Question on Masters vs. Covers (Vocal Track)

[jr174200]

While I fully understand why certain tracks must be covers for the game due to unusable masters, the one thing I've never fully grasped is why, in certain cases, they can't do master/cover hybrid tracks that still incorporate some of the original tracks.

If, for example, the only reason a master can't be used is because the drum track wasn't separated, couldn't they just re-record a "cover" of the drum part but still use the rest of the master and keep the original vocal track?

Wouldn't that be better? Why doesn't that work?

Is it a) a money thing? b) a timing thing? c) a sound thing?

While I understand this wouldn't be ideal, it seems feasible to me with a little bit of audio sweetening, so I was wondering what others thought.

[Ultrace]

Is it a) a money thing? b) a timing thing? c) a sound thing?
This has actually been discussed a few times. The hybrid approach you mention requires a "Derivative Works" license from what people have posted, which is more expensive and tricky than a master use license. It would also be quite difficult for them to lay down the other tracks and then have someone come in to the drums afterwards.

In the end, given that even an average cover still works within the confines of the game (especially since in many instances you're singing over it), it just isn't worth the time and effort to create a Frankensteinian track--even if that track was Frankenstein...

[bmore007]

I always thought they should do this too. Doesn't seem like it would be too hard to just slap at least the original vocals onto the cover of any of the other instruments.

[nicholasenj]

ok, imagine this: you're a bassist.

your band's song has been selected to be on Rock Band, but on the master, your track bleeds with the lead guitar track, rendering both unusable. Now Rock Band wants just the singer's track, they're going to have another band redo yours for the game.

how does that make you feel?

the legal issues are far more complex here than it would at first seem.

[54x]

While I fully understand why certain tracks must be covers for the game due to unusable masters, the one thing I've never fully grasped is why, in certain cases, they can't do master/cover hybrid tracks that still incorporate some of the original tracks.

If, for example, the only reason a master can't be used is because the drum track wasn't separated, couldn't they just re-record a "cover" of the drum part but still use the rest of the master and keep the original vocal track?

Wouldn't that be better? Why doesn't that work?

Is it a) a money thing? b) a timing thing? c) a sound thing?

While I understand this wouldn't be ideal, it seems feasible to me with a little bit of audio sweetening, so I was wondering what others thought.

A little bit of all three.

As mentioned earlier, the licensing is more difficult. Also, as most players deviate from timing, deviation in the drum track that's significantly different to the original track's deviation will make all the instruments sound off-beat.

That's even assuming that the ends match up properly with the timing of the song. (although this is somewhat easier if you have the cover artist listen to the original while they play)

If it were practical, they would do it, as full covers are actually significantly more expensive than masters.

[ASPSAX]

I've often wondered why they didn't do this, I wish they had done that for a few songs (Number of the Beast for starters). I think it would've been well worth the trouble too, more people would've downloaded the track with Bruce's voice on it.