You are here

Unhappy SoundCloud

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

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: 4688
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: 2955
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: A studio deep in the fenlands of Cambridgeshire, UK
SEARCH 10,267 quality articles: www.soundonsound.com/search
*NEW* SOS Tutorials: www.soundonsound.com/tutorials

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: 2955
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: A studio deep in the fenlands of Cambridgeshire, UK
SEARCH 10,267 quality articles: www.soundonsound.com/search
*NEW* SOS Tutorials: www.soundonsound.com/tutorials

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby jagraphics » 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
jagraphics
Regular
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:31 pm
Location: Birmingham UK

Re: Unhappy Soundcloud

Postby jagraphics » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:42 am

Forum Admin wrote:
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..

I agree with Forum Admin. There have been a lot of one-hit--wonders who were #1 in the charts globally for 6 months and then disappeared (except for the one hit wonder shows).

Being "popular" means nothing. The public is fickle and most of these popular bands have very canny marketing that works hard for them: continuously. Not just when they release a record.

As noted this often happens when bands change labels. The old team stop promoting them and it takes a while for the new one to come up to speed, if at all. Especially as a lot of it is not obvious. The public only see the results of the PR and marketing.

A lot of viral marketing and lucky breaks are nothing of the sort. See Louis Theroux trying to do a program on Max Clifford https://youtu.be/85o8emkQios and it shows that it is as much stopping things as promoting them. It also shows that none of it is what it seems.
User avatar
jagraphics
Regular
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:31 pm
Location: Birmingham UK

Re: SoundCloud

Postby Forum Admin » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:58 am

jagraphics wrote:In any case for a print magazine: Diversification is good.

We've been diversifying for years now. From print magazines, to website articles, to tablet editions, YouTube channel, seminars, book publishing, and most recently to the SynthFest UK exhibition...

We're a very small, professional team who punch well above our weight, globally, and I'm truly flattered you think of SOS to be in the same league.
User avatar
Forum Admin
Moderator
Posts: 2955
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: A studio deep in the fenlands of Cambridgeshire, UK
SEARCH 10,267 quality articles: www.soundonsound.com/search
*NEW* SOS Tutorials: www.soundonsound.com/tutorials

Re: Unhappy Soundcloud

Postby Guest » Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:43 pm

jagraphics wrote:
Forum Admin wrote:
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..

I agree with Forum Admin. There have been a lot of one-hit--wonders who were #1 in the charts globally for 6 months and then disappeared (except for the one hit wonder shows).

Being "popular" means nothing. The public is fickle and most of these popular bands have very canny marketing that works hard for them: continuously. Not just when they release a record.

As noted this often happens when bands change labels. The old team stop promoting them and it takes a while for the new one to come up to speed, if at all. Especially as a lot of it is not obvious. The public only see the results of the PR and marketing.

A lot of viral marketing and lucky breaks are nothing of the sort. See Louis Theroux trying to do a program on Max Clifford https://youtu.be/85o8emkQios and it shows that it is as much stopping things as promoting them. It also shows that none of it is what it seems.

People get dropped initially cos the A+R department can’t tell the difference between those who can cut-it, from those that can’t, only when it’s been press released and promoted (container loads of stuff used to get pressed-up and never saw the light of day precisely cos of this ignorant attitude) and Joe Public don’t buy it does it then dawn on them…

All Rec Co’s cast their nets wide, they aren’t the experts they think they are, hence by trawling deep and releasing all manner of stuff of varying degrees aesthetic quality in the hope that one or two might develop into a nice little earner etc, they invariably make many mistakes. Too many wrong people in the right job I’d say.

People get dropped cos they, didn’t, or no longer can produce the necessary product.
Examples of those who no longer ‘can’ (not dropped though) would be say, McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Townshend etc, you name it, as all are not writing songs as good as they used to, otherwise they would still be topping the charts week in week out would they not?

