$12256 / $11500
This post on the Warzone2100 forums will lead you to two electronic music tracks and! their source. It is proprietary software and even multiple of them, but I find it amazing how simple it appears in this case to share the source.
I asked the contributor of some awesome tracks to DungeonHack to release the source, but without reply so far. Perhaps he forgot I asked :)
Have you seen some with-source freely licensed music?
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
I can't claim to have looked around a lot, but I believe that it's rather uncommon. Nice find! My understanding is that what is problematic is when proprietary samples are used, as they can't be redistributed in their original form. I don't think the actual project files, scores or even loops pose any such problems, however.
Yeah, it is quite uncommon and also can cause a lot of trouble with the licenses. Most of the DAWs allow to use their samples in a work but not as samples ... that way opening the source is like using proprietary samples. For example basically 99 % of the used drum sounds are actually samples of drums. People often forget that they are actually using samples, as it is allowed within compositions and very deeply integrated in the programs. I d like to skip the topic of actually using proprietary samples, which might be perfectly OK, if it is worked in good enough, but is another much more complex topic and opening the sources makes it even an harder one.
Tbh I also find myself rather uncomfortable to open up my sources even if I could ... I somehow feel like that I can give away my music, but the way I make it is my own secret. Maybe I would think otherwise if there would be a community of people actually sharing their sources and I could see the consequences of it right in front of my eyes, but atm I am rather unwilling to share my sources.
P.S.: Also you have to be aware that many tracks actually do not only need the original DAW to be played but also libraries, plugins and sometimes even expansions to plugins. The costs to reproduce the source material can vary from some hundreds to some thousands in my experience. That is why I rather prefer to make the single lines available as seperate files and in case also deliver the midi with it. You can see one example of how I did it here: http://ccmixter.org/files/remaxim/22110 and even a much better one by trifonic here: http://ccmixter.org/trifonic
IMO sharing the source will become interesting once there are some Open source programs that can compete with the proprietary ones. Till then it looks rather like a desaster to me.
P.P.S.: I just realized that my response was almost completely offtopic, as you only asked for further examples...
I guess you should check the tracker scene, as their work is usually distributed within the original format and there are some freeware and open source trackers AFAIK. IIRC Nexuiz had some work and also an build in tracker player in their game code... I am not 100% sure though.
> Maybe I would think otherwise if there would be a community of people actually sharing their sources and I could see the consequences of it right in front of my eyes
Fair enough I'd say. This reminds me that LMMS has a sharing platform: Share your songs!
>Also you have to be aware that many tracks actually do not only need the original DAW to be played but also libraries, plugins and sometimes even expansions to plugins.
Sure, most of the time it wouldn't be usable I suspect, on the other hand, open source artsts are not bound to open source tools. I also believe that a higher need for being able to edit proprietary softare's sound formats will make it more likely for FOSS converters to appear.
> I just realized that my response was almost completely offtopic, as you only asked for further examples...
Bah! It's a thread. Just imagine everybody posting links and not telling his opinion. boo-ring. I might not agree with you, but you're being very fair and it is still interesting to read your opinion!
...high quality open samples would be awesome. I guess they are rather hard to produce though :(.
@qubodup: nice ... I remember now that I saw that page a while ago, but didn't care much back then. Definitely showing the strength of open source software with this site. Got to check out one mix or two when I have some time :)
I really think that the bigger issue is not the format of the work but actually the plugins it uses... midi basically has everything it needs to port from one DAW to another... the unique settings, plugins and libraries cause much more problems though.
@ceninan: what exactly do you mean with samples? IMO ccmixter.org is already a great community and ressource for samples, that mostly has a quite high quality of samples. Just check: http://ccmixter.org/view/media/samples and http://ccmixter.org/view/media/samples/browse
is that what you meant?
What I had in mind was thouroughly individually sampled musical instruments, of the kind were a single intstrument can reach several GB. In my experience CCMixter mostly has samples in the other sense :P. I don't browse CCMixter often though, so maybe they do have things like this.
Ah, I guess I know what you mean... sampled instruments is the right name for it AFAIK. It allows you to play your keyboard like you are actually playing the real instruments. There are many (___MANY___) formats for it, but if I remember correctly SF2/SoundFont is an supported format for free software and there actually are some free patches IIRC. But you re right, those are very hard to create and it is not uncommon that commercial companies demand one till several hundred bucks for one single sampled instrument. Also I wasn't very satisfied with the free sf2 samples I tried till now, but as said: they are very hard to create (and I am quite picky)
Remaxim is right; there are too many different things impacting the music. For example, I usually create music with the proprietary program Guitar Pro 5, export it as MIDI and then set instruments in the proprietary Cubase Studio 4. There I also mix the project and use the timeline here and there and I might add some effect instruments as well.
Let's say I want to share the sources. I can share the MIDI, but if they don't have the same software, they can't use the project file of Cubase Studio 4 and get all the settings. I can export each track on their own, but as for repetitive instuments, such as a drum track, it might not be allowed due to the license of the program/virtual instrument. Or am I mistaken here?
This just goes to show that it's not easy since most musicians doesn't use FaiF tools all the way, and that it limits how much sharing of sources there can be.
You are right, a cubase project file would only be useful to users of cubase (or someone who can import it into another DAW they are using) and MIDI is great because anybody will be able to use it.
They will not be able to create the same sound without the same setup, but the melody is still a great source I think.
And you are right of course, proprietary samples are not something one can share.
I agree that the source will be of little value to many but so what? :) Supporting a culture of sharing the project files might have no result but it could have small results by having people who use the same software create nice derivates/remixes or it could turn people to support foss DAWs because they like the sharing model, so they can share their sources or it will cause musicians to support development of converters or make them demand an open music project file format.
All just speculation. I think the minimal positive result will be that very few will be able to directly use the sources of proprietary DAWs and that it will motivate others to share their sources, when they see that people are doing it and using the sources.
DAW - Digital Audio Workstation - perhaps not the right term to use, sorry in that case :)