|
forum rules
|
View this Thread in Original format
| broken silence |
Hello fellow TAers-
I love this forum but I have a really big probem with one of its rules: the fact that there are boundaries (strict boundaries at that) about posting links to tracks which are less than 96kbs.
First off I think this is entirely way out of line. With the amount of sketchy people on the internet, there would be no way I'd ever give a tune out above 96k (like NO way), as I've heard stories of people all of a sudden just hearing their track on the radio and then it be by some random artist. Or likes its already happened here, someone's tune getting put on overnet.
What I mentioned above is a good enough reason not to have 96k+, and samples being 160k+. But the fact that even samples have to be 160+ is even worse. If its a sample of an uncompleted track, it could easily be chopped and looped, boom its stolen---especially at 160kbs.
Now, why on earth should a forum board have the right to tell the artist, the person who spent all the time making his track how he should present it to an audience?? And even at that, this board does not have its own hosting system in the first place.
I think that it's a good idea to be able to have songs at 96k +, but realistically, its unsafe, its unfair, and it shouldn't have to be a rule anyways. |
|
|
| hadi burpee |
| see that is good, however, if you are posting a track and asking for feedback, it is difficult to give accurate feedback when a track is in 96 k as the quality is not very good so it is hard to judge certain parts of the song. they do make exceptions to this rule ifyou are going to send it to a label or something, but it is really up to the artist to post whatever bitrate they want. i mean, even if you play a 128 file off a cdr live, it sounds ty. |
|
|
| Spad |
You could always put an intentional "error" in the track, something that will make it impossible to use live (just fade it out and speak over a bit of it or something).
It would be a lot easier for somebody to then give feedback on your track, as the track would be in a decent enough quality to comment on mastering and EQ'ing, the quality of the synths etc.
As long as you mention in your thread that the "error" is on purpose it shouldn't be a problem. I know I'd find it a lot easier to disregard this when reviewing than to disregard low quality.
You mention that the board has no right to tell an artist how to encode their file, remember that posting on this forum isn't compulsary :) I know it says "Amature Producers Promotion" but I think (for the most part) it's used by the regulars as a way of getting feedback and advice on their production skills, and not as a means to advertise their work. |
|
|
| dbl |
since the forum isn't about advertising your own work, but more to get comments on your work... it's not really any meaning in posting a 96kbit sample.. or even a 128kbit sample since the quality isn't good enough to comment on.... you can only comment on the structure and what you think of the melodie.. that isn't really much..
and as said.. put an "error" in it... |
|
|
| DJ-Kreing^^ |
The whole purpose of this forum is to post your track get comments about it, as well as to give some feedback to others.
Now do you actualy think that giving any cunstructive critisizem is possible when your posting a clip of a bitrate that low?
:)
All you are doing by posting those clips is causing that threads by people who post their finished tunes which they worked hard on to fall down to the buttom of the page. |
|
|
| Massive84 |
i don't see your point about saying , someone will use your high quality sample in a live set..
i would love that, means he/she likes my tune so much, that he/she would even use a sample in a live set..
now is that great feedback or not ? |
|
|
| broken silence |
well like i said, my production partner had a 128 of one of his tunes on his website..which the link to his website was in his signiature on a few forumboards. someone listned to it, chopped it, looped some parts exactly, put vocals over it and he heard it on the radio a few weeks later- direct rip. its happened so many times that its not even worth risking it.
putting in sets is one thing, but when you get music stolen from you, you want to take more precaution.
but why is it a RULE that you have to post over 96? thats fine if its easier or nicer to give feedback on a track with higher bitrate, but what i have a problem with is the fact that its a rule around here and you will get your threads deleted if you do post lower. |
|
|
| Spad |
| quote: | Originally posted by broken silence
well like i said, my production partner had a 128 of one of his tunes on his website..which the link to his website was in his signiature on a few forumboards. someone listned to it, chopped it, looped some parts exactly, put vocals over it and he heard it on the radio a few weeks later- direct rip. its happened so many times that its not even worth risking it.
putting in sets is one thing, but when you get music stolen from you, you want to take more precaution.
but why is it a RULE that you have to post over 96? thats fine if its easier or nicer to give feedback on a track with higher bitrate, but what i have a problem with is the fact that its a rule around here and you will get your threads deleted if you do post lower. |
It's not difficult to prove copyright on your work. You say it's happened so many times (people stealing a loop and making a tune to play on the radio).....I've never once heard of it happening.
