You are here

Unhappy SoundCloud

Advice on everything from getting your music heard to setting up a label and royalties.

Re: Unhappy Soundcloud

Postby Forum Admin » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:44 pm

+1 - the purpose of writing is to communicate. You ain't (sorry, are not) doing yourself any favours LdashD.


PS. Love the 'Psycho Killer' cover on your website and SoundCloud profile.
User avatar
Forum Admin
Moderator
Posts: 3347
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: A studio deep in the fenlands of Cambridgeshire, UK
SEARCH 11,382 SOS Reviews/Techniques articles: www.soundonsound.com/search

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby BigRedX » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:38 pm

I've had to block LdashD because his "phonetic" typing plays havoc with my dyslexia.

Which is a pity, because I suspect that somewhere in all that affectation there are some important points trying to be made.
User avatar
BigRedX
Frequent Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:00 am
RockinRollin' VampireMan

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby den83 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:40 pm

BigRedX wrote:I've had to block LdashD because his "phonetic" typing plays havoc with my dyslexia.

Which is a pity, because I suspect that somewhere in all that affectation there are some important points trying to be made.

Indeed. Lash makes some good posts. I don't want to have too much of a go, it's just that when reading something, one has an internal voice which reads the text. My internal voice when reading Lash is Mike Reid. I have tried to make it Eric 'Crafty Cockney' Bristow but it just defaults back to Reidy. This is the problem.

If Lash could neutralize it just a tad it would be alot easier for us to reid.

(You see what I did there?).

Aaaanyway....I shall say no more...moving on...

Soundcloud alternatives. Oh yes.

I am currently researching this very subject as we speaketh.

BTW, as regards Soundcloud - am I right in thinking the ability to order one's tracks has been taken away unless you upgrade? I mean, this was doable until fairly recently wasn't it? Or was I imagining it?
den83
Regular
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:00 am

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby awjoe » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:54 pm

Hey, SOS - how about you guys starting a Soundcloud clone? You could call it 'Save Our Sounds'. Couple of servers, a techie and a web wrangler. Lovely little earner. What do you say?
User avatar
awjoe
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2500
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:00 am
Music production is like finding a good hair dresser

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby den83 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:59 pm

awjoe wrote:Hey, SOS - how about you guys starting a Soundcloud clone? You could call it 'Save Our Sounds'. Couple of servers, a techie and a web wrangler. Lovely little earner. What do you say?

A most splendid idea!
den83
Regular
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:00 am

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Forum Admin » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:16 pm

den83 wrote:...as regards Soundcloud - am I right in thinking the ability to order one's tracks has been taken away unless you upgrade? I mean, this was doable until fairly recently wasn't it? Or was I imagining it?

No. I just signed up for a free account and uploaded 3 tracks into a new playlist. Clicking the 3 dots icon at the left of the playlist allows you to select EDIT option.

Screen Shot 2017-07-21 at 15.10.40.jpg


This opens a popup box on-screen, and clicking on TRACKS across the top opens the, ta da!, track list. Hover over any track and you can click and drag that track up or down to a different location in your track order. Click SAVE, job done.

It works very well, and bulk uploaded my 2 very large WAV tracks and 1 MP3 simultaneously. What more can you expect of a free account?
User avatar
Forum Admin
Moderator
Posts: 3347
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: A studio deep in the fenlands of Cambridgeshire, UK
SEARCH 11,382 SOS Reviews/Techniques articles: www.soundonsound.com/search

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Forum Admin » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:26 pm

awjoe wrote:...Couple of servers, a techie and a web wrangler. Lovely little earner...

That's probably what SC thought, but they've yet to turn a profit. :(
User avatar
Forum Admin
Moderator
Posts: 3347
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: A studio deep in the fenlands of Cambridgeshire, UK
SEARCH 11,382 SOS Reviews/Techniques articles: www.soundonsound.com/search

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby den83 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Forum Admin wrote:
den83 wrote:...as regards Soundcloud - am I right in thinking the ability to order one's tracks has been taken away unless you upgrade? I mean, this was doable until fairly recently wasn't it? Or was I imagining it?

No. I just signed up for a free account and uploaded 3 tracks into a new playlist. Clicking the 3 dots icon at the left of the playlist allows you to select EDIT option.

