Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What a load of self-important crap.
is this your new band?
Gosh! I really havent jagged this one enough, have I!?
I'm too polite to do it these days!
Why should they? Buy the CD-r, cheapskate. Just because it's not on EMI doesn't mean it's worthless.
but it's not as if they're planning on making music off their 3 track demo is it?
Also, it's not as if people aren't going to go to their gigs if they've alread heard it before on a free download.
If anything sharing their music encourages people to see them and like them.
I just think it's a weird tactic.
we spent ages working on those tunes and we are intending to release them at some point. Why on earth should we make them downloadable!?
music is for sharing. Or something. Wouldn't you prefer it if people downloaded them and had them on their ipods? A Conversation Piece is on mine (fact) and I've got other people to listen to it because it's on hand.
Sharing music gets it to a broader audience.
if you've any intention of garnering fans amongst those who invest time in finding new bands, downloadable tracks are essential. i don't like looking at myspace pages, so sticking it in itunes and listening to it in my own time is perfect.
is unsigned bands with 8 friends putting SAMPLES of their demo tracks. really, what's the point?
they only time i would have a problem
with people having my songs would be if they where used to promote somthing i didn`t agrhee with (poltical party`s etc) or released my songs for proffit without my consent(i worked hard on them why should some one be making money off my hard work)
which is just basic things that every band should think about
but i am happy to let people down them i found out broomhead jacket have a few of my songs on there i pod
Albeit, my band have two for download one for listen only. I did that simply becuase you get the best of both worlds for both us as the band and for any potential fans/scouts.
Look at it this way - if you're an unsigned band trying to just get the buzz out, you should make your songs as easy to access and listen to as you can, right?
If you've gone to the lengths of putting the whole tracks on Myspace in the first place, people have listened to that track - and if they like it, they're want to listen to it again.
Now what would suppose is the sensible option - letting that listener download that track and listen to it at his leisure wherever he might be until he likes it so much he spends money attending your gigs and buying your records...
...or making him have to come back to a cheap piece of shit myspace page everytime he wants a fix, increasing all the while the chances of him either not having access to the net, forgetting the web address, dealing with dodgy connections and Myspace down times - all of which contribute to listener apathy.
My philosophy: If you can hear it, it's yours. Let people download the tracks.
Junkplanet let people download stuff for these reasons and others. BUt it's down to the band's discretion, and not giving them away is fine too if people don't want to.
if they don't want to make their music available for download, fair enough.
But I feel it's likely to be a counter-productive attitude for a small band to take. Providing downloadable tracks lowers the barrier considerably for people to start spreading the word (and the music) around online and in real life, and helps build up a fanbase and a buzz. Whereas restricting downloads is likely to annoy people, and with such an over-abundance of unsigned bands it doesn't take much of an annoyance to make people give up on you and look elsewhere.
having seen them live, heard them played somewhere, read a good review or some such, then yes perhaps they'd be prepared to shell out some cash for a CD at a show, or purchase a download. But you're not going to get to that stage without building up a fanbase, and being restrictive about providing downloads in the early stages isn't going to do you any favours.
What makes sense to me is providing one or two of the best tracks off the debut album for free download, to convince people how great you are and get the word out. Then let them buy the album.
Tracks in full on myspace. If you buy a physical copy (a measly £3 which goes towards making the dozens of free copies we send to zines, promoters, labels) you also get a link to mp3s of everything ever recorded. Bargain.
tens more people could have your tracks that could lead to anything. I think being anal about making people pay for CDs can potentially be damging. It also can be really annoying if you like the band.
Maybe an mp3 link, where you pay 75p for a download (paypal or some such thing) is better 'cos then people don't have to pay £3 and wait for a CD.
You ever heard of the phrase "You gotta speculate to accumulate"?
Or to put it another way, if some podunk unsigned band I've only heard of through some hyperbolic description and a couple of shitty demo tracks think they're going to get £3 a go off me, they're very much high. Unless they're exceptional... which they rarely are.
I'm not criticising it, I just don't see how it helps a band to resrict their tunes.
Make at least one downloadable
If I can listen to a band without having to sit on their myspace page I'm more likely to end up liking them
I immediately shout CUNTS! and smash my computer up. it's all very wel if you're an up and coming band like mr sailplane there and you know you can get their stuff at shows etc but jnr loaded just reformed, recorded a new songs and guess what... CUNTS!!! there is no way in the next centurythey will get their shit together to make or sell a record, and this is just one of many examples on ver spazz...
I do however have a loopback function on my soundcard so...
Raises a good point - any artists who think that by merely opting out of the download feature on myspace, they're stopping people having their own hard copy on their computer are dead wrong.
It would take me only as long as the actual track lasts to have my own copy - and it would be easy.
