Korg FISA SUPREMA

[John M]

I'd also like to think that one day, someone is going to be smart enough create a Korg Fisa sound repository for everyone to share their sets. <hint hint!>

This is O.K. as long as the sound sets are created by a person (who is honest and does his own creation) putting his sound sets into the repository.
I don't know how you would control what an individual is providing -- maybe he is putting some sets provided by Dale Mathis, Cory Pesaturo, or Richard Noel (or anyone else that may be selling them) in the repository. This would be very unfair to them. They have put hours & hours in creating their sets. They have to do them with the Fisa on board editor, as there is no PC editor at this time. These should not be "stolen".
In general, I don't like this idea, since a person could take Dale or Cory's sets, make some minor change and claim that it is there's. I would consider this as outright plagiarism.

 

[dak]

This is O.K. as long as the sound sets are created by a person (who is honest and does his own creation) putting his sound sets into the repository.
I don't know how you would control what an individual is providing -- maybe he is putting some sets provided by Dale Mathis, Cory Pesaturo, or Richard Noel (or anyone else that may be selling them) in the repository. This would be very unfair to them. They have put hours & hours in creating their sets. They have to do them with the Fisa on board editor, as there is no PC editor at this time. These should not be "stolen".
In general, I don't like this idea, since a person could take Dale or Cory's sets, make some minor change and claim that it is there's. I would consider this as outright plagiarism.

That "could be plagiarism" argument holds for any medium. Basically your argument amounts to "sharing even your own work is tantamount to promotion of theft", a stance that copyright societies are eager to spread and that has side effects like people getting copyright strikes on Youtube even for their own compositions.

 

[skopaczewski]

Basically your argument amounts to "sharing even your own work is tantamount to promotion of theft"

No. That's not what I was implying. If I create a Scene and you create a Scene, we could post it in a common, shared area for not only each other but also other members to download. The pirating I was referring to would be if someone posted Dale's or Cory's Scenes to a common, downloadable area.

maybe he is putting some sets provided by Dale Mathis, Cory Pesaturo, or Richard Noel (or anyone else that may be selling them) in the repository. This would be very unfair to them.

Exactly!

 

[Thomas N]

That would be nice, and I am in no way suggesting anyone pirate someone else's hard work.
Cory will sell his setups, but the only way to get Dale's, according to his videos, is to buy the Fisa Suprema from Kraft. That's disappointing.
I bought mine from Kevin at Carnegie at Cory's suggestion. I should have it by the end of next week.
Kevin is also creating his own items which he will make available to hist his customers for free - I think, in perpetuity. You might be able to get them from him aftermarket as well. I don't know.
- Steve K

I would put value on Richard Noel and Cory's scenes. Personally, I believe Richard Noel to be the pinnacle of scene/set creation. I do not own any of his sets but I've heard them all on his many videos and they are excellent. He puts so much time into them. Cory is arguably the best (technical) accordionist in the world right now and exclusively plays digital accordions. I loved his sound scenes featured in this thread. I see merit in purchasing these scenes if you are a person that values preset scenes.

Dale Mathis is different. He'll take an accordion sound, change the balance from left to right a bit and call it a customized Dale Mathis sound only available by purchasing from him. His scenes are not complex and seem more geared for a beginner/hobbyist accordionist that plays simple single-note melodies with a different treble sound each go-around. I think his scenes are geared for users that never want to make a setting and click save. But nobody on YouTube has more individual videos of sounds and scenes and he probably gets a fair amount of sales just from that marketing.

Interested to hear your thoughts on your new purchase Steve and congrats!

 

[dak]

No. That's not what I was implying.

Last time I looked, you were not John M. As I quoted with proper attribition, is was he who wrote:

In general, I don't like this idea, since a person could take Dale or Cory's sets,

 

[KeysFla]

I think we need to focus on our accordion performance needs. I rely only on 14 registers in my shows. Not trying to impress with synth sounds, but the basic polka band sounds. As that is where I am making a living doing weekly. Probably play the keyboard more if needed on other gigs that require the appropriate style of music.