I think the rule is there for the reason DJ-Kreing^^ gave. It's impossible to rate a tune at that low a quality, you'd just get replies saying "can't tell if it's any good, post a better version" so even if the rule wasn't there, it would be completly pointless on your part to post such a low quality mp3.
I really feel you are worrying over nothing, if you heard a tune you made on the radio you would be easily able to prove you made it as you would have all of the original files.
(edit: not to mention that if you posted it on here first, you'd have a lot of people able to testify that you made it long before the other version appeared, so in a sense you're nearly as well protected as by not posting it at all) |
|
|
| Mike_Foyle |
totally agree with broken silence.... ok so if people find it hard to make feedback for the artist thats the artists loss. no one elses. i think that the rules are only enforced because people are trying to take advantage of the artists on this forum. some times i have no problem with sharing a full track at high quality, because im fairly laid back about it. but others do, and i completely understand why they do. i think it is very out of line to have the boundaries set by the admins of this forum. i love this forum but i think its stupid that this rule exists, as the only rational explation for its existance seems to be that people want to take advantage of other peoples tracks and play them out in their sets etc. if they artist is not happy about this, but still wishes to share, i think he/she should have the right to in whatever way they want to, wether it be 19 kbs, or 192 kbs, if people really find it hard to coment on the track when its shared at low quality then they dont have to comment, and comments on the melody and structure can still be giving! the only person loosing out by sharing a low quality rip is the artist, so let it be, its an unfair rule.
mike |
|
|
| Massive84 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mike_Foyle
totally agree with broken silence.... ok so if people find it hard to make feedback for the artist thats the artists loss. no one elses. i think that the rules are only enforced because people are trying to take advantage of the artists on this forum. some times i have no problem with sharing a full track at high quality, because im fairly laid back about it. but others do, and i completely understand why they do. i think it is very out of line to have the boundaries set by the admins of this forum. i love this forum but i think its stupid that this rule exists, as the only rational explation for its existance seems to be that people want to take advantage of other peoples tracks and play them out in their sets etc. if they artist is not happy about this, but still wishes to share, i think he/she should have the right to in whatever way they want to, wether it be 19 kbs, or 192 kbs, if people really find it hard to coment on the track when its shared at low quality then they dont have to comment, and comments on the melody and structure can still be giving! the only person loosing out by sharing a low quality rip is the artist, so let it be, its an unfair rule.
mike |
your beeing selfish here, looking only from your own intrest ffs.
you don't get the big point behind this do ya? and one more thing, you don't like the rulez, then don't post here ..thank you.
I gave this example tons of times, someone posting a track or sample in 64kb saying hey i finished track, getting signed on blabla..well good for you.
But that person is screwing the layout with his stupid sample, for people that love to produce, who worked hard on a tune and posting it in full glory..its' called NOT FAIR!.
Let me put it this way, you got a tune but you don't wanne share because it is getting signed? dont post it at all ..are you afraid its getting stolen? don't post it all, you do wanne share? follow these rulez.
period. |
|
|
| Mario432 |
I just joined the forum, and I was wondering how many cases of stealing other than the one listed above has anybody actually experienced....In other words is it really a big enough risk to worry about posting tunes??
MIROSLAV |
|
|
| Martin McG |
the regulars use the forum to get feedback on the tracks they have made
many dont even post up the finished product completely, they come on the forum get the feedback finish their track and then make a short sample of it with all the criticism they have gotten from the board
ive posted up a few tracks and havent worried once and believe me theres been better tracks posted up here than mines that havent been ripped off |
|
|
|
|
