I learned the hard way not to update to the latest OS, and won’t make that mistake twice!
Matt, that really sucks about the VRM box – I have the same unit. as a software dev, I think they are BSing about the reason. It just doesn’t make sense, I guess I’ll have to fallback to the Toneboosters plugin.-Gari
Here’s their actual response below on the matter Gari, just in case you hadn’t seen it yourself. Well, at least it can now act as a ‘high quality’ headphone output as well as a paperweight. Multi purpose!
Also, we can add Waves License Center to the list of currently incompatible applications. If transferring or adding Waves plugin licenses in Yosemite, you can currently only do this by adding it to a USB drive, and running them from there, as WLC is currently showing ‘Synchronisation Error’ when attempting to sign in and install licenses natively.
Update: This has now been updated, and just received confirmation from Waves:
We are pleased to announce that all Waves Native plugins V9 as well as the Waves License Center are now fully compatible with Mac OS X 10.10 Yosemite.This can be downloaded from here.
Rule #1: Never, ever, ever, ever, ever upgrade to the first release of a new OS if you rely on your computer for work.
Completely agree with this. And yet do I actually follow the rule? Nope! I’ll never learn.
Thanks for the headsup Jamie. Also, we can add Waves License Center to the list of currently incompatible applications. If transferring or adding Waves plugin licenses in Yosemite, you can currently only do this by adding it to a USB drive, and running them from there, as WLC is currently showing ‘Synchronisation Error’ when attempting to sign in and install licenses natively.
Also, Focusrite’s VRM Box interface no longer works on Yosemite as it’s too difficult for them to implement on Apple’s new kernel for DSP based hardware. Focusrite have informed me that they will no longer support this piece of hardware going forward. Basically, I just got myself a new paperweight.
Interesting info. I actually came back to the forum post just now to apologize for my somewhat rude remarks. I hear you, Matt. Still, I think we are appealing to a slightly different crowd than he is for the most part. As always, thanks for speaking up for us and continuously informing us. You’re a great advocate and educator for AudioJungle authors.
Thanks Phil! I’m actually glad we have AJ as a kind of venting/announcement board for things like this, as we’re all in the same boat and all directly affected. I’d probably go crazy keeping this stuff to myself!
But back to Incompetentech, it’s also worth noting that this guy has thousands of cues freely available for use, so I’m guessing there’s going to be something for everyone. Very frustrating.
I propose to start Anti-KevinMacleod campaign
Feel free to leave comments in the YouTube promo video for him! You might even make it into the documentary!
Btw, just to prove my point I made earlier, just check out the comments on that video. People seem to love him and his music! It’s that magic word ‘free’ that does it.
So how does he make money then? It can’t be AdRev if his music is public.
Backend Royalties and affiliate advertising via his now incredibly popular website I would guess. And considering he has a very high output of cues, he probably works on commercial work outside of this too. Just noticed he receives donations via his site too. That would be my guess.
EDIT: Just noticed his catalogue is now integrated into YouTube’s own free music library (he would have had a nice sum for that). Now I’m seriously pi**ed off.
I’m surprised. I searched for ‘royalty free music’ via google chrome and found my google+ posting of one of my tracks on position 5. wow
Make sure you’re logged out of Google+ Udo, or Google will tailor your results! Try browsing in ‘Incognito’ mode of you’re running Chrome, as this won’t sign you in to Google+.
I’m sorry. But this isn’t very frustrating to me… it’s just laughable. Professionals aren’t going to go to this guy.
“You pprrrroooobbbbably have heard my music…”
That was my initial reaction a few years ago when first I heard about him. He’s been on the circuit for quite a while and back then he was always teetering around the second page of results. Unfortunately I’ve since discovered professionals DO use him..a lot. Maybe for arbitrary background music in movies/tv (such as playing discreetly on a fuzzy old radio, for example), but this guy and his company are becoming a very dominant force. I’ve lost count of how many YouTube videos I’ve heard his music appear on and is regularly promoted on YouTube (by vloggers, tutorial channels, etc) as the de facto standard for easily monetized, YouTube ‘friendly’ music. Remember, we’re musicians, so we have a discerning ear, whereas, sadly the vast majority of buyers don’t.
In just a couple of years, he’s made it to TOP result for the strongest search keywording in our industry. And no doubt Google/YouTube will love him and his company, simply based on the fact that users can now simply monetize their videos, by crediting him and stating Creative Commons material as the third party content. Very little administration for all concerned, and Google easily get their advertising revenue.
So as much as it’s pretty laughable on first impressions, sites like these are becoming a real threat to our industry, like it or not.
..something is terribly wrong in the last two weeks,never been this slow.
It’s Google I’m afraid to report.
I’ve been speaking to a few library owners about this over the last few months or so. Google are now in full swing with their aggressive promotion of access to crappy, substandard, free music aimed at YouTubers and the like. Just open Google in incognito-mode, and search for ‘royalty free music’ and look what now dominates the top of the search engine. Free music site after free music site.
And even more frustratingly, a kickstarter documentary is due to be released, celebrating the guy at the top of search (I’m sure most of you have heard of him), who has basically hijacked the term ‘royalty free music’ for himself (even though, technically he provides ‘free music’). I suspect we’re loosing business to this ‘composer’ and even more now since Google are giving him more strength in search.. Outraged!
90% of our customers were looking for PRO-free music.
Or more specifically, Royalty-free music.
And I suspect there’s our answer to why AJ haven’t made the change (yet). When they say “royalty-free music”, I guess they’re wanting to mean it, in every sense of the term.
I strongly recommend that before you go adding your unwatermarked music to big YouTube channels right left and centre, you make flippin’ sure you’ve got it all tracked and monitored on AdRev; or iTunes hurting your sales will be the least of your problems!
Back to your question regarding iTunes, I’ve been successfully selling my music via that channel for a fair few months now, yielding pretty good results. Not openly promoting it per se, but people have been naturally stumbling across it and if buyers ask me if they can purchase my music for listening purposes only, I send them a link (using iTunes LinkMaker) and make it very clear to them that if they wish to use the music on their own video productions, that they need to purchase a license.
I have my ‘listening only’ music distributed via ReverbNation for a yearly fee, and they submit your music to all major download and streaming platforms, iTunes, Google Play Music, Amazon, Spotify, and so on. I don’t believe it’s even grazed my music license sales in that respect, but of course if users DO decide to be cheeky and reupload it to YouTube, it’ll just get them a copyright claim (via AdRev) and they have to purchase a full license anyway to get YouTube’s ‘commercial use rights’ clearance. Been working well so far.