I have not heard much positive on talking to FISA owners. But it is early. Think the FISA is a game changer over what the Roland had.

 

[Thomas N]

I have not heard much positive on talking to FISA owners. But it is early. Think the FISA is a game changer over what the Roland had.

I agree. Not a lot of information yet and nothing extremely positive. Only some shortcomings. Sounds are good - not great.

Maybe just being a couple pounds lighter with much improved bellows simulation will be enough but that $8000 price tag is sure a deterrent to make the switch. I'll continue watching with interest.

 

[skopaczewski]

Last time I looked, you were not John M. As I quoted with proper attribition, is was he who wrote:

Sorry about that, Chief.

Dale Mathis is different. He'll take an accordion sound, change the balance from left to right a bit and call it a customized Dale Mathis sound only

Oh my... I feel better about not getting his scenes now. Thanks!

Does anyone here who has the Fisa know the USB stick requirements/limitations, e.g., 3.0, 3.1, 16GB - 128GB?
Neither the full manual nor the quick start gives that information.
I have an email to Korg, but who knows when they'll respond.
Thanks!

 

[JerryPH]

In general, I don't like this idea, since a person could take Dale or Cory's sets, make some minor change and claim that it is there's. I would consider this as outright plagiarism.

Well, there has been a repository for 8X sounds for years. Not only has no one placed protected content there, but very few have actually even used it much. Just highlight that as part of the rules that no copywritten material is accepted and the consequences are immediate life ban.

And this can now open another discussion... what if I was a Korg user and without owning/looking/seeing another person's hard work, came up with a sound that was almost identical and wanted to share it? Should they be able to?

For me it's pretty easy in that the original files that Richard sent has me go nowhere outside my computer.

 

[John M]

. . . And this can now open another discussion... what if I was a Korg user and without owning/looking/seeing another person's hard work, came up with a sound that was almost identical and wanted to share it? Should they be able to?

For me it's pretty easy in that the original files that Richard sent has me go nowhere outside my computer. . .

I wouldn't send any files that I purchased (Noel, Michael Bridges, etc.) -- even if I modified them.
However, I have created sounds on my 8X from "scratch". Thomas N. put a post on this forum if anyone had a good bassoon tone or Cordovox sound. I had a bassoon tone that is only one 16' reed. I spent a fair amount of time picking the reed type that sounded best to me (nice and mellow). I also did a lot with the 4 band equalizer that is available on the 8X.
For the organ tone, I develop all of my organ tones using the nine drawbars that the 8X has available to duplicate a Hammond B3.
I sent those two sounds to Thomas because they were my creation. Now, if these sounds are almost identical to sounds from a purchased set, that's O.K. by me. I didn't copy a thing, it was what I developed.

 

[kep]

Well, there has been a repository for 8X sounds for years. Not only has no one placed protected content there, but very few have actually even used it much. Just highlight that as part of the rules that no copywritten material is accepted and the consequences are immediate life ban.

And this can now open another discussion... what if I was a Korg user and without owning/looking/seeing another person's hard work, came up with a sound that was almost identical and wanted to share it? Should they be able to?

For me it's pretty easy in that the original files that Richard sent has me go nowhere outside my computer.

Jerry,

Deja vu, I remember all these arguments at the beginning of the Open Source movement.
Since programming the digital accordions falls into the same area, I think we can save a great deal of time and effort if we use the same terms and principal.
Proprietary - what Richard, Cory, Dell have created. Nobody can redistribute their product in any form and shape, fully or partially.
Free - something explicitly distributed for free by creator. In the software world it is distributed under one of the licenses (Apache, GNU, etc.) Any of them suppose that if you use the open code (in our case, set/UPG, Scene settings), you share your code as well.
Open Source is what made possible Internet, most of the software which we use on the daily basis (look at your TV and read the license )
I think we can follow the same path. Consider this as an initiative offer.

