http://www.youtube.com/user/spacemind2012?feature=watch

I've listened to Intergalactic Path and Forgotten Station so far; minus a little bit of vocal, it would make incredible VO music. Spidey has issued his stamp of approval, too.

It's cool. I really liked Robotic Job, and then I recognized the hook from Phutureprimitive. Spacemind is a DJ, and these are all mixes he has posted. To use these would be a licensing nightmare.

Oh, I don't mean use these. I mentioned those two as examples. I suggest talking to the guy about creating new stuff for VO.

Hmm, perhaps this should be in suggestions.

What I'm saying is: he does not appear to be creating new content that he can own and sell, but mixing the work of others - which needs to be licensed if one is to use it in a game.

^ Told you music licensing was stupid tarenty

Music licensing is the primary way most musical artists make a living nowadays, so it's very far from stupid.

That said, just because Spacemind sampled content in some tracks doesn't mean he is incapable of creating his own content (rather than remixing). Not all DJ's mix other peoples stuff, many create their own. If he was hired or commissioned to create music for VO, it would simply be a matter of telling him not to use anything he doesn't have the rights to.

Oh, and it sounds just like the current VO music.

While I like Spacemind's sets, it is clear that these are not original compositions that he is adding samples of other works into. These are "sets" or mixes of entire songs (or nearly so) artfully stitched together to invoke a vibe. I know this because I am a fan of the genre of music he tends to use and I recognize the songs. He provides a list of songs below each mix, you'll notice. Unlike Deadmau5 or Skrillex, there is no evidence that he plays any instrument whatsoever (including virtual instruments). A DJ cannot copyright a mix or set of music created by others, and therefore cannot legally sell it unless they license the original works from others (and pay them). It would be cheaper and less messy if GSW paid a musician for original compositions and held the rights to the music.

Enjoy Spacemind's sets, and then read his setlists and explore the artists that are part of the set. Again, no disrespect to DJ Spacemind - he just can't help here.

Um, no, greenwall. Research (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2199058) suggests income from music recordings make up only 6% of the average musicians income, whereas it makes up the majority of a record labels income if the artist is signed to one with the artist usually making a very small minority of the total profits.

Because, as whistler points out, these are derivative works, it's a pain in the ass to get them into the game without risk of lawsuit.

Luckily there are plenty of original artists out there that could use the promotion of having their music in a game like VO, I'm sure it's not too hard to find some if it becomes a priority.

Besides, popularity does not make something become non-stupid. Beiber, gangsta rap, American Football, the English languages, Windows.....

phew.. for a moment there I thought he might say the metric system...

There are exceptions to every rule ya know :P

Kongregate had a good idea for pairing artists and musicians with game designers: http://www.kongregate.com/collabs/sounds

It's almost defunct now unfortunately.

I never cared much about the musics and songs, on games... But this guy here has talent:

Antonio Teoli

He composes songs and melodies for games, since Master-system and Mega-drive. And was acclaimed for his works, by other MMO players I know, who do care for the soundtracks.

/facepalms TRS you really should stop assuming you know everything about everything. That study you cited is a survey of "musicians". We are not talking about all musicians here, we are talking about artists/composers -- which is a much smaller slice of the pie of "musicians". Moreover, that study is flawed in that most highly successful artists and composers (and performers for that matter) don't take boring internet surveys like that.

In case you failed to read:

"Because the survey was Internet-based and open to the public, the respondents are not a random sample of the population of musicians."

Meaning this is a survey of those who are bored enough to take 10-30 minute internet survey, and therefore is likely to include a very high amount of "hobby" musicians. Figure 1 is pretty good evidence for this, if common sense isn't enough for you.

and

"Based on the organizations whose membership participated at the highest rates the sample is likely to have overrepresentation from the classical and jazz genres."

Based on your incompetent analysis so far of the music industry, I think it's reasonable to assume you aren't aware that classical and jazz genres aren't exactly the "money makers".

Moreover, you (and whistler) fail to understand the concept of creating new content as opposed to licensing existing content.

It could very well be that Spacemind only prefers to "remix" other peoples stuff, but to assume that's all he can do is ignorantly presumptuous.

I like his downtempo psi mixes. Intergalactic Path, Gaia Spirit, and Wild Experience are all worth listening to.

Mass marketed trash is where the money is made, what percentage of that do you think goes to the musician (another word for 'musical artist' as you put it).

The one sensible thing that was said in your post Greenwall was that we aren't talking about musicians here, we are talking about copyright licensing which will succeed in deterring Incarnate from going anywhere near this guy purely because his existing works are derivative works.

It's not worth the risk that he won't be able to come up with something original and it's much easier to shop for something that doesn't have licensing and legal implications even though his existing derivative works are perfectly suitable and deserve to be recognized and/or financially rewarded.

I only know what I read about the music industry, but I damn sure know about copyright law and I damn sure know about business. Maybe you can factor that into your assumptions next time.

"There are exceptions to every rule ya know :P"

Ha! Excellent pun!

"Mass marketed trash is where the money is made, what percentage of that do you think goes to the musician (another word for 'musical artist' as you put it)."

Yes and no. Non-trash music found in film and television scores also generates billions of dollars in income (but not for the players).

"It's not worth the risk that he won't be able to come up with something original and it's much easier to shop for something that doesn't have licensing and legal implications even though his existing derivative works are perfectly suitable and deserve to be recognized and/or financially rewarded."

First, it's likely DJ Spacemind isn't interested, so this is all for nothing. He probably makes way more remixing tracks than he would writing original music for VO. I don't understand the risk in inquiring if he makes original music, however.

"I only know what I read about the music industry, but I damn sure know about copyright law and I damn sure know about business. Maybe you can factor that into your assumptions next time."

I don't know what assumptions you are talking about. The only assumption I have made is that you have a very limited point of reference in regards to the music industry. When you come across as being some sort of expert on the music industry, you just sound ignorant and presumptuous.

This is a problem with the chilling effects of copyright licensing which make it a nightmare for small businesses like guild software to pick up music in a cost effective manner.

This is a legal policy issue and your statement that "Music licensing is the primary way most musical artists make a living nowadays..." is not only empirically wrong, but it shouldn't be used to support a stupid set of laws that works against its intended purpose to promote creativity by placing the silliest restrictions on content for the benefit of massive corporations and abusive licenseholders.

The fact that we can't use derivative works like this with confidence without going to see a lawyer is ridiculous and most definitely stupid.

Perhaps we are thinking of different situations re: music licensing. Even so, I heartily disagree that people should be allowed to create and own new music with other peoples music without some type of reparations (assuming said music isn't already in the public domain). Copyrights, like patents, give / allow their owners a reward for their creations. Protecting creative artists and inventors alike this way is only sensible. This is not to say derivative works aren't a legit form of creation in themselves, but when you use someone's art blatantly in your own art you shouldn't and can't take all the credit for yourself.

The complaint that you can't use someone's derivative work in a for-profit medium without having to see a lawyer is valid only if you a) want to be able to make money off of other people's hard work without giving them their due or b) are lazy.

Small businesses have many low-cost options for music, and in fact, although it's unfortunate for the artists out there, they could probably get their soundtrack for free if they wanted (given the staggering amount of people who dabble in creating original music nowadays). I don't see how it's a nightmare at all. Small business should only be able to use music in their operations which they can afford. If they find something they really like, but it just so happens to be Beatles song (or a remix of a Beatles song) or something, tough luck! They have to pony up the cash just like anybody else.