort of reading comprehension issue for this topic. It's just an observation. Peaceful_Critic said: In fact, after that statement, you went on to say know how the terminology worked due to being a musician("... I've been a musician since the 1990s. I know how this stuff works.") basically in full confidence that you're right. Right...because I am right. (But someone doesn't need to be a musician to learn what a cover song is. A few minutes of honest research will suffice.) Peaceful_Critic said: Meaning that you do probably 100% think this: "considering your elementary misconception of essential nomenclature." It's fairly obvious you're missing something in terms of discerning the pertinent jargon. (If this was not the case, we would not be having this squabble.) Peaceful_Critic said: Actually, if you aren't going to even to try to understand my position, For the record, I've been trying to figure out what that "something" is for some time now. Peaceful_Critic said: there's actually no reason to continue the debate. Guess, I'm leaving it then. Debate? There is nothing up for debate. You are objectively wrong. What constitutes a cover song has been firmly established for over fifty years. (Or over a century depending how you interpret copyright law.) It's just silly for you to assert something is not a cover when the law recognizes it as such and mandates the payment of royalties under commercial circumstances. Plus it's common knowledge, really. The most amusing part of all this is that you insisted karaoke (singing over the original music) is a cover, but then pulled a 180 and switched to something not being a cover if it's a new performance of music composed by someone else that is faithful to the original songwriting. You can't blame me for being perplexed at what you are trying to say, especially when you contradict your initial assertion. By the way, "new" is redundant, since any recording taking place after the original one is a new recording. (As well as every individual recording regardless, even if you are recording the same song repeatedly, as is often the case with recording sessions at a music studio. The same principle applies to each performance of a song.) If it makes you feel better, here's a simpler definition: https://www.definitions.net/definition/cover%20song a recording of a song that was first recorded or made popular by somebody else (A live performance of someone else's song is also a cover, even if that performance was not recorded and distributed.) At any rate, I would suggest perusing this overview for insight into the history of covers. I'll paste a few notable quotes as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version Since the Copyright Act of 1909, United States musicians have had the right to record a version of someone else's previously recorded and released tune, whether it is music alone or music with lyrics. Cover versions of many popular songs have been recorded, sometimes with a radically different style, sometimes virtually indistinguishable from the original. Yarub said: Nightcore is shit. If you appreciate such laziness in music editing and production, you have no serious opinion in music. I'd rather listen to contemporary music than listen to another pretentious anime song, and worse, with a nightcore cover. Oh God end my life.  Nightcore is virtually any song remixed to a faster speed and higher pitch. They can be instrumental (without vocals) too. "Pretentious anime songs" (as you put it) account for a minuscule fraction. (Unless you're using the phrase in an unsuitably broad fashion.) Some are more complex remixes in addition to being nightcored. If the original artist had recorded the music at a faster speed and higher pitch, it would sound more or less the same as a tasteful (not chipmunky) nightcore rendition anyway. Saying nightcore is trash is tantamount to saying music is trash. It's hardly a meaningful critique. To cast sweeping aspersions upon the fanbase would be erroneous, to say the least. On the contrary, it is you who lacks a serious opinion on the matter, as you are bashing something you know very little about. Your narrow-mindedness and inexperience is not vindication to vilify enthusiasts of any type of music, nor is it grounds to speak of it with any air of authority. I have dedicated my life to music: owned around $100K worth of audio equipment; procured thousands of albums spanning the gamut of genres; have been in everything from orchestras to a metal band, even performing with famous artists on occasion; composed countless songs (though I never properly recorded or released my own work); and some of my most transcendent musical experiences have been with nightcore. Some people simply enjoy certain songs at a more rapid tempo. There's nothing abnormal about this, and it shouldn't be difficult to fathom. I will concede that the pitch change can be irksome if implemented excessively (to the point of sounding like Alvin and the Chipmunks) or with suboptimal material, which is why I create my own "remixes" with