Hi. Im learning from your vids and 'joined', thank you. At around 24.20 in this vid you click on an icon in a small column of icons to the left of the macros in order to expand the instrument to show all the different knobs and buttons etc all in a row. I have version 12 standard and dont see the icon or icon row to do that and dont know how to expand the instrument. The UI is diferent in your suite but I would like to know how to expand. Can you help please.
hi dennis thank you for joining! I just tested in Live 12 and the same small icons are present. It could be that you have not loaded an instrument rack / preset. You may have just loaded a stock synth. In the browser with the list of instruments and presets, try finding Drift and opening that folder to reveal all the Drift presets. Next to each preset name you will see a small rectangular icon. Some of these icons are a rectangle with a line down the middle. These are instrument racks meaning they are a synth + other effects contained in a single container (known as an instrument rack). If you load up one of these presets specifically, you'll now see the icons. The icons are only present for instrument racks. I hope that is helpful!
no where on any of the common social media platforms do the terms of service state any transfer of copyright. you post, you still own the copyright to your work. a third party simply cannot come in and scrape your copyright work for profit simply because it is "publicly available".
How does Libre software work? How do the creators in this area make a living? Well, they have a normal job and in addition do open source development as "volunteering". It is much less common among artists to dedicate part of their work to "public domain" or other non-restrictive form of publication that other could use, be it for profit or not. And again, I must emphasize it being non-restrictive. Just as many libre software developers do - including BSD, MIT, PD licensing, and excluding GPL.
@@Taetro Huge part of modern IT is based on this kind of labor, yet is taken for granted by most. It opens doors for collaboration and that is, it think, what draws people in. Music composition, on the other hand, is kind of a lonely process. But does it have to be? Why not dedicate one composition in a hundred to public domain, maybe unfinished so that other people may come and try what they can do with it? Nobody is expecting anything, it is just something to think about. And of course, I am not addressing AI at all in this train of thought.
It’s simple - labor generates value. Workers are entitled to the fruits of that labor. Anybody can volunteer anything into the public domain at any time but again, it’s not a sustainable practice to be relied upon by a whole industry. Nice to have, but should not be the expectation. Pay for work if it’s generating some value for you or your business, otherwise it’s just exploitation.
@@Taetro Your position is valid. At the same time, and that is why I am pointing this out, I observe this Gollum mentality often among musicians and other artists (It's mine, my own, ...). I am not saying they should give away everything. That would be stupid. But what about doing it for a small fraction and see where it goes, how it feels... Creative Commons Attribution if Public Domain is not immediately comfortable. As I mentioned, many software developers do it to an extent and the whole internet infrastructure stands on their shoulders. The same goes for smartphones etc. And nobody questions sustainability here. Why is that? How is it different?
@2:01:58 interesting topic, So what do we do about mega corporations like Google, who started digitizing everyone's written material as part of an (online digital library project) called Google Books? They were finally hit with lawsuits by many authors, but Google ended up winning in court, the publishers also benefited, but the actual authors were completely left out and received nothing for having their work digitized and made available for free online, as part of Google 's online library project. The courts ruled it was in the best interest of the public to have this material available online through Google Books, it was case closed to the chagrin of the authors. As great as intellectual property right sound, it's very ambiguous in fine print and there's always a bit of wiggle room built-in to the law, so when mega corporations step in they somehow have the winning hand, with the court ruling in favor of whoever has the most money.
I stopped carrying a smartphone in lieu of the Apple Watch. It has everything you described you needed, and none of what you don’t need. I too use an iPad for everything that makes use of a large screen (RU-vid). I honestly don’t know why people still buy pocket bricks.
Machines learn basically the same way humans do and they regurgitate the knowledge the same way, the difference is speed and capacity. Human is very limited in comparison to a machine so it works off a smaller data set of prefered data (music we like). Machines are only limited by how much money can be spent on data storage. Modern tech has made huge cloud based storage available that can be shared. Next is computational speed humans are working at the speed of snails in comparison to machines. So the human is using a smaller data set, but of selected data and processing much slower in minutes, hours, days. A machine is filled with gigantic sets of general data on the subject music in this case. Then using it's computational speed to find subsets of the data to generate new product from. So in the end humans and machines are working the same way just with a difference in speed and amount of reference data they are making new art based on prior art. So that mean the real problem is somewhere else in the world of generative AI. I say the issue is HOW the AI is being used. To me AI generated music is similar to sampling which is legal as long as a clearance is given. In sampling and many other forms of art it's about creating new art from prior art. Now if you just take a piece of someone prior art and use as is you're being lazy and at most minimally creative. But if you take some prior art then chop it, repitch it, add processing, and in many case create something that the prior art can even be recognized you are being creative, you are make new art out of prior art. I seen videos with people starting with an AI created song and multiple AI generated versions of the song. Then start modifying it like someone would with sampling and adding bits from the variations for more interest. Then processing to add dynamics and other sonic interest they are being creative and created their own art. So I think the issue is not AI generated music, but what is done with AI music is it left alone or being used as a starting point for new art. Now the people that are going to be hurt by AI generated music, video and such are the professional composer who does incidental music for TV, film, games, sync licensing. Those are the people AI is going to put out of work, but the truly creative people at the top AI isn't going to affect them. This no different from the robotic machines that replaced people on assembly lines manufacturing cars and other things. The music writer that cranked out media music and incidental music AI will replace them. This has happened throughout history machines were created to replace people then had to train and look for other types of work.
a for-profit machine learning and making derivative works is for sure not the same as a human learning and creating derivative works, and we also have copyright / plagiarism standards for humans so we should have the same for AI. The sole purpose of generative AI is to generate work. OpenAI charges for access to this technology. The copyrighted works they're using to train their AI therefore has value to their business and for sure violates more than one of the 4 standards of fair-use. We are one court case away from the whole thing getting shut down. (just kidding because it's in the interest of corporations to replace labor with a much cheaper computer that can't unionize). And the problem with replacing labor is we never come up with a solution for those humans that were doing the labor. We're just happy to pay a corporation instead of humans?
Comparing the impact of assembly lines machines to Ai is so inadequate. Humans are the core of this world not because of strength or speed. It is all about our intelligence. Those assembly lines machines were simply faster or stronger but people were in control, people were smarter. Ai is already smarter than most people. And it will be more intelligent, faster and stronger than any human.
If they learn the same way humans do why can't they increase the amount of art over time? Humans started out with cave paintings and now we're here, AI can only be derivative. How is this comparable to the human brain exactly? Also where did you learn so much about neurology? Or did somebody really in depth on the human brain tip you off on this? Don't suppose it's just a talking point off tech bro twitter right
Do U no the mpk mini play 3 can U use the midi usb wire to a wall outlet plug and have unlimited usage because I haven't got it connected to my pc or laptop
Woahh thats smart, ive been wanting to get rid of all my social media but i didn’t want to rid myself of it completely... dang i guess i need to buy an ipad T-T
Yeah this is actually a good idea other than I like RU-vid because it actually helps me with my job finding tutorial videos with certain things at my job
Thank you so much for this video Taetro, I ordered a mini iPad and just deleted all my apps, this is great! I also need to post for work so I think having a work time to do that is really good.
