Allowing downloads on Soundcloud

VinylJunkie

I see some people on here allow downloads and some don't, I'm just wondering what are peoples thoughts are on this?

krd

It's not like anyone is going to pay you for music these days, so you might as well allow downloads.

And there are tools that allow you to grab off soundcloud regardless of whether the download function is enable/disabled.

It's not stealing.....It's sharing

Neurojazz

From a labels view:-

Don't allow downloads, only upload snippets or add annoying 'demo' announcement over the top.

That's only applicable if you're looking for a release on a track.

People still do make cash from mp3 sales - a figure that is now finally increasing.

WasterEx

Offering people a free download sounds personal and it's a good way to build a 'fan base' imo.

mordeith

WasterEx wrote: »

Offering people a free download sounds personal and it's a good way to build a 'fan base' imo.

I agree with the above. It's a good way to get your tracks 'out there' without a label. Plus it's a nice ego boost to see someone has downloaded your creation

peter05

I think people should ask for a donation for the download for a period of time for promotion. I don't think people should give away their hard work for free, but that's just me. I can see the benefits of free music but I think it should have a value. If it's good music and production, people won't mind paying for it. Sticking something on soundcloud or bandcamp and waiting for folks to discover it and just leaving it there is not promoting your music.

Thecon21

If your serious about the track or are hoping for it to be signed, do not allow it to be downloaded as most labels would like to be able to release the track exclusively for download and of course at a price too.


If it's just a quick, fun production that you reckon some people will like, then you could set it to available. As some of the guys mentioned, it might gain some fan base too!

krd

peter05 wrote: »

I think people should ask for a donation for the download for a period of time for promotion.

In the old days, when music came only on physical media, promotional copies were distributed to people like radio stations and journalists. Pluggers would target people who would promote the music. The person you gave a copy to wasn't the end in itself - they would or could, somehow promote.

Giving stuff away for free, willy nilly, is not really promoting - it's giving stuff away for free.

I don't think people should give away their hard work for free, but that's just me.

Well, the main proponents of artists and media companies giving away their work for free, was scumbags who were making a fortune on piracy websites. As cases come to court, it's seen that if they little guys - the equivalent of yer man at the car boot sale - were coining hundreds of thousands. Google are literally making billions - and they are really not paying the artists at all.

But I doubt a huge clamp down will make much of a difference as regards music.

I can see the benefits of free music but I think it should have a value. If it's good music and production, people won't mind paying for it.

They'll pay for live shows. Less and less people will pay for recorded music. Kids have just grown up believing music is free. Music is free on the radio, music is free on Youtube, and even if piracy on the internet was shut down, kids will only have their own USB stick piracy network. It's a crisis for all the arts - books, film - not just music. There may be a market for the solid product - but that too is shrinking.

The only solid product for musicians, that is nailed firmly down, is public appearances.

Sticking something on soundcloud or bandcamp and waiting for folks to discover it and just leaving it there is not promoting your music.

Yes, well people have their dreams, don't they.

Most promotion does not work. I have never promoted any of my tracks (I don't consider them of commercial quality - if I was going to prepare them for sale or serious promotion, I would have a lot more work to do). I've had over two thousand plays and a couple of hundred downloads. I've seen other people really put the spamming and promotion in. And they have got squat.

I was even looking at an identikit indie band video last night - randomly stumbled on, on Youtube. Young guys, "fashionable" haircuts (that is the same regulation indie haircuts as every other wannabe indie band), good quality sound, so they probably paid thousands for their instruments and recordings. Broadcast quality video - well edited - boring as arse. Singer can sing, but no lyrics or any charisma. But the overall production standard was up there with anything you'd have released by the major indies. (Of course a major indie wouldn't bother releasing anything that was boring as arse when it boils down to it)

The video had a few hundred plays in the low hundreds. If I can get, the same or more plays, from productions that literally cost me f'all. Done on a laptop, in my squalor. These kids for all their cuteness and sexiness, for all the work they put in ripping off the riffs of the current most fashionable, for all the money they've spent. Then, they must be doing something wrong, because I'm not doing anything.

And it's funny seeing people who've really gone to town on it. And got zip.

Before you promote something - before you make the effort and spend the money - you have to ask yourself a very hard question.

Is this really good enough, or would I have to pay people to listen to it?

If it isn't good enough, then you will be paying people to listen to it.

And there's more to it than that. I saw an interview with Mick Jagger in the 60s. He said "We're in the business of selling dreams" - it's not the music that sells in itself - it's the dream and whatever that dream is.