the same pitch as the original songs. (Putting that in quotemarks since it's about as simplistic as you can get when it comes to remixes.) This is particularly useful to retain the natural sound of the vocals while making the pace more engaging. That said, I'd side with the general consensus that most songs sound better unaltered. The magic only works for some, making them more emotionally transformative; mesmerizing, even. Sometimes I may not even like the original much, but adore the nightcore. It's not like anyone is marveling at the unbridled talent of nightcore mixers. (At least I'd hope not.) All it takes is the press of a few buttons in audio editor software, after all. (Although some nightcore YouTubers do more advanced video editing.) That's really beside the point. The end result is what matters, not the means. It's not about appreciating the laziness of the mixers; it's about experiencing the sound. Nightcore fans are extremely passionate about music and want to experience songs in a new way. Nightcore channels are also a great way to discover new music. When I discuss a genre of music with someone, I can't take them seriously unless they have at least ten years of listening experience, bare minimum. Since nightcore isn't a real genre (rather, it can be any genre), I'd grant an exception, but you still have to listen to a great deal of it to get a feel for what it's really like. It's entirely possible that the only nightcore you've listened to are selections even I would agree are bad. I'm certainly not trying to convert you to the cult of nightcore or anything. Just know that there are those with vastly more musical knowledge and experience than you who do appreciate nightcore and have every right to do so without being lambasted by neophytes. |
|
Which is why I called it laziness in music editing and production, not writing or creation. It is lazy. SadMadoka said: Saying nightcore is trash is tantamount to saying music is trash. It's hardly a meaningful critique. Nightcore =/= whole of music. It is an opinion. SadMadoka said: I have dedicated my life to music: owned around $100K worth of audio equipment; procured thousands of albums spanning the gamut of genres; have been in everything from orchestras to a metal band, even performing with famous artists on occasion; composed countless songs (though I never properly recorded or released my own work); and some of my most transcendent musical experiences have been with nightcore. And I have experienced my most transcendent music in the emo trap livestreams on YouTube. Your experience does not further anything's validity, but it does provide a tad higher credibility. SadMadoka said: Some people simply enjoy certain songs at a more rapid tempo. There's nothing abnormal about this, and it shouldn't be difficult to fathom. That is true. I listen to Thrash Metal sometimes because I like the speed. However, you don't, and I repeat that you don't ruin a song's quiet theme by a faster tempo. SadMadoka said: Nightcore fans are extremely passionate about music and want to experience songs in a new way. Nightcore channels are also a great way to discover new music. Same can be said about the emo trap community I referenced earlier. SadMadoka said: It's entirely possible that the only nightcore you've listened to are selections even I would agree are bad. Glad to hear that. In conclusion, I do congratulate your reluctance in insulting me at every sentence, or mock me with images every other paragraph. I do concede to the different tastes like different sorts of music idea. But something lingered in my mind while reading this post. It would seem that nightcore could be an appeal towards your inner loli urges. An increase in tempo and pitch is indicative of the behaviour of generally, most lolis in anime. Just a theory, however I do appreciate your post. |
Whoo...it's been nearly a week. I've been busy... Yarub said: Which is why I called it laziness in music editing and production, not writing or creation. It is lazy. It's just that some may interpret your assertions to extend to those who so much as listen to nightcore. If by "appreciate" you meant being impressed by the editing itself, I mentioned I don't know any nightcore fans who are. But any music can be nightcored, so to say it's all bad would be inaccurate. Yarub said: And I have experienced my most transcendent music in the emo trap livestreams on YouTube. hmm. You might like some of this trap EDM. It's my favorite recently discovered compilation. I've been using it to compare audio gear lately. The link has short samples of each track. Track 3 stands out the most to me. https://soundcloud.com/yoshiki-narutaki/shift-the-edm3-xfd Yarub said: That is true. I listen to Thrash Metal sometimes because I like the speed. Since thrash metal tends to be fast-paced already, it would probably sound silly when nightcored. (Like a rabid chipmunk on hallucinogens.) Now I feel like making experimental nightcore of doom metal. (Since that subgenre is mostly slow-paced with