Of course, that said, in most cases you have to drastically degrade the quality of a track to fit it into Myspace's upload limits, so even that method only has limited applications - but it can still be done.
Personally I've gone for the tactic of making them downloadable as I'd rather have people listening to the tracks on their iPods than not.
However, it's a fucker when you make a physical version of the music (i.e. a single or an E.P.) and when you put it up for sale some people shrug and say "yeah but I've already got those songs."
That said...I'd still rather the music spread further and further afield than sit on solid state in a box.
From my perspective everything an unsigned band does is a loss leader.
It's done, so forget about getting your money back. It's like paying for a rehersal studio, bands have gotta do it.
Haven't to pay £3 and wait for a CD annoys me too much to order. Like I said, if you want a paypal instant download thing, than that's a good idea. It's 2006. I want the tunes I find YESTERDAY.
I know. That's what I was saying.
The cds we sell via the web and at gigs are basically for people who want a "collectable" item. We're attempting to make enough money to cover the printing of the next lot and try and keep it rolling like that.
But the MP3s are available first and foremost.
my mates' band give their cds away at gigs in exchange for an e-mail address for their mailing list.
it's a good tactic. gets them a decent fanbase building up anyway.
in fact here's a free JAG for them:
lyle likes them. as will fans of intelligent left of centre indie rock.
But I'm no intelligent !
Or I should know it, right ?
Lie. Say "Oh, we remixed it for the physical single".
I'm actually going to do that. I'm only leavine the old version on myspaz cos I don't want to lose the play count.
oh myspace! a pox on thy tyranny!
but it's a bit shit for people who (like me ) can't listen online ( slow connection, no speakers... ).
So I think at least one track should be made downloadable.
i don't understand why you still have a 'slow connection' and 'no speakers'. surely broadband in france is no worse/more expensive than the uk? and you can get speakers for just a few quid/euros/whatever it is now.
you've been complaining about it for so long. it completely baffles me.
my parents live in the middle of nowhere in the scottish highlands and have broadband. it's cheaper than their dialup connection too.
( and I have speakers, I don't speak only for me...).
And I'm not the only one in this case. I think more than 30% of people are still on slow connection.
Band sshould think about that.
People who really want their tracks and won't ever buy them will download them by illegal means anyway ( see post just below...)
but y'know. download a program like audacity.
that maybe record labels won't bother icking up unsigned bands who've given away their tracks cos no-one will buy the shiny ep / album that they want to put into record stores. its up to the band - if you listen to their music and like it so much to go and see them, buy a cd from them at the gig. if you don't like them that much, how often would you listen to the freebie you downloaded?
and of course, some bands don't even put any tracks on myspace...
"...that maybe record labels won't bother icking up unsigned bands who've given away their tracks"
what a load of bollocks.
I take Ian Must Destroy's point about it being 'their choice' but I don't think moker's post is slagging bands off as such: he's calling it for what it is in the vast majority of cases.
It *IS* self-important for such unsigned bands. For one thing MySpace reduces our MP3s to 96kbps which is rubbish anyway.
I always like to give away music but I'm in the position of being able to afford to give away CDs for free and pay recording fees and give those away in any case.
Probably well past the point now, but just cause a band is unsigned it doesn't mean that they're music should be free. It's still something that they've crafted and (probably) worked hard on. You can listen to them, which is fair.
Also, should this said unsigned band get signed a lot of people would therefore already have their music, free.
The MP3 club idea sounds cool and could be a different way to market your band.
You've set up your own label to promote your music. Well I would draw a distinction there.
As to the costs, I don't really know. I buy CDs/7"s off bands that I already have MP3s for because I want to support them. I can't speak for others.
and people who don't do it would have downloaded the songs illegally if they couldn't get them legally...
And it's another good argument for not giving it away - if you are recording to a reasonable standard and have your stuff available on MP3 services as well as on DIY CDs, why on earth would people expect it for free? The reawson must be that they simply don't want to pay for something until it has some label seal of approval or 'official' release on it. How short sighted.
made a bloody good point. So nerr.
When they have a label name (they may do already). Does that mean Fugazi were never signed?
If you like a band and you can afford it you'll buy their CDs/records, regardless of if you have an MP3.
MP3s can get shared around and listened to by loads of people and won't really harm your profits a great deal. That's especially if you're doing it DIY because then you're recouping ever penny of your outlay. But in that case why are you spending extra money on making a very flash 'proper' CD?
I think as well there are a lot of bands out there who seem to want to make a proper 'published' style CD to sell at gigs without really examining why they've spent that money. It is mostly about their vanity because they could save themselves all that extra cash on packaging in the first place. It's not about a DIY ethic.
and burn off some CD-rs. Would you class all of them as "signed"? I don't know about Fugazi so I can't really comment on that.
