Page 1 of 1
Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Aggie
Hey everyone,
I'm not a frequent poster but I have noticed that there are many, many more music makers out there, than there ever was. I created the attached graphic as a "101" for monetising homegrown music. I hope at least someone will find it helpful or useful!
- Money_In_Music.png (434.43 KiB) Viewed 1476 times
Adam
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Marco Raaphorst
32 bit version upload Bandcamp? That's not possible. 24 bit is maximum:
https://get.bandcamp.help/hc/en-us/arti ... it-tracks-
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Aggie
My apologies - I have edited the graphic and re-uploaded it.
Thanks!
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Adabler
I pay to make music, so I guess this chart doesn't really apply to me, but is the usage of samples really such a no no? Assuming no copyright is infringed?
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Marco Raaphorst
Aggie wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
My apologies - I have edited the graphic and re-uploaded it.
Thanks!
and 16 bit is no lo-fi. that's a perfect export format. CD norm.
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Aggie
Adabler wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
I pay to make music, so I guess this chart doesn't really apply to me, but is the usage of samples really such a no no? Assuming no copyright is infringed?
I have found that many commercial uses (licensing, etc.) require full originality. It's simplicity over substance - if a client likes what they hear, they'll want to purchase/license without constraints. Introducing samples in the mix
can complicate what would otherwise be a clear path. My advice then, is to not sample, where possible.Jjust my thoughts, fwiw.
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Aggie
Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
Aggie wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
My apologies - I have edited the graphic and re-uploaded it.
Thanks!
and 16 bit is no lo-fi. that's a perfect export format. CD norm.
OK - I grant that 16-bit still has a quality range but the depth and resonance and other artifacts which may be introduced means it is not as high quality as <24-bit>. It depends on a lot of factors - including the quality of the original composition and the eventual output method (speakers, headphones, ear buds, etc.). My intent here is to say " soundcloud doesn't need your highest quality for streaming" - whereas you want to try to put your best out there when you are offering the potential of FLAC/WAV downloads. You're also right that it doesn't matter so much at MP3 or CD quality - but it's the fact that you won't know your audience and you may not be in charge of the file format or bit rate, really.
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by dioxide
You forgot Allihoopa:
1. Create a unique piece of music (no samples!)
2. Upload to Allihoopa.
3. Allow an established artist signed to major label to use your music for free and without giving credit.
4. Get legal representation and try to sue them, despite having signed away all your rights.
5. Weep.
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Aggie
dioxide wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
You forgot Allihoopa:
1. Create a unique piece of music (no samples!)
2. Upload to Allihoopa.
3. Allow an established artist signed to major label to use your music for free and without giving credit.
4. Get legal representation and try to sue them, despite having signed away all your rights.
5. Weep.
True dat. I had a long conversation over there once - the upshot from the higher-ups was:
"Look - Allihoopa isn't for professional artists - it's just a bit of fun!".
Just remember that!
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Marco Raaphorst
Aggie wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
and 16 bit is no lo-fi. that's a perfect export format. CD norm.
OK - I grant that 16-bit still has a quality range but the depth and resonance and other artifacts which may be introduced means it is not as high quality as <24-bit>. It depends on a lot of factors - including the quality of the original composition and the eventual output method (speakers, headphones, ear buds, etc.). My intent here is to say " soundcloud doesn't need your highest quality for streaming" - whereas you want to try to put your best out there when you are offering the potential of FLAC/WAV downloads. You're also right that it doesn't matter so much at MP3 or CD quality - but it's the fact that you won't know your audience and you may not be in charge of the file format or bit rate, really.
this is not true. what 24 only has to offer is a higher dynamic range (which no one will ever use in an exported file, so 24 as export format is simply always overkill, only as a super dynamic sample format it might make a little sense), nothing else.
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Aggie
Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
Aggie wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
OK - I grant that 16-bit still has a quality range but the depth and resonance and other artifacts which may be introduced means it is not as high quality as <24-bit>. It depends on a lot of factors - including the quality of the original composition and the eventual output method (speakers, headphones, ear buds, etc.). My intent here is to say " soundcloud doesn't need your highest quality for streaming" - whereas you want to try to put your best out there when you are offering the potential of FLAC/WAV downloads. You're also right that it doesn't matter so much at MP3 or CD quality - but it's the fact that you won't know your audience and you may not be in charge of the file format or bit rate, really.
this is not true. what 24 only has to offer is a higher dynamic range (which no one will ever use in an exported file, so 24 as export format is simply always overkill, only as a super dynamic sample format it might make a little sense), nothing else.
I'm erring on the side of quality, for the sake of it. I accept your comments - and I agree. But if you do "play" in those higher dynamic ranges - what's the harm in advising to use it? A larger file size?
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 30 Oct 2018
by Marco Raaphorst
Aggie wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
this is not true. what 24 only has to offer is a higher dynamic range (which no one will ever use in an exported file, so 24 as export format is simply always overkill, only as a super dynamic sample format it might make a little sense), nothing else.
I'm erring on the side of quality, for the sake of it. I accept your comments - and I agree. But if you do "play" in those higher dynamic ranges - what's the harm in advising to use it? A larger file size?
Yes larger file size is the issue.
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 01 Nov 2018
by MannequinRaces
dioxide wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
You forgot Allihoopa:
1. Create a unique piece of music (no samples!)
2. Upload to Allihoopa.
3. Allow an established artist signed to major label to use your music for free and without giving credit.
4. Get legal representation and try to sue them, despite having signed away all your rights.
5. Weep.
They have updated their Terms of Service so it's not as bad as it used to be:
https://allihoopa.com/tos
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 02 Nov 2018
by Aggie
Extract:
iii. Users are NOT allowed to make money from the sale, license or other exploitation of any Content on the Service, including original Content that user has contributed unless the user is exploiting ONLY that Content that the user owns in its entirety.
Re: Monetising Music 101
Posted: 02 Nov 2018
by O1B
Quite right. Headroom.
A lot of "LESS is MORE" going on around on resontalk - to the detriment of audio quality.
24Bit is easlily discernable.
32 bit is the rate of all my
future equipment (sans Moog ONE) - no compromises.
16 bit is soft and squishy in comparison.
1992 recordings can not compare to what is possible with 24 and 32 bit, if you can hear.
Aggie wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018
I'm erring on the side of quality, for the sake of it. I accept your comments - and I agree. But if you do "play" in those higher dynamic ranges - what's the harm in advising to use it? A larger file size?