Read more.Quote:
The video-centric site is also threatening to block music labels that don't sign up.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The video-centric site is also threatening to block music labels that don't sign up.
If it was me, rather than blocking the content of the folks who were holding out, I'd just make sure that their videos were hit with a lot of ads - especially for content from those labels who HAD signed up.Quote:
The Reuters report said that 95 per cent of affected music labels have already signed to deals for the paid service, and that YouTube is blocking content from the remainder in order to provide a consistent user experience for its paid service.
Find these kind of strongarm tactics, (see also Amazon and Hatchett press), quite distasteful. Only saving grace is that my music tastes are so strange that it's unlikely that YouTube music is going to be of use to me, so I'm definitely not going to be subscribing.
Much prefer to buy a CD anyway. :p
I don't follow any of the modern music either, so is unlikely to affect me.
But I do wonder if they'll end up with it having a subscription only service for all their content? I mainly use youtube for gaming content, and my kids for nursery rhymes. But don't think I'll be using it if I gotta pay to watch content. I've noticed some youtubers using Pateron to get additional money to supplement their costs, which is voluntary. If it is forced, IMHO, people will just go elsewhere for their content.
Edit: Also, this does sound a bit like what Amazon music is doing, allowing offline play etc.
Can't say I follow mainstream music anymore but I have found some good groups on youtube from doing random 'hunts'....
Not exactly sure what they're 'planning' with this new service but my youtube has been adfree for years lol
So you pay money to get rid of ads on YouTube? But only for music videos? That sounds pretty weird to me. YouTube blocking people who don't agree just sounds controlling and makes me wish there was another streaming site that people would switch to.
It all sounds wrong to me. I imagine very few EDM channels I listen to, to find out if I like a song, or just to hear new releases have signed in with this. If that's the case, many of these EDM artists will likely lose my money. There's too many non-mainstream and newcomers to keep track of by following worthless Facebook pages and such.
Although the latter gives me an idea. All the promotion channels have Facebook, etc. So they'll post videos as usual through other hosting services.
I suspect that the strong arm part of the deal is not coming from Youtube, it is more likely that the music labels have requested that because they can't understand their customers and would prefer to just beat them with a stick until they do what the music labels want.
Moving on I've noticed that Youtubers have started to use services like Pateron and Subbable, just like Saracen. It is a great way to engage with their users and allow their users to direct what content they produce. The founder of Subbable, Hank Green, explained why he did it by saying that advert income was encouraging them to produce content that they know their subscribers wouldn't like and that they wouldn't want to produce so they came up with Subbable to solve the issue. I think it is an excelent way to pay for their channels and none of the Subbable users I subscribe to force their viewers to use the service, on the contrary. They actively tell their users not to use it if they can't afford to because they actually care about whether or not their viewers can put food on the table which is refreshing to see in content creators.
Sorry for the long post, seems I've picked up the Saracen bug...
I'll be interested to see if the moving of stuff from "free" YouTube to the paid service makes the usage number fall. I'm still curious what the justification would be for Google to strongarm in the way that's been reported. Although, I've also read something yesterday that said that Google won't "delist" non-subscribing groups, they'll just promote subscribing groups instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noxvayl
I thought SoundCloud and BandCamp were also pretty popular - and certainly the ones for the "serious" music fan. I know Mr Scruff does a lot of SoundCloud content, and the Louise Petit project I just sponsored through Indiegogo uses BandCamp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noxvayl
No need to be sorry, I thought it was an informative and sensible post. And that's assuming that three paragraphs counts as "long" - heck for me that's a footnote! ;) (civil service bad habits coming to the fore)Quote:
Originally Posted by Noxvayl
Ah well... will just have to spend more time on Vimeo and other alternatives.
It's hard to make sense of this, seeing as there's no substantial info on the deal they're trying to make here. Artists are getting ripped off all the time, by companies, and regular people. There's such little respect going around for the time, effort, money and emotions that goes into creating art. So if Google is actually going to do something that will help people make some money out of their work, then that's cool in my opinion. But it totally depends on how they go about it. I still don't really get exactly what it is they're trying to force people to do though. Does anyone have any more details on this?
I agree with what you're saying about supporting artists, but I'm afraid Google is not doing that. What they are doing instead is to say to the record labels "hey guys, you're using our 'free' service to promote your product, so I think we should be getting a cut".Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaO
Dumb thing is that given Google's got Play (Music) and YouTube they could be a force for good, allowing artists to migrate to them and then offering better distribution terms than the record labels can. After all, if you believe the hype (?) people like Saracen and I who want music in physical form (CD, record, etc) are just dinosaurs when all the "young folks" <grin> want digital distribution - preferably stream or cloud based, (so you don't have the 'hassle' of downloading specifically and/or transferring)
Aren't they already getting a cut of the ad revenue though? I still won't judge too much until I know more details. Everyone wants everything for free these days, with no regard for what it takes and what it costs to create content and host websites etc. Personally I'm not signed up to the ad thing they do, because I don't want to give them all those details. But I have been looking into using something like CDbaby so that they can do that stuff for me. But I'm not really too concerned with the level I'm at right now. Not too many people know my stuff, so there's basically nothing to be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
As for CD's and stuff - One of the music scene's I'm involved in is very big on that. A lot of artists are selling tapes as well. They do alright with it :) But it's a scene that has its roots in the 80s, so go figure :P I think younger people are starting to get into physical releases a little bit more now. People are also starting to become aware of how crap Mp3's are. So I think some of this stuff is improving in some ways. But I might have a skewed image of it all.. I do actually like the convenience of digital myself (though I love to own physical releases!). But I don't have a spotify account or anything. I just find stuff on Soundcloud, then support the artists I like through their Bandcamp page. As people do with me.