WOW! It works! Thanks very much!! Been trying to do that for ages. Easy when you know how.
den83
Regular
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:00 am

Re: Unhappy Soundcloud

Postby Forum Admin » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:02 pm

LdashD wrote:... da Beeb’s iPlayer is offering just a few Glasto acts (well-known ones) for re-viewing at the mo’, none of which I’m interested in and none of them smashed it like Cabbage did, so why aren’t Cabbage (not very well-known) available as well, who decided for me and wot was their criteria?

Think you answered your own question already. Cabbage are not included very possibly because they are "not very well-known". The BBC most likely chose which acts were put on iPlayer, though there might have been licensing restrictions for secondary viewing by Glasto's organisers, the bands and their management - just guessing.

LdashD wrote:A LPFC (level playing field chart) would comprise of all those tracks with the least plays, as they get plays they move down not up, it’s possible it could sort itself is it not and I believe the cream may eventually rise to the top too.

This is illogical, is it not? So you're saying you want a chart where anyone whose music gets 'plays' drops down that chart, right? On this basis, the bands/artists with zero plays on SoundCloud would be joint no.1 on this chart! :headbang: Bizarre...
User avatar
Forum Admin
Moderator
Posts: 3347
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: A studio deep in the fenlands of Cambridgeshire, UK
SEARCH 11,382 SOS Reviews/Techniques articles: www.soundonsound.com/search

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Scramble » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:16 pm

Forum Admin wrote:
den83 wrote:...as regards Soundcloud - am I right in thinking the ability to order one's tracks has been taken away unless you upgrade? I mean, this was doable until fairly recently wasn't it? Or was I imagining it?

No. I just signed up for a free account and uploaded 3 tracks into a new playlist. Clicking the 3 dots icon at the left of the playlist allows you to select EDIT option.

Screen Shot 2017-07-21 at 15.10.40.jpg


This opens a popup box on-screen, and clicking on TRACKS across the top opens the, ta da!, track list. Hover over any track and you can click and drag that track up or down to a different location in your track order. Click SAVE, job done.

It works very well, and bulk uploaded my 2 very large WAV tracks and 1 MP3 simultaneously. What more can you expect of a free account?

But this is a playlist, not your actual separate tracks. What I'd like is the ability to change the order of the tracks themselves, not just the order of the tracks within a playlist, because a lot of people focus on the separate tracks, rather than any playlist that's been created. (Youtube has a similar problem -- most people go to the Videos page, where everything is in chronological order).

But I agree that it's a great service for a free one. That was the point I was making earlier -- the free service is too good, but the £60 (or £96) a year service doesn't give you enough extra (being able to change the track order is one useful feature, but it's not enough). Soundcloud need a lot of money coming in to pay for all that staff and those offices. A lot. They're clearly burning through all the money they've been getting from debt financing, and little else appears to be coming in. Plus they now have to pay royalties. Unless they can turn things around fast, this is not a long-term business. They either need to try lowering their prices, or adding some more features.

Edit: It looks like you can't even change your track order even with the paid options. All you can do is pin a track and playlist to the top. Just don't see the atrraction of the paid options. If you pay yearly you get a discount, but still, imagine paying for a specialized music website that doesn't even allow you to move your tracks around. Even MySpace could do that. Rubbish. What do all those 400 staff do?
Scramble
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 12:00 am

 


Re: Unhappy Soundcloud

Postby Guest » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:36 pm

Forum Admin wrote:
LdashD wrote:... da Beeb’s iPlayer is offering just a few Glasto acts (well-known ones) for re-viewing at the mo’, none of which I’m interested in and none of them smashed it like Cabbage did, so why aren’t Cabbage (not very well-known) available as well, who decided for me and wot was their criteria?

Think you answered your own question already. Cabbage are not included very possibly because they are "not very well-known". The BBC most likely chose which acts were put on iPlayer, though there might have been licensing restrictions for secondary viewing by Glasto's organisers, the bands and their management - just guessing.

LdashD wrote:A LPFC (level playing field chart) would comprise of all those tracks with the least plays, as they get plays they move down not up, it’s possible it could sort itself is it not and I believe the cream may eventually rise to the top too.

This is illogical, is it not? So you're saying you want a chart where anyone whose music gets 'plays' drops down that chart, right? On this basis, the bands/artists with zero plays on SoundCloud would be joint no.1 on this chart! :headbang: Bizarre...

Hmm, my point is, very well-known bands don’t need promoting, I was speaking generally about wot kind of art/music gets foisted upon us, by so-called experts, or folks in power with possible ulterior motives etc… Cabbage et al need a push not Sheeran etc…

Erm??? get a play and you move down (or level), another punter gets one more play than you and you move up above them again.