A link on Soundcloud is not a dream - dreams as jewels - putting a turd in a jewel case will not turn it into a diamond.

When I see these little identikit indie bands, they turn my stomach. Maybe it's because they were bullied so much at school, or they bullied so much, they believe standing out is a bad thing. "Fitting in" and keeping your head down, is no dream.

You can dress a bunch of kids up like Oasis. Rip off the style completely, rip off the lyrics even (like most of these kids do - cut up and then tossing the salad), it will have nowhere near the same impact as Oasis, for the simple reason the dream the dream is not there. The dream of dreaming you're Liam Gallagher is not a dream anyone wants to buy. You couldn't give it away for free.

Neither the Rolling Stones nor Oasis have sold many records in years. But people still come for the dream.

VinylJunkie

Still unsure on this to be honest, I guess it's a personal preference. I've just posted another track but decided not to allow downloads.

WasterEx

I don't look for money from my music just because I don't feel that it's up to that standard yet.
Isn't the label essentially the one that gets you the fans and does all the promotional side of things? Or at least a good label... As for marketing, I've heard that "word of mouth" is the best kind of marketing, I'd agree with that though.

krd wrote: »

When I see these little identikit indie bands, they turn my stomach. Maybe it's because they were bullied so much at school, or they bullied so much, they believe standing out is a bad thing. "Fitting in" and keeping your head down, is no dream.

100% agree, I've always thought the same thing! Haha

krd

VinylJunkie wrote: »

Still unsure on this to be honest, I guess it's a personal preference. I've just posted another track but decided not to allow downloads.

If someone wants to listen to it, they'll just go on line and listen to it.

If it's worth stealing, someone will steal it. (And you won't know).

If you have downloading turned on, if someone goes to the bother of downloading it - collecting it - then it might be an indication that you're doing something right.

The way dance tracks are used these days - they end up in mixes on line, where neither the DJ nor the producer gets a royalty. It's nearly considered fair free use.

If you want to be "commercial" (get paid) make commercial product - not just something that sells or is good - but something were there is an avenue for making money. Otherwise give it away, and see if something comes back to you.



The only reason, I don't allow downloads on some of my tracks, is I think they're so shi, that I'm embarrassed that anyone would down load them. I'm a terrible producer.

krd

WasterEx wrote: »

I don't look for money from my music just because I don't feel that it's up to that standard yet.

Keep going until you think you've got the money shot.

Isn't the label essentially the one that gets you the fans and does all the promotional side of things?

No. They can only take something with its' own momentum, and then give it a bigger push.

They also have money. If you can do something really good in your bedroom for nothing, if you had an extra ten grand (and I don't mean to splurge on a vintage keyboard). But an extra ten grand spent wisely, you could probably get the track sounding great.

Or at least a good label... As for marketing, I've heard that "word of mouth" is the best kind of marketing, I'd agree with that though.

Really, at this minute in time, the major benefit of being on a label, is being associated with the label. It makes all the other people involved in the bizness take you seriously - most people in the bidness will completely ignore music that has no association with a label.

BUT.

Once you're established, you don't need the label anymore. This is why Death Grips recently went to extreme and hilarious lengths to get dropped from their record company(Epic) - one thing Death Grips did was release the album for free on the internet (the weren't going to make a penny from it anyhow) -another thing was putting a penis on the cover (WalMart will not touch penises). The real reason behind all of this is Epic were going to screw Death Grips up the arse. All the money from Death Grips record sales, and live shows would have gone to Epic, until their "debt" was paid off. If the record company "claims" to have spent a million promoting you and your album - then you must make 10 million is sales and shows, before you see a penny. If they "claim" to have spent 2 million, you have to earn 20 million.

Epic and Death Grips have now parted company - usually record companies can terrify musicians into silence - but it won't work with Death Grips, who've been posting the threatening letters from Epic on line - a court order won't shut them up, and will only make Epic look worse. So they have parted company. Death Grips still have a world tour booked up - and they won't have to share any of the money with Epic.

Popmart97

krd wrote: »

Epic and Death Grips have now parted company - usually record companies can terrify musicians into silence - but it won't work with Death Grips, who've been posting the threatening letters from Epic on line - a court order won't shut them up, and will only make Epic look worse. So they have parted company. Death Grips still have a world tour booked up - and they won't have to share any of the money with Epic.

Brilliant!