A one hit wonder is just that, a person who can only write or perhaps cover (Dr & the Medics) a great song, no record company would drop the goose that could lay a golden chart hit, labels like Stiff used to know their stiff, er stuff and not only find and recognise the cream, Madness, Ian Dury etc but also nurture it.


Here’s a fine example F-Admin of the ‘fun’ to be found on SoundCloud,

https://soundcloud.com/david-minnick

I’d add that this guy’s stuff is also impressive and is deserving of a wider audience and whilst donning me A+R cap, I’d reckon you’d be in agreement, as would many others here…
Guest

Re: SoundCloud

Postby Guest » Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:55 pm

Forum Admin wrote:We're a very small, professional team who punch well above our weight, globally, and I'm truly flattered you think of SOS to be in the same league.

Indeed, a while after crash-landing 'ere I felt, 'ang on, this gaff is a cottage-industry innit, my initial thinking was all this worldwide high falutin tech shit means you're a largish corporation, but then I realised maybe sales can't be that massive, even so... where there's a will...

So join da club, I too can punch well above me weight.
Guest

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Scramble » Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:42 pm

LDash, if Cabbage are well-known enough to be on at Glastonbury then they won't appear on most of your 'reverse-charts'. What will appear will be some bedroom artist so bad that even his own mother has never bothered streaming him. He will then instantly disappear the moment he gets a few plays, to be replaced by someone equally as bad.

You can try out the quality you'll get for yourself -- go to ReverbNation, click on one of their local charts, click repeatedly to get a few hundred places down the list, and then have a listen. No-one there will be 'smashing it'.

(But I know you were being partly tongue-in-cheek, and I get what you're driving at.)
Scramble
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2464
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 12:00 am
 

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Dave B » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:21 pm

jagraphics wrote: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.

With the greatest respect to everyone, I do think that this is a little naive. It would be wonderful if it were true, but :

1. SOS is profitable. Yes. But it's a small, privately owned company and profitable means that it makes more than it spends. It doesn't have to be much more... you're assuming that profitable means "has money around to invest" or, worse still, "has the resources to borrow money to invest". Many small companies have been destroyed by over-ambition and any big change needs to be something that a company could effectively write off if it all goes wahooni shaped.

2. Infrastructure in place. There is some in place - enough to provide online access to the mag and the forums. What you are suggesting needs a significant investment in storage, servers, CDN / worldwide points of presence, bandwidth increases (ouch!! that's where the real killer blows often lie), development, administration ... it's not a case of 'bung another couple of servers somewhere'. Even if you take away SC's fancy offices, you'll see many millions in investment in all this. And they can't even monetise a great service.

Hey - if SOS want to do this, they have my full support and I'd be as happy as the proverbial. But I'd rather they let someone else take the risk and continue to provide what they already do (so well), rather than embark on a massively risky project.
User avatar
Dave B
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4688
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Maidenhead
Veni, Vidi, Aesculi (I came, I saw, I conkered)

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby desmond » Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:03 pm

Adding a website facility for forum members or perhaps subscribers to host and stream a limited amount of their own audio files would be practical and realistic for SOS to do, should it make some kind of sense for them to do so (which it doesn't, really.)

Trying to take over the level of service that SoundCloud offered is way way way out of SOS's wheelhouse. You probably underestimate how much effort building, marketing and running a service like this takes - SC had a lot of employees for a reason - presumably they were all doing something that at least helped SC to become what it is/was. Not to mention money...
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 8184
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:00 am

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby blinddrew » Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:24 pm

I forget where the management consultants have got to this time round, are we supposed to be diversifying or focusing on niche markets this year?

;)
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby desmond » Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:47 pm

blinddrew wrote:I forget where the management consultants have got to this time round, are we supposed to be diversifying or focusing on niche markets this year?