Those with the least plays start at the top and work their way down by being popular, that then gives others the opportunity to become popular?

This would create an exceptionally dynamic chart I believe. Fun, entertaining, rewarding even for all concerned I reckon.

Thought it was obvious, must be me eh.

Not to mention it would also eliminate the need for promoting with false accounts etc, cheating/duping in fact…

Obviously, the icing on the cake would be that Ed bleedin’ Sheeran’s middling, middle of the road tat, would be firmly rooted for all eternity where it truly belongs, at the bottom of the pile.

It could even be taken a stage further by imploring punters to raise young Edwardo to the top. *


*For those others that can’t quite fathom me philosophy, for this to happen, this would mean we’d all get 3 zillion plays as well as that ginger singer.
Guest

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Dave B » Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:04 pm

I kind of like the idea, but it has the same failing as just showing the order by number of plays : it only gives a single view and it may not be what people want. What would be better would be to have a variety of options (By plays most to least, by plays least to most, trending, newest first, top x per genre, etc) with the selected view initially being random / as saved in preferences. Single ways of viewing information like this never satisfy people - the best option is to give people differing views and let them try other ways of going through what's happening..
User avatar
Dave B
Jedi Poster
Posts: 5533
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Maidenhead
Veni, Vidi, Aesculi (I came, I saw, I conkered)

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Forum Admin » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:15 am

Scramble wrote:But this is a playlist, not your actual separate tracks. What I'd like is the ability to change the order of the tracks themselves, not just the order of the tracks within a playlist, because a lot of people focus on the separate tracks, rather than any playlist that's been created.

Ah, OK. I tend to look at playlists (same on YouTube).

Yes, you are right, there is seemingly no obvious way for the account holder to re-order single tracks in SC's Tracks view. They show in date created order. Perhaps this feature is one SC could add to paid-for accounts?
User avatar
Forum Admin
Moderator
Posts: 3347
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: A studio deep in the fenlands of Cambridgeshire, UK
SEARCH 11,382 SOS Reviews/Techniques articles: www.soundonsound.com/search

Re: Unhappy Soundcloud

Postby Forum Admin » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:28 am

LdashD wrote:Hmm, my point is, very well-known bands don’t need promoting

History is littered with bands who were 'popular' and were being promoted and soon after the record company stopped promoting them and moved to a different artist, they fell out of the spotlight, and consequently had fewer and fewer chart hits. So I disagree with your statement.

LdashD wrote:Those with the least plays start at the top and work their way down by being popular, that then gives others the opportunity to become popular?

This would create an exceptionally dynamic chart I believe. Fun, entertaining, rewarding even for all concerned I reckon.

Hmmm. So, essentially, give the user the ability in SoundCloud to sort on 'total plays' in ascending/descending order would mean your concept of a worthwhile level-playing field 'fun' chart would be achieved.
User avatar
Forum Admin
Moderator
Posts: 3347
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: A studio deep in the fenlands of Cambridgeshire, UK
SEARCH 11,382 SOS Reviews/Techniques articles: www.soundonsound.com/search

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby jamedia.uk » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:26 am

Forum Admin wrote:
awjoe wrote:...Couple of servers, a techie and a web wrangler. Lovely little earner...

That's probably what SC thought, but they've yet to turn a profit. :(

However looking at what SC did right and what they did wrong adding it to SOS which is, I assume, profitable and already have much of the infrastructure in place I think SOS could run it, if not with a profit at least break even.

Noted SC seems to have expensive offices and a very large work force. SOS already has the admin and other things in place. Also much of the technical side so the costs for adding some servers to an existing system will be loess than starting from scratch. IE adding additional servers 4 and 5 cost less than 1 and 2. Economies of scale etc.

Why run it at break even? because it strengthens their market position and will increase their exposure. I doubt all SC users know of SOS (yet) . This would actually generate additional magazine sales .

How many other Audio magazines have anything like SC? It would strengthen the profile of SOS globally etc (leading to more magazine sales)

In any case a (small) proportion of the SC users do pay. I am sure that an income could be generated to at least cover costs. In any case for a print magazine: Diversification is good.

It might be that SC is rationalising the resources (and staff) and there is nothing wrong with it as a business. The rumour, of with this thread is part, could actually be the problem and everyone will run for cover (as indicated further up the thread) meaning that SOS could "pic up" the SC technology for a song.

Just a thought.
User avatar
jamedia.uk
Regular
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:31 pm
Location: Birmingham UK

PreviousNext