low-pitched growling.) The ideal nightcore material, in my estimation, is a song that has engaging songwriting but is originally rather slow. If the vocals aren't already high-pitched, that helps too. This way, the nightcore version is more exciting, but not exceedingly fast, and doesn't sound too unnatural either. Yarub said: However, you don't, and I repeat that you don't ruin a song's quiet theme by a faster tempo. Could you clarify what you meant by quiet theme? I get the feeling you weren't talking about soothing ambient music. When you say don't, do you mean unable to (it's impossible to ruin it) or shouldn't (doing so would ruin it, therefore it should be avoided)? Yarub said: Same can be said about the emo trap community I referenced earlier. Feel free to share your top emo trap track. I'm curious to hear it, actually. Yarub said: In conclusion, I do congratulate your reluctance in insulting me at every sentence, or mock me with images every other paragraph. ahaha... >:D You should see me with my close friends. I troll the crap out of them. It's just playful teasing.  Yarub said: I do concede to the different tastes like different sorts of music idea. As for me, I like all sorts of music. Life is funner that way. Yarub said: But something lingered in my mind while reading this post. It would seem that nightcore could be an appeal towards your inner loli urges. An increase in tempo and pitch is indicative of the behaviour of generally, most lolis in anime. Just a theory, however I do appreciate your post. Lolis? Who has lolis? Certainly not me. And I definitely don't have my own private reserve of anime warrior lolis. But nah...like I said, I'm into nightcore because it lets me hear songs at a faster pace than normal, plus it's an effective avenue for discovering music. Once I find a nightcored track I especially like, I analyze the original and make my own "higher speed but same pitch" mix of the song. Peaceful_Critic said: If it is 100% new performance just be a new song all together? Like the lyrics, music, and singer would all change. You are confusing performance with composition. Composition = songwriting. Performance = the act of musicians playing music. Recording = a record of a performance, stored on a transmission medium (it can be digital, like an MP3, or analog, like vinyl) for playback on audio equipment. I can go into great detail on any aspect of these topics if you like. Just ask. Peaceful_Critic said: I recall YT having rights to certain songs that allowed others on the site to use it(though you are free to correct me). I missed this. Video streaming platforms like YouTube don't own or manage the rights to music. (They may take action on a copyright owner's behalf, however.) I suspect you're thinking of a Creative Commons license. A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work". A CC license is used when an author wants to give other people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that they (the author) have created. CC provides an author flexibility (for example, they might choose to allow only non-commercial uses of a given work) and protects the people who use or redistribute an author's work from concerns of copyright infringement as long as they abide by the conditions that are specified in the license by which the author distributes the work. Some fall under public domain music. The public domain consists of all the creative works to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply. Those rights may have expired, been forfeited, expressly waived, or may be inapplicable. Music is considered to be in the public domain if it meets any of the following criteria: All rights have expired. The authors have explicitly put a work into the public domain. There never were copyrights. Peaceful_Critic said: So it doesn't need to change, the cover just needs a musician replaying it? It seems as if I lost you at the definition of new, not particularly what you said. Someone's voice sounds different from the original, so I would consider that new. Simply doing the same thing with the same instruments isn't something I consider new in this instance. As I implied here: " Both have a new or different product". I'm using different and new interchangeably, Peaceful_Critic said: The thing you described isn't what I would consider "new" as the instrumental still would sound the same as the original. Person A didn't make anything new, the song was copied, but just with their own instruments. Doing the same things with the same instruments (etc.) still sounds at least somewhat different. (Often drastically different.) You need to recognize the distinction between types of instruments, models of a type of instrument, and the exact same instrument a particular musician held in their hands. "Same instrument" can mean any of the three. Even if someone used the exact same electric guitar (or whatever) another did, it's a different person playing, so it's bound to sound different. When the same type of instruments are used, chances are they're