Members Phait Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Got a message today about that. Sweet! Also said there are more features coming, but that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mark L Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 *Uploads "I'll shaft you on the bog-seat"* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Cool. News I can use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 What purpose does it serve to put up 10 songs instead of 6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members saktr-iyko Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 What purpose does it serve to put up 10 songs instead of 6? that's almost a whole album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Will Chen Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 What purpose does it serve to put up 10 songs instead of 6? To allow artists to cheat themselves out of all their profit instead of part of their profit. Acutally, I think it's great. I only use MySpace music to host my former bands site (see Floodwaters in sig) for historical purposes. I didn't even put up the site until long after we broke up. Those old tunes will be better served sitting there than in a dusty CD case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 They've been making some real improvements to MySpace lately. The overhaul of the page loading was much needed, as the original architecture held up the whole page waiting for outside content. The new page loading is much better implemented and gets their server content up without waiting on outside servers. And the fact they finally came up with a break out player is a big help. But the fi for us plebes is still shockingly low. Some folks who think they're going to get rich off their music may actually like that because they think it will push folks to buy the tunes. I remain somewhat dubious. I'd rather have people be able to properly hear the song. I've been on SoundClick for a long time, and their system is a lot better but is also mired in 'old' fi rates (128 kbps as opposed to the presumed 96 from M/S). So I've been exploring some of the newer alternatives (although some, like Last.fm, have been around for a number of years now) and, in addition to allowing higher fidelity uploads, some, like ReverbNation, have some real interesting features. (RN even has a TuneCore like program for getting your tunes submitted to iTunes, Rhpasody, Amazon, and other stores, and, though their fee system is a little different, their rates are more or less competitive with TuneCore. And they have a good integration with social network sites, as well as a number of user promotion tools to prod artists into actually promoting themselves a little. Even Facebook has its iLike service/plug in. Speaking of monetization... Back in Mp3.com days I ran into a trip hop duo from SF (I think, at the time) with a fellow I knew from years before at my local coffee house. They're now back down here in Long Beach (or at least his singer/partner is) and they've put together a little mini-musical empire that seems to point the way to how an micro-indie artist can make money off of marketing his or her music: http://www.anjibee.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mark L Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 What purpose does it serve to put up 10 songs instead of 6? Mine goes to 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 I remain somewhat dubious. I'd rather have people be able to properly hear the song. I've been on SoundClick for a long time, and their system is a lot better but is also mired in 'old' fi rates (128 kbps as opposed to the presumed 96 from M/S). You really need to get off of that. It's obvious that convenience won the war, and quality is relegated to a later stage of the game. I think the way forward is to collateralize new stuff with the old. I have music that has essentially "made it's money", and I don't feel bad about giving away at this point. If those freebies draw people to newer music that requires payment, I'm happy. Per my CD Baby digital accounting, if someone streams my song on Napster, I get few pennies, if they download it on iTunes, I get a few quarters. Streaming vs. Download is room where you can exploit the teases into purchases. Compare to the idea that you watch 24 on TV for free, you buy the "Season2 DVD set. Also, the DVD has "value added" stuff like outtakes, directors comments, So back to the music, compare the DVD extras to what kind of stuff (artwork, lyrics, etc.) you can bundle with a download/CD sale as compared to minimal song/artist info that a stream yields. But 128k v. 320k is a dead end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Mine goes to 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 You really need to get off of that. It's obvious that convenience won the war, and quality is relegated to a later stage of the game. I think the way forward is to collateralize new stuff with the old. I have music that has essentially "made it's money", and I don't feel bad about giving away at this point. If those freebies draw people to newer music that requires payment, I'm happy. Per my CD Baby digital accounting, if someone streams my song on Napster, I get few pennies, if they download it on iTunes, I get a few quarters. Streaming vs. Download is room where you can exploit the teases into purchases. Compare to the idea that you watch 24 on TV for free, you buy the "Season2 DVD set. Also, the DVD has "value added" stuff like outtakes, directors comments, So back to the music, compare the DVD extras to what kind of stuff (artwork, lyrics, etc.) you can bundle with a download/CD sale as compared to minimal song/artist info that a stream yields. But 128k v. 320k is a dead end. About the only TV shows I've ever had the slightest interest in getting on DVD are the old Perry Mason hourly show and the original, early 50's Dragnet. Most TV isn't worth free. Anyhow, you may have misunderstood me. I already give away my music, at least as far as streams go. (Soundclick lets you charge but most people don't seem to bother. There doesn't seem to be a built in market there. Could be wrong. But why I brought it up was just that even with it's dated 128 kbps streams, it still outshines MySpace. But the newer sites all seem to accept higher bitrate files.) And in the past I had it all available for free DL. (I'm slowly moving away from that, though listening will remain free for any forseeable future. Nothing ticks me off more than 30 second preview clips -- unless it's preview clips that cut off abruptly instead of fading like the muses clearly intended.) But... that said... I am slowly but surely moving to a position of monetization of my music, in whatever dribs and drabs it may come. The realization that my podcast has had over 270,000 DLs (since fall of 2005) made me start thinking about it a little more seriously... the small change adds up. (Of course, the podcasts are all available for free DL or streaming and will remain so.