Yes.
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 8184
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:00 am

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Guest » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:43 pm

Scramble wrote:LDash, if Cabbage are well-known enough to be on at Glastonbury then they won't appear on most of your 'reverse-charts'. What will appear will be some bedroom artist so bad that even his own mother has never bothered streaming him. He will then instantly disappear the moment he gets a few plays, to be replaced by someone equally as bad.

You can try out the quality you'll get for yourself -- go to ReverbNation, click on one of their local charts, click repeatedly to get a few hundred places down the list, and then have a listen. No-one there will be 'smashing it'.

(But I know you were being partly tongue-in-cheek, and I get what you're driving at.)

Exactly, I’m in front of Cabbage, way in front actually, and we’re both way, way, way in front of Ed, Stormzy too, good innit, I’m in wiv a fighting chance eh.

Cabbage literally but also a metaphor, they're working their way up the hard way that's all, a bit of help along the way wouldn't go amiss was my point, others aren't in need... others more so...

Screw Rev-N man, there’s other audio-tech mags too ain’t there? I share your cynicism, even so, I know for a fact I’m not the only ‘alf-decent artist on S0undcloud…

Art & commerce don’t mix too well, musicians provide a great FREE service to all and sundry, an important/integral part to billions of lifes….

S0undcloud is an archive/library that needs to be preserved and added to, if not then something else please… & for nowt.

The industry could cough-up…

S0S
Guest

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby den83 » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:28 pm

I must admit I do get a bit fed up of the fakery on SC. Fake likes and spam messages. I just got this one:

Hi, I checked out --------- and think it is pretty awes0me! I theref0 want t0 invite y0 y0 t0 enter this music contest h0sted by us t0 help fell0w musicians to get feedback for their work, please go to the page if you want to learn m0re or enter at 'w ww . s co fen . c om / c ontest' ----g-e-t---r-i-d---o-f---s-p-a-c-e-s-----

Hurrahh a fan at last.
den83
Regular
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:00 am

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Folderol » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:30 pm

Yes, I get get quite few of these, and also offers to get me hundreds of fans. Well you know what, I'd rather have no fans that hundreds of fake ones.
User avatar
Folderol
Jedi Poster
Posts: 7086
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:00 am
Location: Rochester, UK
Yes. I am that Linux nut.

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby den83 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 6:50 am

Folderol wrote:Yes, I get get quite few of these, and also offers to get me hundreds of fans. Well you know what, I'd rather have no fans that hundreds of fake ones.


Indeed.

Have you noticed how they usually have lots of numbers in their name too? I'm not sure how it works but it seems like when you upload a track, soundcloud automatically generates a few fake likes. I guess this is done to keep people interested. Seems a bit unnecessary really.

Wonder if you get this with the premium service?
den83
Regular
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:00 am

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby Guest » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:22 pm

I don’t use S0undcloud that much, apart from being a library/archive, I just like /appreciate that it’s there if’n when I need it, and I like that it’s just about the music, nowt else.

I really dig the ability to make files Public or Private, I’ve used this function a few times here, very ’andy, when Private you can also change the original link provided.

Wot SOS might find useful is the ability to ‘host?’ other’s files, not sure how it works but, if one was to upload a Spinnin’ competition remix to Spinnin’s site/S0undcloud profile, it will appear there, or on both? wiv thousands of others, in a chart voted for by punters/saddo’s/whatever, just cos it’s been uploaded to an individual’s S0undcloud profile and permission/access was given to Spinnin’ (seems I’m not the only chap ‘oo drops the odd letter or three eh) clever stuff…

There’s seems to be a creative underbelly that most aren’t aware of, as I’m assuming it’s not just the dance bod’s that…

Now, you wouldn’t want me to spell it out wot sorta fun SOS could ‘ave wiv punters files etc now would you?
Guest

Re: Unhappy SoundCloud

Postby desmond » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:31 pm

LdashD wrote:(seems I’m not the only chap ‘oo drops the odd letter or three eh) clever stuff…

As an aside, I always read your posts in my head voice of Monty Python...
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 8184
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:00 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users