 

[Ventura]

the point i feel you are all missing is that all this stuff is
just a re-arangement of existing unique proprietary devices

there is NOTHING NEW BEING CREATED

the definition of recieving a legit patent or rights to something
that is the SUM of various other existing patented products hinges
upon whether or not something actually unique, new, and heretofore
unherd of was created by this UNIQUE and NEW combination/concept

tons of get rich quick patents are applied for on the backs
of the actual hard work of inventors/creators, and rejected

no matter how much you all might want to argue for any of
these re-arrangments of existing stuff, the absolute fact is they
cannot be absolutely shown to be unique, since ANYONE could
also create exactly the same combination/final result

there is no placeholder for a watermark of uniqueness here

and something being mathematically unlikely does not qualify as argument
of patent

actually, before the gentleman in highest regard in these matters crafted
a single "program" he was in contact with me and i gave him some clues
and rabbit holes to explore that could lead him to my results with Roland
programming. it would be absurd to claim that all his subsequent work
was derived in whole or part through those clues, just as it is absurd
to claim my programming was not dependant upon the Roland programming
that was layered under my re-combinations

and the only reason MINE are protected is because i still have the only copies..

whether you can get people to give you money for what is nothing more
than patches is a matter of marketing, weakness, and perception,
and once they have been handed out, there is no putting the genie
back in the bottle

i hold there is no way to prove origin of what is at best a re-hash that
anyone, anywhere, at any time could also come up with if they had a clue

 

[Thomas N]

I wouldn't send any files that I purchased (Noel, Michael Bridges, etc.) -- even if I modified them.
However, I have created sounds on my 8X from "scratch". Thomas N. put a post on this forum if anyone had a good bassoon tone or Cordovox sound. I had a bassoon tone that is only one 16' reed. I spent a fair amount of time picking the reed type that sounded best to me (nice and mellow). I also did a lot with the 4 band equalizer that is available on the 8X.
For the organ tone, I develop all of my organ tones using the nine drawbars that the 8X has available to duplicate a Hammond B3.
I sent those two sounds to Thomas because they were my creation. Now, if these sounds are almost identical to sounds from a purchased set, that's O.K. by me. I didn't copy a thing, it was what I developed.

And it sure was appreciated! I use your bassoon sound every single day!

And I Dale Mathis'd it. Changed the volume and a couple EQ parameters to better suit my amplification setup. So it's, uh, customized.

 

[KeysFla]

Korg FISA has 580 mb of space for additional sounds from usb. Like with Korg arrangers, they will become available in the future. Companies like Wavesart now provide for Korg arrangers. The accordion packet is amazing, which I installed on Korg Pa5x.

Pa5X Virtual Accordion

For FISA users, how do these sounds compare? Or does Dexibel provide the sound programs in future upgrades?

 

[dak]

Jerry,

Deja vu, I remember all these arguments at the beginning of the Open Source movement.
Since programming the digital accordions falls into the same area, I think we can save a great deal of time and effort if we use the same terms and principal.
Proprietary - what Richard, Cory, Dell have created. Nobody can redistribute their product in any form and shape, fully or partially.
Free - something explicitly distributed for free by creator. In the software world it is distributed under one of the licenses (Apache, GNU, etc.) Any of them suppose that if you use the open code (in our case, set/UPG, Scene settings), you share your code as well.

Sigh. Can we please please please not confuse all the established terms again? "Proprietary" means not redistributable and not modifiable by the recipient. It doesn't matter whether it is provided at zero cost or not. There is lot of software that companies offer at zero cost (like Roland's set editors and pretty much all downloadable manuals and firmware versions) that aren't free to redistribute.

"Free", in contrast, means that the recipient is allowed to study, change, and pass on software. It does not at all mean that it is available at zero cost. For example, I can pay someone to create a set of sound settings and scenes specific for my needs, and our contractual arrangement can give me the right to pass the results on to anybody I like, under a specific licensing scheme or just by giving me the right to pick any. That doesn't mean that I have the right to forego paying the creator of the sound set.

I have worked for pay on numerous kinds of Free Software. By spreading the myth that the creator of the software has some magic obligation to not get paid, you make it much harder to provide software in a manner that will keep being usable when the interests of the original commissioner have moved on.