different models too. Then there are so many other factors that can make it sound even more different, like the room in which it was recorded, the electronics used, recording and production techniques...the list goes on. These nuances of how music is made should be readily apparent, but I suppose not to everyone... Peaceful_Critic said: The recording wouldn't be any newer than taking a live performance of the original. The performance also wouldn't be new in just doing all the things another musician did, that's not a cover, but a ripoff. I explained the lingo. It should be clear now. (I think you meant making a live recording of the original performance, though.) Peaceful_Critic said: Not really a shock(we usually just post on our comments and you replied to what I said on a thread through comments before), I was being sarcastic. heh. Peaceful_Critic said: and I think others would agree that what you said was obvious though or at least your wording that remakes can refer to official ones. I don't think anyone on this thread is unaware that remakes can be official. I'm allowed to state the obvious as part of my argument. Peaceful_Critic said: Despite the thread being about music, the whole MyAnimeList site is mostly show and movie centered with the recent popular remake of Fruits Basket and Brotherhood being the highest rated on this site. So I think it's safe to assume that the people who know what remakes are, know that official ones exist. If your goal was to educate the people reading than maybe posting the definition would've been better. You tried to distinguish between covers and songs you called a remake. I said those are still covers, even when they differ that much. (Unless it's a remix, which is another story.) Then I mentioned something the word remake typically refers to. I'm not implying people don't know. It was just a side comment... As far as music goes, remake usually only refers to the original artist recording a new version of the same song or album. That's one reason I emphasized the "official" aspect. Peaceful_Critic said: We are talking about the definition of cover, of course, I'm going to be quoting dictionaries. There aren't many other ways to back up my claims in this instance. However, I am going to try to demonstrate it by showing you why specifically the definition was the best. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new I'm not using the 1st definition as a cover song can still be considered a cover if it is old. The recording is what is new, not the composition. (Although you can always add your own unique compositions into covers.) Peaceful_Critic said: I'm not going to use 2. (2)UNFAMILIAR as there are covers of before famous songs(i.e. Christmas Carols). 3, 4a, 4c, 5 and 7c aren't going to apply in the context of songs. 6 doesn't apply as covers do come from and are the same as their origin. So the only definition that could reasonably apply here is 2b which uses other("used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about."-default dictionary) than the former. Why I used that definition on the default dictionary's definition of other: I'm using the other quoted because 2 refers to an additional as I used in my underline. 1-verb, 1b(adjective & pronoun), and 3 are not in the context of a cover song.Point is, within the context and reasoning, I concluded that covers have to be different using the word "new" as part of that definition. Depends what you mean by different. *smirk* (Or rather, which things need to be different and which things can remain the same.) Peaceful_Critic said: Yes, I think its a recording made after the original, but as I have been telling you I disagree with however you've been using the word "new". Then elucidate your full standpoint instead of being ambiguous and simply saying you disagree. New recording only means one thing: a recording that did not exist and has now come into existence. Someone pressed record, did something to produce audio, pressed stop, and now there is a new recording. When the song was composed, who it was composed by, and what was performed and recorded don't matter in that regard. (As long as it wasn't something sneaky like recording the playback of an existing recording.) A different recording (ie any individual recording) is a new recording, even if it's the same artist performing and recording the same song additional times (such as at a recording session in a music studio) or multiple recordings of the same performance at the same time (such as at a concert). A new recording tends to be an entirely new song with unique composition (as most songs naturally aren't covers), but it's not a rule. Perhaps that's along the lines of what you were thinking, without thinking things through. Peaceful_Critic said: I'll more so categorize it as an insult based on observation, but whatever. If you're insulted that I noticed you're misunderstanding terminology, that's just illogical. Peaceful_Critic said: Yeah, this is technically a debate("argue about (a subject)") as we are