Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Music Adds Support for User-Uploaded Unofficial Remixes from Dubset

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,691
39,595



Apple Music today gained support for user-uploaded unofficial remixes, according to TechCrunch. Unofficial remixes are mixes by DJs typically uploaded by the artists themselves, but major labels choose not to upload them to music services because of rights issues. SoundCloud is one of the few services that can offer support for unofficial remixes.

dubsetremix.png

In March, Apple struck a deal with Dubset, a music rights management firm that matches snippets in a DJ's mix to a database and pays out royalties to the original rights holders. Spotify also struck a deal with Dubset, but did so in May. Spotify has also gained unofficial remixes.

The first unofficial remix is DJ Jazzy Jeff's remix of Anderson .Paak.'s "Room in Here." Unofficial singles are only the first step of Apple's agreement with Dubset. TechCrunch notes that multi-song mixes that DJs use during their shows are also on the way to the service.

Article Link: Apple Music Adds Support for User-Uploaded Unofficial Remixes from Dubset
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/06/apple-music-unofficial-remixes/
Interesting step. I like it.

Excuse my ignorance, but is Dubset a big thing amongst DJs and the like? Will people likely actively use it for content?

eyeseeyou said:
Why doesn't Apple implement a notification system so we know when an artist we follow uploads new material!?
Click to expand...

Yeah this needs to be a thing.
 
I've always wondered if, and how much, original rights holders get compensated for those 'snippets' of alternate songs in DJ mixes. If I were a songwriter I wouldn't like it if parts of my source material was matter-of-factly inserted into a mix. Kind of cheapens your work.

Similarly, Paul McCartney was reportedly very upset about Michael Jackson's licensing of Lennon/McCartney compositions for commercial purposes, after the latter acquired the rights to the entire Beatles' catalog.

OTOH, others might like the exposure to their creations, and of course the extra revenue that comes with it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nebulance
joshwenke said:
They've tried this. Twice.

Hasn't caught on and still doesn't seem like it will.
Click to expand...

Well there is Connect but it seems like no one still has caught onto that either but if you are looking for new music from specific artist Connect is one way.
[doublepost=1475801414][/doublepost]Since Spotify got Soundcloud this is Apple Music alternative to hear new music hopefully it will not be all EDM crap but some good Electronic music.
 
That's all it should take, for John Bonham to posthumously become the richest man in the world.

...unwittingly providing percussion to tens of thousands of hit pop & hip hop songs since 1979 without collecting a single cent in royalties, while Zeppelin get hit with lawsuit after lawsuit...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoEw, Waxhead138, swm and 1 other person
Great remixes and covers are why I really enjoyed SoundCloud. I haven't used it nearly as much because of Apple Music. I'm ready to see how this plays out however, Apple really needs to find a good way to organize the remixes. Right now that song by Andrew is randomly placed in the albums section not as a new release.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionel Messi and eyeseeyou
I wonder if (for a price) the labels will provide 24-bit stems for "serious" remixing/alt-versioning.
 
macs4nw said:
I've always wondered if, and how much, original rights holders get compensated for those 'snippets' of alternate songs in DJ mixes. If I were a songwriter I wouldn't like it if parts of my source material was matter-of-factly inserted into a mix. Kind of cheapens your work.

Similarly, Paul McCartney was reportedly very upset about Michael Jackson's licensing of Lennon/McCartney compositions for commercial purposes, after the latter acquired the rights to the entire Beatles' catalog.

OTOH, others might like the exposure to their creations, and of course the extra revenue that comes with it.
Click to expand...

Unless the DJ is paid by the label and the mix is an official mix, typically the artist gets the entire royalty payment.

Example, Shawn Mendez - Stitches (SeeB Remix) .. SeeB gets a flat payment from the label and name attached to the mix as it's an official remix. However the Alex K & Delirious Mix which is a bootleg remix only get Shawn Mendes the payment as it's non official. It's great for everybody because doing bootleg mixes that get popular gets you noticed and hired (like SeeB in the above example) and even signed. (Since that remix, Alex K & Delirious have been hired to do official mixes by Pitbull and even Major Lazer & Justin Bieber'a cold water now has an official remix from them).

It's another avenue into the industry for DJs and I applaude it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Borin
Wonder what if someone does not have certain song.
Skip it? Or show "this song is not available"?

Or this feature is accompanied with Apple Music or Spotify alike?

I remember AM will upload songs cannot be matched with iTunes library. But if others don't have it, what would AM do.
 
Good news. I'm interested to know how well this mixSCAN technology works. For example, it's perfectly possible to mangle samples beyond (human) recognition. How would this audio fingerprinting work with a sample that has distortion, delay, reverse, time-stretch etc effects applied? It's not unheard of for bands/remixers to get away with never obtaining a license for material they've sampled purely because it's been so skilfully mangled up (The Orb are a band who are brilliant at this).
 
  • Like
Reactions: KazKam
macs4nw said:
I've always wondered if, and how much, original rights holders get compensated for those 'snippets' of alternate songs in DJ mixes. If I were a songwriter I wouldn't like it if parts of my source material was matter-of-factly inserted into a mix. Kind of cheapens your work.

Similarly, Paul McCartney was reportedly very upset about Michael Jackson's licensing of Lennon/McCartney compositions for commercial purposes, after the latter acquired the rights to the entire Beatles' catalog.

OTOH, others might like the exposure to their creations, and of course the extra revenue that comes with it.
Click to expand...

The Beatles, like many other artists of the 60 and early 70s did not own their music and were taken advantage of by the record companies.
They all did not have experience with contracts and publishing rights. They were happy just to get their music out at that time.

McCartney's displeasure with Michael Jackson was that Jackson wouldn't let him have his "the Beatles" work (although he is not the entire Beatles) and he probably considered himself as the heir apparent.

In the end he said he was not going to join a bidding war and did not pursue it further.
All business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back