By musicians, for musicians...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dondello
  • Start date Start date
D

Dondello

Moderator
I'm thinking of opening a web community (similar in theory to Geocities or the like) of musicians, where they can have little web pages about their band, including audio clips of their music. It'd be similar to a webring as well, except all contained on one server.. Do you think people would be interested? I'd do all the Realaudio streaming, HTML editing, etc. I've already got the server. What do you think? (And if it gets going, a couple links from Dragon would be gravy) ;)
 
(Sorry about the double entry) And if it really took off, it would help budding artists and bands get exposure on the internet, in a form that'll be MUCH less confusing than mp3.com!!
 
no offense intended, but have you any experience running a website? Are you aware of what it takes to get the kind of sponsors and such to keep it running, or are you independantly wealthy that you could afford a monthly t1 drop and the massive bill that would come with the gigabytes of data transfer if you had even a remotely popular download or streaming mp3 site? which raises the question to the dragon.. What is your setup, and how did this page start, for those who haven't been around since the horrible graphics stage... :)
 
No offence taken; my expertise as a webmaster goes far and beyond what most developer teams can do. I've made corporate webpages on my own that make team efforts look terrible. But down to the details ... I wouldn't have posted a message like that without being prepared, unless I was lacking from the shoulders up. I have a full high-speed NT server, domain name, etc. The server is in my bedroom, so it's quite simple to maintenance, as I'm sure you can guess. The name is Dondello Inc, a semi-phony company, but mostly just a vehicle for my future endeavors. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. You can find my email address on the website.
Again I ask, if you think this is a good idea that would catch on, please tell me.
 
I think it's dandy idea. A server in your bedroom about home recording,that's mostly done in bedrooms,is just plain poetic!
 
All that said, i also think it would be a poetic, yet good idea. Hows about dropping a few urls of some of the companies you've done pages for so we can peruse your work?
~~synergy~~
 
Most of the work I've done so far has been on the network level: i.e. intranet-based, and lately now that I own a 4-track, I haven't been doing much else, as I'm sure you can understand :) I am completing a couple Flash-based websites right now, and I don't get paid till they're done, so I'd better get working. Anyway, if even the hypercritical synergy thinks it's a good idea, I'll go for it. Gonna have to grab another 12 gigs ;) Oh by the way... What format do people prefer, really? I mean, which gets the best 'listener response'? Downloading mp3s? Listening to fuzzy Realaudio? The choice to do either? :)
 
hypercritical synergy is always one to test everything i hear :) streaming mp3, real audio sucks.
 
There are different "flavors" of each format
that overlap quality-wise. I've seen Real Audio sites that stream an 80Kbps stereo
signal that sounds quite nice. MP3 can be
encoded from 8kbps mono up to 320kbps stereo.
BTW: the equivalent speed for streaming CD quality .wav files is ~1.4Mbps.
This info comes from the converter that's included with Vegas Pro from Sonic Foundry. Only problem is 56K modems won't stream anything faster than 56Kbps (duh!) and usually 32Kbps is the fattest format that can be realistically heard on such systems without downloading it first.
 
FYI, there are already quite a few of these musician communities on the Web. Many of them are ripoffs though (charging bands $25/month for a single Web page is what I mean). I wouldn't mind putting together a page of links to such, if people email them to me...of course, the ripoff ones will go at the bottom of the page if they show up at all :-)
 
friends ,

real audio really blows monkeys , but it would be good to have a choice.... listen to the sucky real audio for the first minute or so , and if you like what you hear , you download the high quality mp3.. theres nothing more irritating then dowloading a friggin 4 meg mp3 and having it severely suck... sorry for all the emotion..i was eating crayons this morning...

- eddie -
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
If you're comparing the 16k RealAudio that MP3.com uses for previewing to 128k or greater MP3 files, I'm not surprised you say that RA sucks. Drstawl was gently trying to explain that it's not necessarily the format that's a problem, but the encoding rate. I could easily get a few examples together to "prove" that MP3 sucks, but that's not the point. RA is more suited towards streaming and it's more of a de facto standard.