arguing("exchange or express diverging or opposite views") about a topic. Whether I'm objectively wrong or not, I can still debate anything as long as someone with diverging views is exchanging opinions with me. True, I know what a debate is...but this is like debating whether 2 + 2 = 4. If you disagree, you're misapprehending something. Peaceful_Critic said: Really? Show me a case where someone made a song that sounded the same as the original artist and the law recognized the copy as a cover. I doubt that exists in the first place, as it's highly unlikely to be able to pull that off. Even if you were to go to painstaking lengths to attempt to recreate the original performance, there are too many variables that prevent the replication of such a thing in real-time. I don't recall claiming any cover sounds identical to the original, at any rate. Might wanna quote me before putting words in my mouth. Side note: Same can alternately mean similar rather than identical. Sometimes people say two things are the same when they really mean similar. Peaceful_Critic said: If you copy a song you would, of course, need to pay royalties Depends what you mean by copy. If you just took someone else's recording as-is and released it on your own album, you would probably get sued. (Unless you licensed it to be on a compilation album or something to that effect. But record labels are the ones who usually do that, and they don't need to license it if they already own the copyright. They're also regularly the ones who take care of paying royalties for covers.) Peaceful_Critic said: as you would to get the rights to most properties. Not sure what you mean by this. Peaceful_Critic said: All legal anime sites needed to pay royalties to stream the said anime unless the show was in the public domain. Licensing existing content is quite different from recording your own version of someone else's song. Just sayin'. Peaceful_Critic said: Singing over the original music is as the singer would sound different even if they have similar voices. As I described here: "Someone's voice sounds different from the original, so I would consider that new. " Same applies to music, if it sounds different albeit very similar I would still count that as a cover. A cover needs to be faithful to count as one, but they also need to be different. Alright, now we're getting somewhere. In prior statements, you suggested you believe the songwriting needs to differ. Now it would appear you acknowledge that even if the songwriting is the same, it's a cover as long as it sounds at least slightly different. Well, that applies to any cover I know of. I should have specified that when someone does a cover, it ends up sounding different than the original. You can do all the same things (in any practical sense) and still have it sound different. In fact, that's more or less inevitable. Peaceful_Critic said: I'm not blaming you for that more so for your condescending attitude(which is why I said you weren't trying to understand my position as you kept insulting it), and I haven't contradicted myself. Okay, I apologize if I came off as crass. Peaceful_Critic said: The website you linked cited a dead site("Princeton's WordNet"), and that site said this as to say they aren't the most credible: "Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the creators of WordNet and do not necessarily reflect the views of any funding agency or Princeton University." You're being way too nitpicky about this and going OCD over a word (new) that is redundant, thus irrelevant. (Like saying new newborn instead of newborn.) It was just a random link. I could have shared dozens of other sources saying the same thing. Or you could have found them yourself in a matter of seconds if you prioritized accuracy over pettifoggery. Peaceful_Critic said: Virtually:"nearly; almost" Aka this doesn't prove that songs that sound the same as the original are a cover. Seems as if the cover has to be different in some way. Virtually indistinguishable means nearly identical and difficult to tell apart. Virtually can also mean for all practical purposes. But yes, the audio is not 100% identical. |
|
| tried to get into it because anime girls were in the background, but they sound not very good to the ears. |
More topics from this board
» How to cope with being single forever? ( 1 2 )CrimsonMidnight - Jun 24 |
53 |
by SateenVarjo
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Coping with painspaceslut - Feb 15, 2023 |
32 |
by JaniSIr
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» If 1 year of torture meant you could be immortal after.ZakuF_ - 8 hours ago |
11 |
by vasipi4946
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Favorite places in Japan(to thos who have been to Japan) and where would you like to visit in the future when you go again? ( 1 2 3 )KiraraFan - May 7 |
114 |
by GinIonSui
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Would anyone miss Estonia?vasipi4946 - Yesterday |
19 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
1 hour ago |