LMMS • Forums

musikbear wrote:*smiling.. almost too wide*
Ask Paganini if he considered it to be cheating to play on Stradivarius violins..
Or Lennon if a Fender Stratocaster was 'cheat'..
Great instruments are for inspiration and aiding the creative process -Kind of like girls (Called 'muse' in that context

Exactly THIS. In fact we could even talk about buying any musical instrument and calling it cheating because you just didn't built it yourself. That kind of logic is sooooo absurd. By that logic Is using arpeggiators cheating ? What about using reverb to enhance a voice or sound, what about any other audio effect ? What about using samples instead of real instruments ? We could go along this line on and on forever.

Problem I see here is that people seems to be mistaking COMPLETELY the creative process of making music with the available resources to do it and the skills you can learn to improve that creative process. Those are totally separated things. The same way you don't need to be a professional singer, or drummer, or guitarist, or whatever to compose music, even very good music, but obviously you will compose better music if you have those (and better) skills.

We can transpose the same logic to any other artistic process. Painting for instance, is using models cheating ? Is painting a landscape you are watching cheating ?

Damn, following that logic to extremes we could even end with saying that using stated rules (like harmony) to be cheating because you didn't create yourself those rules.

The only cheating existing in any creative process is to literally plagiarize the work of other person and "sell" it as your own creation.

Fun isn't it ? I confess I'm cheating. Most of the time I only use the 12 notes from A to G#. I haven't invented my own notes.

And in painting I'm sure using models is o.k. but you should have made your own paper and ground the pigments for your own paints and shaved the squirrel to make your brushes .

But the presets thing is particularly puzzling. People seem perfectly happy to use all sorts of virtual synths and effects that someone else has written for them but somehow using presets with these is cheating ? It's like telling a guitarist that it's o.k to buy a guitar but only if he builds all his own effects pedals from scratch.

I suppose by the same logic the Royal Philharmonic are cheating if they play a Beethoven Symphony because they didn't write the music themselves.

As you say if you've slavishly copied someone else's notes and arrangement with exactly the same instrument sounds and claimed it as your own then you're cheating. Otherwise you ain't .

Steve

But what if you just steal a melody from someone? For example, what if you took the melody to the Star Wars theme song, made a song based off that, and called it your own with a new name. Technically it would be a completely new and *original* song but it would be 100% recognizable as the Star Wars theme song by John Williams.

I just want to say that there is a point where taking things made by other people becomes outright plagiarism. I'm not saying using presets is cheating. You can use other people's sounds, but the actual composition of the music is where "cheating" could potentially occur. As you guys have said, it's impossible to be 100% original (no one should have to invent a new note scale just to be original) but blatant copying just isn't right.

Snarf wrote:But what if you just steal a melody from someone? For example, what if you took the melody to the Star Wars theme song, made a song based off that, and called it your own with a new name. Technically it would be a completely new and *original* song but it would be 100% recognizable as the Star Wars theme song by John Williams.

Well, to be honest, about this, it hasn't to be cheating at all either. How many famous covers of songs, remixes, etc exist since forever ? There are many covers and remixes than are way better than the original song, and there are out there incredibly original and cool covers and remixes. A melody/riff/whatever (even an entire song) it is just one more resource to be used in a musical creative process. Making a cover or a remix not only is not cheating or stealing at all, it is usually a tribute and a show of respect. And an incredibly useful resource to learn better musical skills and do incredible original compositions. But obviously you should notice your composition is a cover/remix and credit the original composer. (And obviously if you are going to use it commercially have the permission or rights from the copyright holder).

It's sort of interesting that an idea seems to have grown up that a piece of music should be produced from nothing to finished published recording entirely by one person with no outside help.

It's never been that way in the history of music. I don't think Bach would have been thought to be cheating because he couldn't play all the instruments himself. Hardly anyone called Elvis Presley a cheat because almost all his songs were written by someone else, and the arrangements and most of the playing on the records was other people. Even the Beatles would have sounded very different without George Martin doing the arranging and recording for them. And of course more recently we had the fad of "DJs" who made music specifically by sampling (i.e. stealing) bits of other people's recordings and just putting them together in a slightly different way. Cheating ? Or just a different way of using musical resources to be creative ?

If you take a complete melody, rearrange it and claim it as your own then you are cheating (and very likely to be sued for everything it earns and more if the copyright is still valid). But if you take that melody, rearrange it and call it your version of XXX by YYYY then that's not cheating. Likewise the "tribute" bands playing live versions of stuff by Pink Floyd, Beatles, Nirvana, Cold Play and other "popular music combos" aren't cheating because they're not claiming to be the original artists. They may be less creative than the originals but in some cases they're as good or better musicians than them .

We seem to have arrived at a point where some people think that creativity is everything and the musical quality of the finished product is much less important. Odd really.

Steve

I have thousands of cheat codes to beat Synth1. If I cannot progress any further I just drop one and boom, I take my music to the next level.

Using freely available presets, under the appropriate license that is, isn't cheating to me. Sometimes I find that someone else has already created the sound I'm looking for and It falls under the, "Don't reinvent the wheel" category. That being said, I think any musician should take the time and put forth the effort to improve their skills with their instrument(s) and give something back to the community when they can.

BTW, Greetings to the community!

TheTraveler wrote: BTW, Greetings to the community!

Right back -and welcome!

I see some sarcasm...

Virtual instruments are still instruments, right? Right? So I'm just going to load a preset into my Bach Stradivarius trumpet and stuff like I would with Serum. Legit.

They are compatible to a degree, that degree being that you can play both. The difference is that synthesizers are based around creating the sound and then playing it, aka learning to play a physical instrument, then playing it. I don't think I can just apply a preset to my upright piano and make it play like a baby grand. Sure, you could just google "sik massive w0bz patches" and become Skrille- no wait, that isn't how it works.

Anyways, there are merits to both mindsets, but I still think that half of a synthesizer's purpose is to be programmed, much like you would learn to play a physical instrument.

As you say there's merit to both views. if you feel that designing all the sounds is vital to making your music and that using any pre-existing sound is cheating then go for it.

I think composing the notes, finding or making a suitable set of sounds and getting the arrangement right is enough of a challenge for me. A bit like a classical composer and orchestrator puts the notes together and arranges which instruments will play which parts but doesn't feel the need to invent brand new instruments because violins and pianos have already been done .

Steve