Open Source is what made possible Internet, most of the software which we use on the daily basis (look at your TV and read the license )

Yes, and the initiator of Linux (Linus Torvalds) is still making quite a healthy living by working on software that is free to copy for everyone.

I think we can follow the same path. Consider this as an initiative offer.

There is a lot of Free Software that effectively is mostly created at zero pay. It still requires maintenance, download servers, administration, licensing choices and so on, and someone has to carry the bill. There are development resources like GitLab (owned by MicroSoft these days) and GitLab that help with hosting such efforts. They usually have some free-of-cost tiers (that are quite more extensive when providing actual public access and licensing for your projects), but also make money by providing the same kind of convenience for proprietary projects at various sized and cost layers.

 

[JerryPH]

For FISA users, how do these sounds compare? Or does Dexibel provide the sound programs in future upgrades?

Kong synths and the Fisa are not made in the same production line. Dexibell sounds are not Korg sounds, you cannot (I am told), use one on the other.

Best case? MIDI connection from your Fisa to the Korg synth lets you access those sounds... but you cannot "install" them on the Fisa

 

[JerryPH]

the definition of recieving a legit patent or rights to something
that is the SUM of various other
tons of get rich quick patents are applied for on the backs
of the actual hard work of inventors/creators, and rejected

no matter how much you all might want to argue for any of
these re-arrangments of existing stuff, the absolute fact is they
cannot be absolutely shown to be unique, since ANYONE could
also create exactly the same combination/final result

there is no placeholder for a watermark of uniqueness here

Basically, are you saying that it's OK for people to dump copies of the backups of their accordions from Mathis and Noelto public sharing locations?

 

[dak]

Basically, are you saying that it's OK for people to dump copies of the backups of their accordions from Mathis and Noel?

Ventura was going on about legality (how to "prove" uniqueness") and patents which is not really pertinent to whether to consider something "ok" and is actually totally legally irrelevant as well since the respective sets are not covered by patents but by copyright. The standard for copyright is not uniqueness but independent derivation. Software companies may do "cleanroom reimplementations" where some people analyze software and absorb a set of specifications from it (that is not touched by copyright of the original software), and an independent "uncontaminated" team then doing a reimplementation according to those specs. These tactics concern getting away from the original copyright claims; they cannot help against patents.

For copyright, independent creation works as a defense. For patents, it is irrelevant. At best it may work against punitive damages, but you still need to come over with the patent fees if you were not first to file for a patent's claims.

But here we are talking copyright. If you come up with sets sufficiently similar to proprietary available sets and distribute them to the public and you have previously acquired those proprietary sets, then you better document your creative processes in a manner that would convince a court (and preferably the possibly annoyed other party so that the court does not even get into play).

 

[Ventura]

Basically, are you saying that it's OK for people to dump copies of the backups of their accordions from Mathis and Noel?

i am saying there is no legal protection, and there should be
no expectation of control or exclusivity over the distribution
of such, nor any expectation of some type of shared depository
remaining somehow "pure" regarding these patches

Consider Hammond pro's for ages and ages would shield their
drawbar settings as much as they could from prying eyes
or photo's or specifics during interviews

yet surely there have been many drawbar settings shared or
speculated upon and then shared.. is there a single instance
where an artist sued for primacy over a drawbar setting
for a specific song? or would that be ridiculous ?

why do you all seem to think patches for an accordion shaped
digital musical instrument would be any more protected ?
especially when it is so far from rocket science that literally anyone can
duplicate anyone elses patches from scratch independently ?

patches on a Synth or an arranger are little more than a matter
of taste, not skill, as they added nothing truly new or exclusive to the
device itself.

when you re-arrange the Windows on your laptop, do you
suddenly have proprietary right to the relative location of common icons
and a Microsoft provided screensaver ?

if you publish your preferred windows default screen, could you
have an expectation that no-one else could also have it without your
express permission ? or does Microsoft own all rights to Windows ?

 

[JerryPH]

On top of that, there is law and there is morality. Do you feel it is right someone share your "patches" that you spent 10's to 100's of hours on without your say, one way or another?