Maybe we should define being 'signed' as actually having signed a legal document binding you to a label.
with an indie label is hardly 'signed' either. Maybe being signed is more like getting a contract whereby which you make music for a label, planned for release. Everything else is varying degrees of handshake agreements and DIY.
It's their label, though it's bigger than that.
There's a difference between the hard work that a big release needs and a lot of the stuff I've been sent and seen bands selling at gigs, stuff that does look professional but is actually more like (as I said) an exercise in vanity.
That said I can understand that if it's cost a lot of money to record you want to recoup that if you don't have that money to spare. It is hypocritical of me but that doesn't change that fact that I do find myself agreeing with moker:
When I come across bands that don't allow you to download on MySpace I wonder why. And those bands don't end up on my iRiver and hence they don't end up being played much/at all and I tend not to care about them.
Well, I like bands just as much whether they are on my iPod or not. I'm more into making decisions based on whether the music is good rather than whether I can get it for nothing or not.
Fugazi are obviously an exception, having started a label of that size.
Your 'vanity' comments make no sense to me at all. Since when is it vain for a band to produce nice looking CDs?? This comment is nonsense and bunkum, sir, and nothing more.
I am not always able to listen with MySpace open during the day or at home, hence my MP3 is more useful to me. I don't think I'm alone there. The point about the allowing the download is that it caters for both our situations, rather than just yours.
If they want to make a proper published looking CD and give it away then fine. If it's as a release that's going in the shops and stuff then yet again that's fine and chances are they will have a lot of might behind them doing that (or they've misjudged their popularity).
But if you're doing it purely to have a more professional version of your music CD than you can get from a home kit then I see that akin to paying someone to publish your novel: it's your choice to put that extra money in, but it's just a CD with the same sound on it. This is what I meant. You're doing it for you, not for the consumer and so if that means you're going to be charging (more) for your music it seems silly to me.
utterly shit, generic, no hope bands spending hundreds of pounds on design and photography to polish up a turd of a cd, essentially so that their tasteless friends will think that theyre big rockstars.
the stuff we have on the junkplanet myspace is clearly demo stuff, recorded effectively for free. itd be utterly fucking stupid of us to expect people to pay for it.
that said, we like it a lot and hope other people do too, so having it downloadable on myspace is good for us.
i think that if you have very definite plans to release, say two of the tracks on your myspace as a single, then its entirely fair to keep them as stream until a while after the recording has been available.
another point about non downloadable tracks is that club and radio DJs cant play them, and a journalist is in a less useful position and mindframe to write about you.
Be grateful to bands if you like their music! Respect their decisions and leave it at that! If you don't like them and think they are arrogant and self-absorbed, then ignore them. Don't criticise them for not doing everything the way you'd like it! It's not arrogant to want to stop people downloading your work. People don't have a god-given right to it.
People on these boards have some very skewed views of music and the performer's role in relation to their audience. There's so many other factors (apart from "arrogance") that could influence a decision to restrict access to tunes that you can't possibly assume to know.
is to have the Myspace stuff as downloadable representative tracks.
If a band then wants to have different tracks available for sale or as hard copy CDs to give away to folk who have physically come along to see them at a gig then fine. Everybody wins.
downloads on Myspace are sprats to catch mackerel.
of why DiS is good.
No, not because I started it, but because it's the only place you can go on the internet for decent dscussion about things like this without someone saying
O my GOD bruv, U r talkin rubiz innt 4 REEL!!!!!!!!1111111
we moving into an age were music is entirely free. If bands dont actively share there music there is numerous other places to get it from (that is if they are any good).that is in response to this.''It is not your right as a listener to have access to anyones music 24hrs a day 7 days a week. Most musicians take a lot of pride in what they do and spend an incredible amount of time doin it for absolutely no money. If you had spent days weeks months years working on something would you just hand it over free to anyone who wanted it?''
I cant remember (a quick google might find this or somebody else might know more about it) the name but there is a company which is offering downloads of music completely for free and they make their money from the advertising on the site. Which for me could be the future - the bands still get royalties because the band get a proportion of the advertising revenue they create. what are other peoples thought on this? i dont know the whole facts but it seems like a good idea.
to fight against it is pointless.
who pays the bands?
dont know the exacts of it. But i think the owner of the website who is making all the money through advertising + the money they make from playing live. (i suppose this cuts out the need for as much or indeed any label work?).
If a band wants a track to be downloadable, then we can assume that the music has reached a point of conclusion in its development. With Friends of the Bride, we have had several slightly different mixes up on the myspace. We have added horns and done some different bits and pieces to improve on the originals. I don't see why we should have to make works in progress down-loadable.