I realize these aren't quite "full band" cuts, but try the 80K RA versions on https://homerecording.com/steven_songs.html and you'll hear some pretty clear recordings, especially for their size.
 
friends ,

well...yes...you can make sucky mp3's... and real audio can sound good... but..most web sites use the " sucky " RA because of its small file size... and most mp3 sites use the " good " mp3's.... so..i still think its a good idea to stream the sucky RA just to get a sample of what the actual song sounds like.... surrrrreeee... your thinking " why go through all that trouble posting 2 different audio types ? why not just upload the " good " real audio file to begin with ? " becuuuuuuzz... nobody likes real audio... i sure as hell dont... mp3's are more common as " good " music files... and you have more control over your music by using the eq's and other the other goodies an mp3 player comes with.... that real audio player thingie sucks... but.. thats my opinion... besides , its more fun to convert the mp3's back to wavs and burn them onto cd's... isnt piracy great ? god bless america....

- eddie -
 
If you ever hit it big, Eddie, I bet you change your tune about piracy!
 
Well I wanted to post full cuts by the artists, if they wished.. Ok, how about this. 15 second RA clips to see what the song's like, and if you like it, download the full mp3. All depending on what the artist wants, of course. As for the mp3/ra argument, I have a somewhat biassed opinion. My connection is fast enough to stream WAV files :) so why would I listen to RAs? But I agree, they are quick and easy, and most people still use modems so I think it'll be around for awhile longer. BTW, Dragon: The RA comparisons you gave really gave me a shock. They sounded eerily like stuff I have on tape of myself at that age :)
 
Friend Eddie N,

Maybe you haven't heard, but this country prosecutes pirates. It's attitudes like yours that make it a fight for people who want to use technology for their own music. No wonder the Music Industry is nervous, with people out there who think it's their right as a citizen to pirate music.
 
howlin....

it was a jooookkkee... you know ...haha ...funny ..laugh... snicker ..giggle.. that sort of thing ? sheeeeshhh ... who peed in your wheaties this morning ? :D

dondello...

i think streaming 30 seconds of real audio would be better... many songs have 15 seconds of a guitar solo or something before the vocals even start...and yes...< ahem > .. some of us still have modems... :)

- eddie -

[This message has been edited by Eddie N (edited 07-30-1999).]
 
Well, the smiley with the joke, instead of the explanation, would have been nice. :)
 
To get back to the original discussion
:)
...
I think it's a great idea. I've only been investigating internet distribution for a very short time, but it seems to me that as mp3.com and other sites get bigger and bigger, the average artist seems to get lost in a sea of mp3 files. One song in tens of thousands does not have the same effect as one in a couple hundred.
I've got tons of music that I'd love to share, but I'm unsure what kind of success I'd have with mp3.com (please post your experiences with mp3.com in reply to my post on the "Marketing"... BBS .. thx). I believe that in order to find success with mp3.com, you need to be on their front page. They say it's because those songs get the most hits, but I'm not sure how you could get a lot of hits without being on the front page, or without at least local or regional support to get the ball rolling. That would mean actually forming a band and touring. A regular studio-geek like me would have a hard time, regardless of how good the music or production is. If I'm making assumptions that i shouldn't ... please slap me! :)
I'm thinking that to be on multiple 'smaller' sites might be more effective if those sites can advertise enough and get some exposure.
Hmmm ... I wonder if there would be legal ramifications if the same song were on more than one site?

FYI (you guys probably know these links already), but I found these links on this site in various different posts ... thought I'd get them all together in one place. If you know of other sites, let me know.

http://www.ubl.com http://www.amp3.com http://www.musicbuilder.com http://www.onlinerock.com/ http://belltunes.com/bbcclassifieds/ http://www.cdbaby.net/

I really didn't intend to write a book on the subject, because I am no expert. This topic is probably more suited for the marketing bbs. I think it's a good idea and the technical issues of using RA or mp3 can be worked out later.

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top