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Magpel Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Blue's right. The MySpace Player sounds so godawful it simply must be intentional. As for the increase in allowed songs--I like it! My band puts up a lot of quark and quiffle, rehearsal room recordings and so on--B-sides of the B-sides kinda stuff. Like for instance my bandmate's MacBook mic demo of his song "The Risk it Took to Blossom." I literally moused in the drum beat on a virtual keybord, real time, on my business computer, making sure to fall apart completely, did all the b'vox on my Radio Shaq headset mic through an onboard audio chip, and threw it up on the MySpace page (see first link in my sig ) I love that kind of stuff. It makes me feel like Robert Pollard or someone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mark L Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Blue's right. The MySpace Player sounds so godawful it simply must be intentional. I'm lucky in that regard My musicianship and skills as a recording engineer are so bad that what you hear on my Myspace player is what I hear on the final mix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 I'm lucky in that regard My musicianship and skills as a recording engineer are so bad that what you hear on my Myspace player is what I hear on the final mix That's harsh, man! In so many ways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Anyhow, you may have misunderstood me. I already give away my music, at least as far as streams go. (Soundclick lets you charge but most people don't seem to bother. There doesn't seem to be a built in market there. Could be wrong. But why I brought it up was just that even with it's dated 128 kbps streams, it still outshines MySpace. But the newer sites all seem to accept higher bitrate files.) I think you are harping on the bitrate thing as if it makes any difference to the casual listener. Clearly, it does not. :poke: As far as MySpace, if the streams are at 96k or whatever, I'm sure it's a bandwidth issue with being the massive multi-user site that it is. At any given moment millions of users are on the site, so fast streaming would freak out at higher bitrates. And it's still just a giant advertisement, so worrying about the difference between a 128 and 196 bitrate is a waste of time IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dave Bryce Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 I have to disagree with you some, Bill. I have stuff on myspace at 96k, and on Broadjam at 192...and the 192 sounds about a zillion times better to me. Matter of fact, I never had any idea just how bad the myspace codec sounded until I started using a site with a better one. I think that whether the poor codec on myspace bothers you or not is directly related to what you want out of posting your music online. Seems to me that if it's more important to one to present their music in the best light, then having it on myspace may not be the best idea. dB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thrashy Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 I also will say that the My space codec sounds like crap. I have the exact same thing at 128k and there is a huge difference. On one song I made a special mix to bring out the crap that the my space player sucked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 as the original architecture held up the whole page waiting for outside content. ah - so that was the problem! thanks for the info TK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 ah - so that was the problem! thanks for the info TK. That's not official or anything... I just noticed that it appeared to be the case. One day I was kvetching about how slow the pages loaded and some perverse and contentious soul (was it you, Stranger? ) said, hey, my MySpace page loads pretty quick. I went to it -- and it did. A couple days later I went to my own M/S page and, whaddya know? It got the M/S player up really quick. Amazing what you can do if you think about how you code your pages. Bill... sorry to harp on the crappy sound at MySpace but it's... uh... crappy sound. No other site I know of in 2009 restricts one to 96 kbps. In fact, I don't know too many that did a decade ago. Certainly the old Mp3.com was 128 kbps, which ain't great but is at least tolerable. And that was more than ten years ago... How will the kids know to even care if we old coots don't go on about it, eh? I'm kind of kidding... but I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone posting here or at Gearslutz -- both places where the presumption might be that the visitors would tend to be technologically clued in, particularly with re music tech -- and asking plaintively why the sound at MySpace was so bad. Not why are they doing this to us -- but why does it sound so bad? What's the reason? These folks had no clue that different sites stream and download different bitrates or maybe even that mp3's come in different bitrates. So, you know. I figure my carping or harping or whatever I'm doing is a public service. Just like any other cantankerous old coot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Was it me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members audioicon Posted April 4, 2009 Members Share Posted April 4, 2009 Never really give a crap ass about myspace music restriction.I load any number of songs I want on my server space and then hook my own player on myspace and then mute their player. There you have it! My sound, my number of songs, just the way I want it. AI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted April 4, 2009 Members Share Posted April 4, 2009 Never really give a crap ass about myspace music restriction. I load any number of songs I want on my server space and then hook my own player on myspace and then mute their player. There you have it! My sound, my number of songs, just the way I want it. AI I was doing the same, but if you have songs in your player, people can add the songs to their profile. This is something you can't do without it. I was using a reverbnation widget since the myspace player sucked so bad, but they have improved it and it does seem to sound better than it did. I was actually putting some tracks back up the night before the 10 song message, just because the music player had improved. And I was having trouble deciding which 6 tunes to use. Ten isn't really enough, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted April 6, 2009 Members Share Posted April 6, 2009 How will the kids know to even care if we old coots don't go on about it, eh? I'm kind of kidding... but I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone posting here or at Gearslutz -- both places where the presumption might be that the visitors would tend to be technologically clued in, particularly with re music tech -- and asking plaintively why the sound at MySpace was so bad. Not why are they doing this to us -- but why does it sound so bad? What's the reason? These folks had no clue that different sites stream and download different bitrates or maybe even that mp3's come in different bitrates. So, you know. I figure my carping or harping or whatever I'm doing is a public service. Just like any other cantankerous old coot. You have to get 'em in the door first. Message before medium to me. I'm not disagreeing that a quality live show, or a quality CD is better than an mp3. But if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Magpel Posted April 6, 2009 Members Share Posted April 6, 2009 To me the internet thing is still really about exposure and not final listening experience. AM radio never sounded very good, but the motown acts cut through and succeeded anyway. Bill, I don't disagree with this, but the question remains: why does MySpace lag so far beyond other free online hosting/streaming services in resolution and quality? I think the most tenable argument is that they want to make themselves as friendly as possible to major label sneak peaks and other deals in which low resolution is a form of content protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dave Bryce Posted April 6, 2009 Members Share Posted April 6, 2009 To me the internet thing is still really about exposure and not final listening experience. AM radio never sounded very good, but the motown acts cut through and succeeded anyway. Different times. You couldn't click a button on the AM radio and add the tune to your library for 99 cents... I buy almost all of my music online these days, and a 192 mp3 can go in my player. Not gonna happen with a 96k file. dB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.