This is the sort of decision that bands should be able to make at their own discretion. To criticise an artist for not giving away his/her work is madness! Applied to other media this expectation makes no sense. Music should not be down-graded as an art-form simply because it is more readily available than other forms.
I don't see why it's different to allow people to stream unfinished work compared to letting them download it to listen to at another date?
If they've got the unfinished versions then there's even more reason to own the finished one, assuming you liked it.
This is crazy! If we wanted to do that, then fine. But I, for one, prefer to make official 'releases' a finished product. I don't understand why you would want to offer unfinished/sub-standard work as a product.. Whatever happened to artists' discretion??
I don't put unfinished songs up. But I meant you seemed to be saying you'd allow them to be streamed?
I don't see how that's different from an MP3 download. It's probably a better use of MP3 download if you want to sell them, like having the demo version available.
Then people can pay for a full-on one, but they've got a version to play on repeat 52 times on their tube journey home.
We put up the original versions and were happy with them at that stage. Then we had some other thoughts re: instrumentation and worked on them some more. I don't like the idea of someone listening to a badly recorded vocal 52 times on their tube journey home.
I think it's different to the idea of the "taster" that you get on myspace.
(and i've learnt this the hard way) if you post something online, someone out there is always going to try and make a copy of it. so if you're not entirely happy with a song, you probably shouldn't put it online.
i had a massive argument with someone about this recently, when i posted an undownloadable song on my page for the first time ever. this was because it was just a rough demo, but i foolishly/excitedly uploaded the song even though it was pretty bad quality. then a 'fan' pleaded me to let him download it, i had a pretty thorough (so i thought) conversation with him as to why it wasn't downloadable yet, we agreed (i thought) and then he went right on and bootlegged it anyway, which pissed me off massively. such a betrayer of trust cannot be considered a fan in my books.
his point was why have up to four songs on MySpace if you aren't prepared to allow at least one download?
His point was that if bands don't give away their songs on myspace, regardless of circumstance, they are self-important. Which may be true in some cases but is non-sensical as a blanket statement.
to be controversial...
that's all cool.if we do a new cd, we normally make some tracks off of the previous cd available to download, or a track or two off of the new one free.there's normally somethin free anyway! you gotta pay for petrol somehow too. it's all swings and roundabouts. but not giving anything away? that's a bit tight
most bands who don't allow downloads are "self important" as such. That was more of a one off sentence to start a thread. A bit like "MUSE DESERVE TO DIE" or something. My point is really that I don't understand bands who withhold downloads, you know, why?
Still, it's not for me to judge but I do find it crazy. If it's downloadable, peole can email it, it goes on their i-pod. for a unsigned band, that's pretty good press.
i must admit alot of of mp3 thievery these days is from mp3blogs and their aggregators, however most of the time i find i'm relieved that i didn't spend hard cash on, say, the cats and cats album because it was rubbish... the mp3blog seems to be the new holy grail for unsigned and small bands, however i think if one of them was hosting a single we'd just commercially released i would be quite cross, if just cos i know how many tracks i've got from those sites and never had the impetus to buy anything by the artist, the ratio of stuff I would is literally one purchase to a hundred disposable mp3's... it doesn't seem that great promotion when your stuck on a hard drive with a thousand other songs that may or may not be ever listened to...
We gave away our earliest demo's on our mainsite and also an entire live gig at the social in 2005 because thats all they were demo's and a very rough live tape, and to be fair the stuff hadn't really developed properly at that time.
I can see us putting more live mp3's on the site at some point.
We don't allow downloads on the Myspace, but we do give away "Waiting" on the main Heroes of Switzerland site. I don't think we are pretentious or self important.
We are putting an album out into shops/iTunes in early 2007 via a licensing deal. Its cost us a fair amount of money to record. I don't think the bloke paying for the pressing/distrubution of it would be pleased if we gave away all our stuff for free and to be fair, would such great people be interested in putting new music out and taking even the smallest financial risk on a band like us?
Face it without tiny labels and someone (even if it's yourselves doing DIY) placing a commercial value on the music, what do you get....... 6 new bands who sound like variations of all the other MOR soft rock rubbish Keane meets Coldplay meets Razorlight......Mmmmmmmmmmm lovely....what variety there eh?
If we make any profit at all on the album then I imagine that will go back into the band. We could do with a van or a more permanent rehearsal space or new cymbals....
Also being in a band costs money. Sorry but it fucking does. Petrol/ transport/van hire/food/ also getting time off work etc etc.
The seal of approval thing is a very valid point. Well I don't see a major label beating a path to our door anytime soon. So we have to get on with it. I think giving away the odd track is fine.But surely if people are really into what you do. They would surely be prepaired to pay for the music? I know I have bought demo's off unsigned bands and that was cos I really liked what they were doing.