I see Trent Reznor has re-signed to a major label after years of releasing material online himself. Safe to say he was a pioneer in this regard and had received a lot plaudits for his stance. However, he mentioned he was sick of putting all of this effort into his work yet he felt that he had no real presence in today's industry as a result of having to promote and market himself. He felt a deal somewhere along the lines of Radiohead's with XL, would help push his material into the mainstream again, costing a portion of the sales but no claim over the rights - seems reasonable enough.

I accept Death Grips are at the other end of the career spectrum and had (or have) less to bargain with but fair play to them anyway!!

WasterEx

Had no idea it was that screwed up. I find it hard to believe any label could spend over 1 million on promotion for a single artist or group but they can 'claim' they have like you said.
Smart move what Death Grips did, I like it. Funny how the label just dropped them after that, kind of proves they were bs'ing about the debth Death Grips was in.

krd

WasterEx wrote: »

Had no idea it was that screwed up. I find it hard to believe any label could spend over 1 million on promotion for a single artist or group but they can 'claim' they have like you said.

It's easier than it sounds to spend 1 million on production and promotion. Record companies used to spend that all the time - even on records that were never released. The record company can bill you for man hours - or whatever they like. But for big artists they can make that money back - it might be a combination of record sales, publishing and live shows. But someone like Lady Gaga, makes as much as a few million a show - she took several million from Miracle Whip to sponor one of her music videos (the one with beyonce). Gaga isn't someone making music in her bedroom - if she was she'd never make more than a few hundred quid - they need to spend millions, probably tens of millions to make her into a superstar.

But everything is really f'cked up at the minute and getting worse. Record sales are collapsing. Apple i-tunes pockets a ridiculous 60% of the gross, just for running a glorified file server. The streaming services, Google and Spotify pay absolutely sweet f'ing nothing.

I've heard it's really bad at the minute - big labels consider spending 150 grand to be a big deal at the minute.

Now everything has really changed - but record companies were always full of s*** about how much money they made from smaller groups. In many cases the smaller groups would never get paid - and sometimes they believe the bull, but small albums could profit. Why else would EMI ever bother to re-issue albums that never sold millions in the first place. Before piracy got out of hand - unless a CD was a really bad flop, they always made money on them.

EMI, would typically spend 100 grand on a small album - that's production, promotion, artwork. The break even for EMI was sales of 10,000. (though the band would need to sell 1,000,000 before they'd paid off their "advance" of 100 grand). The record company profit on 10,000 CDs sales would be 50,000 - I think other revenue brought in the other 50 grand to break even. But they were in profit. Record companies claiming they only made money on big stars was always balls. But now it may be true.

Smart move what Death Grips did, I like it. Funny how the label just dropped them after that, kind of proves they were bs'ing about the debth Death Grips was in.

Labels do and have come after bands. The label is often paying for the bands rehearsal space - so the first things labels do as a shot over the bow, is to lock them out and confiscate their instruments. They did this to the Irish band Whipping Boy, after the band criticised the label in an interview. But they have done this kind of thing to lots of bands.

The other thing about Death Grips is they're light on their feet. It's just a guy with a mic, and another with a laptop. The record company can't even take the shirt from Stefan Burnett's back, because most of the time he doesn't even wear a shirt.

But this isn't really great news for culture - would NIN have been that exciting had it just been Trent Reznor and a laptop on stage?

krd

Popmart97 wrote: »

I see Trent Reznor has re-signed to a major label after years of releasing material online himself. Safe to say he was a pioneer in this regard and had received a lot plaudits for his stance.

However, he mentioned he was sick of putting all of this effort into his work yet he felt that he had no real presence in today's industry as a result of having to promote and market himself.

This is where Reznor is being a prick. Big record companies work very well for people like him. He probably assumed that all the heavy promotion happened because of him. And then found out that it involved lots of drudgery.

For small artists, the record company may do sweet FA. For someone like Reznor, they do loads. Setting up radio interviews, per-publicity with the press, literally making thousands of phone calls, BJs, Coke, whatever it takes. They create an "event album".....The record company literally creates the "event". Without the "event", even if the album is really great, no one is going to notice outside hardcore fans - and even for them it won't be such of an event.

If the record company can create an "event", then Reznor gets to tour bigger higher fee shows.

Dramatik

Personally, I don't allow downloads on soundcloud but I have a link to my Vibedeck page where you can download the track for free if you like it on facebook. So even though the track is free, the track will be seen by some of the users friends and there's a chance that some of them will download it or listen to it as well. I think this's fair enough as I'm not some superstar, at this stage I'm just trying to get my music out there, so a least I'm still getting something back even though the track itself is free to download.