[MEDIA=soundcloud]kogwonton/pigs-three-different-ones-pink-floyd-cover[/MEDIA]
Tags
Comments
I think you'll probably be hard-pressed to get people to listen
I think you'll probably be hard-pressed to get people to listen all the way through a 12 minute song... but you're welcome to leave it up and try.
You should know though, Soundcloud has been known for adding lossy artifacts in their conversion, so the original integrity of your audio as it originally sounded could be skewed.
I'm not saying that it will be.. I'm saying that it could be. SC has actually come out and admitted that various artifacts are possible when using their service.
From what I've been hearing on the audio grapevine lately, I'm not sure how much longer SC will be around; and the reason for this isn't quality based issues... it's copyright infringement. There are lawsuits that are about to start flying.
https://www.auddly.com/why-prs-is-right-to-sue-soundcloud/
Those who have songs uploaded to an SC account might want to keep that in mind...
FWIW
Yes, I know their player often crushes music. RO's upload limit
Yes, I know their player often crushes music. RO's upload limit is 19.5 mb, which is why I pointed out the little download button on the SC player. It will deliver the 320 kbps version of the song for whoever is interested. Whatever legal troubles SC may have, if amateurs sharing cover songs is a crime then call me a criminal. I make no money from this.
Kogwonton, post: 432415, member: 49434 wrote: Whatever legal tro
Kogwonton, post: 432415, member: 49434 wrote: Whatever legal troubles SC may have, if amateurs sharing cover songs is a crime then call me a criminal. I make no money from this.
The litigation isn't directed at or caused by people like yourself who are sharing music in an effort to compare and improve upon what they do. It's aimed at those who are circumventing the original intent, and using it as a way to share and distribute commercial releases, ad Soundcloud is allowing it to happen without paying PRS's that which they should be. In short, they're ignoring the complaints of PRS's, Artists, Publishers and Labels, who look upon this file sharing as piracy - and rightfully so.
Kogwonton, post: 432415, member: 49434 wrote: I know their player often crushes music.
It's not always about "crushing" the music, either, as that term is often used to describe heavy amounts of limiting... I'm not hearing that - it's more of an "artifact" thing; it often presents itself in audible issues with instruments like cymbals, acoustic guitars, and even vocals - where you'll hear the results of dicey conversion. I often hear those things as being "phasey" - things like "swirling" cymbals, or varying tonality on acoustic guitars and vocals; it's almost as if someone is sweeping through a frequency bandwidth on them and randomly boosting or cutting intermittently.
Although your average everyday listener probably doesn't hear those things; as opposed to people like yourself, or myself, who have ears that are trained to hear those things.
d.
Soundcloud's compression has wrecked more than one song of mine,
Soundcloud's compression has wrecked more than one song of mine, for sure. As for SC's copyright infringement.. they should police their system a bit better, but it is simply a fact that the times they are a'changin... and in a digital world anything that can be digitized can and will be borrowed, stolen, and used without permission. You may as well try to pass a law against dogs licking themselves, or against fish escaping dragnets. If you want to turn your customers and patrons into criminals, that's your business. I don't think it is all that good a business model. While the digital revolution has hurt commercial sales of cds, tapes, and records, it has also enabled upstarts and unknown artists to self-publish. It is just a new climate. Record labels have been robbing artists blind for many decades. And now the playing field is more level. While it may be much more difficult to become another Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin (plagiarists from hell, i might add), it is also a lot easier for someone like myself to publish and find exposure. I like the model that has been tossed around lately, where sites like youtube are sharing advertising revenues with artists and copyright holders for derivative works, etc.. while allowing fair use to people like me. I do think Youtube and Soundcloud make money from that kind of content, and so they do have a responsibility to compensate the authors through some kind of arrangement - hopefully one that doesn't criminalize people unnecessarily.
DonnyThompson, post: 432417, member: 46114 wrote: The litigation
DonnyThompson, post: 432417, member: 46114 wrote: The litigation isn't directed at or caused by people like yourself who are sharing music in an effort to compare and improve upon what they do. It's aimed at those who are circumventing the original intent, and using it as a way to share and distribute commercial releases, ad Soundcloud is allowing it to happen without paying PRS's that which they should be. In short, they're ignoring the complaints of PRS's, Artists, Publishers and Labels, who look upon this file sharing as piracy - and rightfully so.
SC does have a system in place where you cannot upload copyright material, but it is my belief that users simply get around this by loading the track into something like Audacity and changing the tempo rate ever so slightly, or even the pitch very marginally. When SC processes the uploaded audio and it does not exactly match the copyrighted material it therefore bypasses the red-flagging to prevent it being uploaded.
There are even videos on Youtube that give instructions to do this believe it or not.
While I agree in the platforms original design concept of allowing artists to freely share and promote their work in the digital medium (this includes artists signed with labels who do use the platform for promotional purposes), IMHO it has slowly evolved into the next Napster as users circumvent the copyright red-flagging put in place for the very purpose of using it as a free file sharing service for copyrighted material.
It was interesting reading the articles you posted in the other thread Donny.
Kogwonton, post: 432427, member: 49434 wrote: You may as well try to pass a law against dogs licking themselves, or against fish escaping dragnets.
That comparison made me chuckle, Dan:ROFLMAO:
It will be interesting watching how this litigation evolves and what judgements come out of it, as it appears SC will have to pay for licensing, or all copyright material will have to be removed therefore bringing the platform back into line with its originally designed purpose.
The latter I believe highly unlikely.
Just my two cents....
I've deleted this post and moved it to here: http://recording.or
I've deleted this post and moved it to here:
http://recording.org/threads/soundcloud-being-sued-by-prss.58945/
With apologies to the OP for going off topic. ;)
DonnyThompson, post: 432444, member: 46114 wrote: Truthfully, I
DonnyThompson, post: 432444, member: 46114 wrote: Truthfully, I wasn't aware that SC even had any sort of copyright filtering/recognition software in place.
If this is in fact true, it's not working, or at least it's not working the way it should be. It's not at all difficult to circumvent the current filtering by changing a commercial recording just enough in order to get it to pass and be accepted as a "legal" upload.
Here you go Donny...
It makes a mockery of their copyright restrictions
I do not condone this in any way BTW
I've deleted my original post and moved it to here: [[url=http:
I've deleted my original post and moved it to here:
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]http://recording.or…[/]="http://recording.or…"]http://recording.or…[/]
With apologies to the OP for going off topic. ;)
Hey Dan, you can upload to the player here, just use Mp3 / 320bi
Hey Dan,
you can upload to the player here, just use Mp3 / 320bit rate and upload it using the upload a file button on the bottom right - it will sound even better (y)