Page 2 of 4
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:00 pm
by tes la rok
Ashley wrote:tes la rok wrote:ashley lol
But how PRS split youtube incomes between songwriters / producers I dont know. Didn't find any data about it.
.. seriously joining PRS is easy, no matter where u live. It just cost around 100 pounds.
Lolwat?
I was sincerly amused coz you wont say from who you heard it. It was well funny way to put it "DJ/PRODUCER"
But anyway back to topic. If anyone know how much PRS pay from youtube.. like 1 penny of each hit or so?
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:03 pm
by ashley
tes la rok wrote:Ashley wrote:tes la rok wrote:ashley lol
But how PRS split youtube incomes between songwriters / producers I dont know. Didn't find any data about it.
.. seriously joining PRS is easy, no matter where u live. It just cost around 100 pounds.
Lolwat?
I was sincerly amused coz you wont say from who you heard it. It was well funny way to put it "DJ/PRODUCER"
But anyway back to topic. If anyone know how much PRS pay from youtube.. like 1 penny of each hit or so?
I don't think you get much from YouTube, but multiply it by the amount of tunes you do have up there, that's more money than you had before and as Tesco say, "every little helps". I can't really remember the specifics but it's nowhere near as much as Radio 1.
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:26 pm
by trench
I found one of mine up there the other day... some chick from Canada threw it up there. It's cool to see good responces on your music, but It kind of makes you think what the future holds for it. Some day the internet might be able to stream at 256 or 320kbps, then people would be jacking tunes right and left.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:19 am
by ashley
trench wrote:I found one of mine up there the other day... some chick from Canada threw it up there. It's cool to see good responces on your music, but It kind of makes you think what the future holds for it. Some day the internet might be able to stream at 256 or 320kbps, then people would be jacking tunes right and left.
The internet can stream at 256 and 320...but whats the point when 128 is sufficent? Can
you really tell the difference between 128 and 320? Will it make your listening experience much better? I doubt it.
Anything more than 128 is generally not needed unless you are playing live or cutting music. Not only that but there is this thing called bandwith which is almost a thing of the past. People with 1mb connections can handle 128 streams just about but if you have a server with 100 listeners at 128 - thats 12.8Mb/s - so the lower quality you stream in, the more users you can fit on
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:50 am
by pure
Very big difference between 120 and 320. 120 can not really be played in a rave/party situation. When loud you would notice the difference.
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:35 pm
by pure
trench wrote:Some day the internet might be able to stream at 256 or 320kbps, then people would be jacking tunes right and left.
It can now but youtube seem to restrict it(I think). That would be messed up if youtube start broadcasting cd quality.
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:51 pm
by ashley
It's called bandwith. If you dodged my previous post on purpose let me quote it for you.
Ashley wrote:Anything more than 128 is generally not needed unless you are playing live or cutting music. Not only that but there is this thing called bandwith which is almost a thing of the past. People with 1mb connections can handle 128 streams just about but if you have a server with 100 listeners at 128 - thats 12.8Mb/s - so the lower quality you stream in, the more users you can fit on Smile
So the higher quality you upload something as, the more someone has to download. People want that experience now...not in 5 minutes when it has finished buffering.
60mb WAV vs 3.2mb MP3 over the internet being streamed...the 60mb WAV costs too much in terms of server stuff - and also has a higher chance of someone taking you and your tune for a mug.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:44 am
by fused_forces
tes la rok wrote:I think if tune is released, good exposure for artists & tune. Unreleased tunes not cool...
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:07 pm
by beezwax
producer = songwriter / artist = songwriter...everyone can register, but has had to have at least one or 2 releases or public perfromances if i rememeber right...
how 2 artists on one track wanna share is up to them....
however if ONE artists registers a track and puts 100% (royalty claim) and the other artist then comes along and register the track aswell, the prs will get in touch..
prs are pretty good whereas mcps not that much (re: collecting mechanical royalties)
hope this helps
peace
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:09 pm
by drifterman_
Ashley you are one of the biggest gassers on this forum. The amount of ignorance flowing from your fingers, to your keys and onto teh interwebz is truely amazing.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:25 pm
by tes la rok
Fused Forces wrote:tes la rok wrote:I think if tune is released, good exposure for artists & tune. Unreleased tunes not cool...
IF you quote me, please do it _
correctly_. don't cut half of the phrase off. Not cool man. That phrase gives feeling like i aprove uploading un-authorised tunes to you tube.
this is the original sentence :
I think if tune is _released_ it's not necessary a bad thing. Example Round The World Girls have 40,000+ hits.. It's a good exposure for artists & tune and if I remember right PRS pays roaylties from youtube nowdays.
My point was just that I tried to find someting good from the bad... Cause there is no way to kill pirates and torrents etc.. So comparing to torrents, youtube is better publicity for producer.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:34 pm
by ashley
drifterman_ wrote:Ashley you are one of the biggest gassers on this forum. The amount of ignorance flowing from your fingers, to your keys and onto teh interwebz is truely amazing.
Why don't you prove me wrong then instead of just logging in and chatting shit.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:51 pm
by duck
IMO
If I hear something about a tune off a friend/website/blog, I'm lots more likely to buy it if I can listen to the whole thing on youtube first.
People ripping tunes off youtube were never gonna pay anyway, the sound quality is pretty poor.
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:53 pm
by pure
duck wrote:IMO
If I hear something about a tune off a friend/website/blog, I'm lots more likely to buy it if I can listen to the whole thing on youtube first.
People ripping tunes off youtube were never gonna pay anyway, the sound quality is pretty poor.
True
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:29 pm
by MissBrass
i used youtube in order to convert friends to dubstep...
I played out round the world girls and benga for a minute at the apple store...they had no choice
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:41 pm
by surface_tension
missbrass wrote:i used youtube in order to convert friends to dubstep...
that.
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:19 pm
by sam the dnb man
I think they compress the sound or something when u put it up there.
i downloaded a video off of thier and the quality seemed shit
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:29 pm
by MissBrass
the sound quality aint great but it is what it is...
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:40 pm
by kozee
tes la rok wrote:
Unreleased tunes not cool...
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:15 pm
by ovesen
I think the worst thing you can say about youtube tracks, seen from a "dubstep" perspective, is that it can be seen as the downside of the internet.
The internet, wich on the other hand has had a great deal to with the quick progression of the genre, hence this forum.
I myself just bought a couple of older Coki and DMZ tunes, wich I wouldnt have, if they hadn't been growing on me for a couple of weeks. -of listening to them on youtube.
Thank Jah for the internet, or whatever.....