Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
I think you are right, but that's a shame, because it wouldn't take too much code to make the sites a good place to browse for music. Making bandcamp browseable would be a piece of cake. Just make it so keyword searches display bands instead of albums. While mp3.com had some flaws in their band pages, they had an excellent feature where users could build playlists of songs. All it did was build an m3u playlist file, but it would then post on an artist's page which playlists they were on, and it was an easy way to find similar music. It was also a great way to promote your own band - create a playlist of similar bands and slip your own song in there somewhere. It would be really easy to build something like that, and on a site where downloads generate revenue (as is the case on some bandcamp pages), it would probably quickly pay for itself. This was like 14 years ago, and none of the other sites have figured it out yet. It's a shame that these sites have the potential to become global communities of musicians, but instead they become large communities where nobody interacts with each other. -- Matt Davignon mattdavignon@gmail.com www.ribosomemusic.com Podcast! http://ribosomematt.podomatic.com http://www.youtube.com/user/ribosomematt On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Petri Lahtinen <kollegavalmentaja@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the meaning of these sites is not to be the super markets of > music, > rather than platforms for the bands and bands market their thing > elsewhere. > With content as large as on the case of SoundCloud, its really hard to > make > the searches work.... 10 million users > > btw, did you see this > http://storywheel.cc/alex-eric/soundcloud-story > > > > > 2012/1/26 Matt Davignon <mattdavignon@gmail.com> >> >> I haven't had time to see the clip, but I'm fully aware of the ease of >> proliferation on the internet, and its effects on self-editing. For >> me, it all started with mp3.com. (Anyone remember mp3.com?) Mp3.com >> was sort of a granddaddy to bandcamp and soundcloud, in that amateur >> musicians could post their work up there in the spirit of sharing, but >> that it's seldomly treated with the same respect as an actual CD >> release. (By that I mean that it's hard to get people to review your >> bandcamp page, or to get radio stations to play tracks from one.) To >> go a step further, it's now even harder to browse for music on >> bandcamp than it was on mp3.com. If I type in a keyword on bandcamp, I >> get thousands of results, about 3/4 of which appear to have no >> relation to the search term. And the artists who I think are generic >> or undeveloped are the ones that have 10 or 20 records clogging the >> results. Bandcamp only works if you already know the band you're >> looking for. >> >> Most of the sites have some sort of genre search or keyword search, >> but nobody's making sure that artists mark their work appropriately. >> For example, marking a techno track as "international" in hopes it >> will net more listeners. >> >> But now things are at a point where, without too much effort, you can >> get your cds released through the exact same digital distribution >> channels that Lady Gaga gets. I have 4 cds and 2 eps floating around >> that ether, and between all those releases, maybe 1 cd worth of >> material would pass the muster of a major indie record label's >> standards - and that's me going easy on myself. ("Major Indie" - I >> like that term. I'm thinking of a well-known indie record label such >> as Thrill Jockey or Kranky.) >> >> So, it's great for artists because it's easy to get global distribution. >> But it's bad for artists because it encourages us to put stuff in >> front of global ears before we've really developed our craft, and we >> tend to be judged based on our early releases. >> >> It's great for audiences because rare and unusual stuff is more >> accessible than ever. >> But it's bad for audiences because finding the good stuff requires >> digging through a large amount of bad results. >> >> I think we'll start seeing editors pop up in different forms, such as >> music writers, radio djs, podcasters, bloggers, etc. Like the >> musicians though anyone who wants to be in that position can do so >> without a significant investment. The only limit there will be who >> bothers to make the effort. >> >> -- >> Matt Davignon >> mattdavignon@gmail.com >> www.ribosomemusic.com >> Podcast! http://ribosomematt.podomatic.com >> http://www.youtube.com/user/ribosomematt >> >> > Sylvain Poitras <sylvain.trombone@gmail.com> was all: >> >> >> Someone said: >> >>>> worthy of documentation on youtube... >> >> >> >> That cracked me up... but it could give rise to a potentially >> >> interesting new thread on what the demise of the editor (due to >> >> increase ease of self-publication or self-diffusion more generally) >> >> means for the quality of art. >> >> Anyone can publish their shit... there is no gatekeeper. Which is >> >> awesome/awful. >> >> >> >> I recently watched this documentary that presented some views on >> >> this, >> >> might be of interest to some of you: http://vimeo.com/34608191 >> >> >> >> Sylvain >> >> >> > >> > > > > -- > Petri > >