Saracen is one of my favourite dudes on here. Can someone link me to his stuff, assuming he's ok with that?
Quite true - so basically with the new scheme they (Google) still get the ad revenue plus these new subs. Greedy or what?!Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaO
Physical v's digital - agree. I always go physical for something that I really want, leaving digital only for those things that are digital-only (obviously) or stuff that I'm not too bothered about - like those one-off "fun" singles.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaO
The MP3 comment is a good one. I got a Fiio Kunlun E18 DAC/AMP a while ago and while the iPod's been flushed to be reloaded with ALE's, I could really do with something "better" than my current 192k VBR MP3's. I've looked around but the advice is invariably "go lossless" rather than "the best lossy settings are...". My current MP3 library is 50+GB so reripping these as lossless isn't an option - I did a handful of albums in ALE and that came to about 15GB.
Yep, agreed, Saracen's a good guy - although I don't agree with his stance on Google and cloud systems (but I respect his opinion - just saying it's not mine). Actually there's a lot of good folks on Hexus - Cat, Animus, Kalniel, Brewster, etc. Many of which have helped me in the years. And the Hexus admins seem to be pretty good at squashing that kind of "your mother works on street corners down at the harbour" personal abuse. Heck, even the heated debates I've (Android fan) had recently with Jenny_Y8S (Apple fan) have been pretty polite.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaO
:hexlub:
Well I usually get Wav files where possible, then often compress them with FLAC. Or just go straight for FLAC files. FLAC is not lossy at all. And it will save you a nice bit of space. You can go ahead and use the highest FLAC compression method and not worry about losing any quality :) If they don't save enough space for you, and you want something more similar to Mp3 compression. Then I would recommend using AAC. It's Apple's attempt at getting Mp3 like compression, but without throwing away all of the stereo imaging data. Because that's the first thing Mp3's chuck away. And that has a massive effect on how the music sounds. All the producer's efforts to create a spacious mix, flushed down the toilet. Not to mention all the other frequency cutting they do.. If you really must use Mp3's, then don't settle for anything lower than 320Kbps. But Wav or FLAC is basically the only option for me. It makes me sad how many people are listening to crappy 128Kbps Mp3's. A lot of the time because people are using browser addons to rip people's music for free off Soundcloud and the like. Most of these music streaming sites actually stream the music at 128Kbps Mp3. So that's what their crappy rip comes off as. Then on top of that, they end up with no metadata/ID tags on the files, which sucks. I could go on, but I'll stop here for now lol. But this is why I've decided to make my music have no minimum price on Bandcamp at the moment. It was making me sad seeing that people were listening to crappy Mp3 rips with bad metadata. Even though they probably would've chose to download them from me in Mp3 format anyway (as they know no better). But at least now I am giving anyone the chance to get my music on full quality, whether they choose to pay or not. So no one can say I don't care :PQuote:
Originally Posted by crossy
And btw, just after writing all that. I decided to look up "ALE" format. Looks like it's another name for Apple's "ALAC" file format? That is basically the same thing as "FLAC" if so. Still, I go with FLAC. But shouldn't make much difference :) I think FLAC manages to save a tiny bit more space. But that's probably the only thing between them.
I don't know what Saracen's stance is on Google and cloud systems. But I imagine it'll be quite similar to mine haha :P And yeh, there's plenty of good dudes around here ay :)
Thanks for that advice - my mobile, computers and portable players all "do" AAC so that is definitely an option. Car stereo is MP3 only, but to be honest if I'm using that then it's easier to hook up phone or ipod than load a MP3 CD. Main driver for moving to ALE/ALAC was that I can (supposedly) recode to whatever I want - so maybe I should try a head to head sometime AAC v's MP3. I use dbPoweramp for rips and that's even got a "multi-encode" option where it'll rip the CD then produce whatever list of outputs you want. FLAC I looked at, but figured that ALAC/ALE was easier because iPods (which I have two, plus another rescued from a bin) all play that format natively.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaO
Saracen's views on Google and cloud are easy - "evil" and "not interested" respectively. I work for a company that has a "cloud" product so I'm expected to be "pro" I guess. Plus like Google I take the view that they're a useful facility if used with care.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaO
And I just added you to my mental list of "helpful Hexians". ;)
Well if you're already using ALAC and are happy with it - stick with that! But yeh, I would chose AAC over Mp3 if I really had to use one of them for some reason (or at least for lower bitrate encodings anyway - Sub 256Kbps I guess). Definitely do some tests if you're interested. But the most noticeable difference will come once you've got an Mp3 down to around 192Kbps, give or take. An AAC file will start to shine there! As long as you have your stereo speakers setup nicely and assuming that they can represent all of/the majority of the listenable frequencies nicely :) Though tbh, a 320Kbps Mp3 and AAC of a similar bitrate is probably negligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
I use dbpoweramp as well. Great little program! Very reasonable price tag too. And yeh, I'm not sure how much Apple products like FLAC. It probably works ok. But nothing wrong with sticking to ALAC just to ensure compatibility with them. Apple know a thing or two about making audio codecs :P
And just as expected - my view is similar to Saracen's there lol. I'm very cautious of Google services. Though I'll admit I use a couple of them. But I try to be minimal with the data they are able to mine from me. I use a couple of cloud services to back up files and stuff as well. Nothing too personal goes in them. But that's mainly through fear of hackers I suppose. I don't assume all services of "X type" are evil or anyhing. But you gotta be careful out there these days. There's more than enough evidence that there's no shortage of people trying to build massive databases on you and use it to their own financial advantage. It's a huge security risk for us all as well. Anyway, I digress, again...
So am I on some kind of crazy list now? I'm cool with that haha :P