Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Samples stuff is live...

There's a lot of new stuff up there, go get 'em...

I'd really like to get the freesound sample pool references going quickly, if anyone has just something quick and dirty to upload using samples from freesound that would be very helpful...

wahoo!

11 comments:

Marco Raaphorst said...

it's really cool.

I have an idea... more later I hope :)

Ran Dumb Dots said...

I think the freesound linkage has the potential to take cc-licensed music up a notch or two - so many sounds to search & mine - I wonder if the companies making $ selling sample packs are even taking notice....freesound+mixter are to them as Pandora&podcasts are to broadcast music radio and flickr&others are to stock photography, etc., etc. - chills when I saw this was rolled out

Marco Raaphorst said...

"companies making $ selling sample packs"

that's me :)

Ran Dumb Dots said...

uh...excuse me while I remove this...foot from my mouth again...of course, the really HQ stuff will still come from those companies selling sample packs :)

fourstones said...

are you saying freesound+mixter is not really HQ ???

;)

Marco Raaphorst said...

no need to say sory Ran Dumb Dots. I totally understand that.

Gurdonark said...

I use freesound a lot. I'll put one together soon. Good move, to get this sample pool linked.

Ran Dumb Dots said...

fourstones said...
are you saying freesound+mixter is not really HQ ???

This actually ties to an article in Wired I read about the idea of "crowdsourcing". One part of the story described stock photographers being undercut by iStockphoto, which carries photos by amateur photographers ($1 - $40 per photo vs. $150 - $600). Two of the general points they made about content from the crowd: 1) the crowd produces mostly crap and 2) the crowd finds the best stuff. So the answer to the rhetorical question: ccM+FS has content that is every bit as HQ (some of it the highest quality) than commercial stuff, BUT arguably there is a lot of "crap" to wade through to find it. For a time, maybe a long time, there will be a place for both, because some people are willing to work to have free and freely mixable sounds and because not everybody wants to use a CC license or wade around looking for HQ sounds. With samples though, CC seems like such a great fit, maybe better than stock photography. It'll be really interesting to see what direction this goes.....

Ran Dumb Dots said...

I actually think there is little "crap" on ccM ;), but it would be interesting to hear what some uninvested music fans think about the overall quality - is the filter used for ccM radio just people behind the scenes saying yea or nay and lumping the yea's into a genre?

Marco Raaphorst said...

there's one thing which I'd like to add as (professional) sound designer:

when you buy sounds you are able to use these sounds in all kinds of productions and no need to give anyone credit for it. this is because you bought these sounds, so you are buying a lot of freedom.

CC works great for samples as well of course, and hey: it's free. but I can still see a future for my business (*) because by paying for samples you don't need to discuss about money when a commercial license is needed. which might become a real struggle when you're using a lot of CC samples.

* = and sure, those Swedish boys know how to find me too :)

Marco Raaphorst said...

and btw: would BY-NC for samples really make sense? wouldn't BY just be enough? what amount of money would you ask when 50cents uses one of your samples?

for a commercial sample-pack, I think one sample would be less than 50cents! really!

Mmm.