john

Hi Gilo Welcome to Songstuff! I'm glad you have got such immediate benefit. Perhaps you would be interested in writing a short testimonial for the site to show to possible members? http://forums.songst...1-testimonials/ It is worth keeping up with critique, and it's great you are also looking for feedback on your critique! Out of interest, did you read or refer to the common critique questions we have posted? Cheers John

Hi and welcome to Songstuff

Hi Gregg ooookay... aside from the fact that I would be helping you with a site that could take members away from Songstuff, ie if songwriters are somewhere else they are not here taking part in our community.... As you may know I've been running websites for a long time, particularly music sites. I can certainly see a lot of possible issues you would have to deal with especially if you are aiming to have a popular site. Firstly I would say it would have to be heavy on advertisements if you intend paying for the site via advertising. Particularly in the early days when you have resources to pay for and few visitors. Audio transfers for streaming can be quite high bandwidth wise, of not as much as video but still, it's not cheap. Neither is the cost of an audio server of decent spec, nor the storage of music en-masse, nor the premium price for server internet connectivity. Then of course comes the software. Bespoke or high end off the shelf isn't cheap either. start down the route of free software or cheap software and you can almost guarrantee having to move large parts of your site software at some point. Pay for decent software upfront and that adds to your early costs that wont be absorbed by advertising income. Secondly, legality. You will need to make sure you get appropriate permissions from members,PLUS be prepared to handle performance rights societies looking for broadcast fees (even if you have something that says you are given certain rights you need the appropriate checks and measures in place. Also protection from unhappy members who "didn't realise" certain permissions were given etc etc. Point is, people will look over your legal docs looking for a way to be compensated/paid etc. Thirdly I would think again about the method ranking. Members WILL start rank trading, almost guarranteed. You gimme a 5 I'll give you a 5 etc etc. Reverbnation has song ranking as part of their ranking algorithm) This is why most charting is based around financial transactions such as buying a download (hint you could help finance your site if you offered paid downloads and free where the paid downloads earn a commission for the site). The fact is most low and mid-range indie sites offer charts based on multiple metrics. Id how many plays, how many downloads, how long was the track listened to, how many people commented on you giving you some sort of buzz factor, how did people rank you, did they refer on friends (this I think a measurement a lot of sites should have but don't),how often were you "liked", how many new "fans" did you get on your mailing list.... the possible metrics go on. The exact combinationof those factors, the weighting, the formula... is the closely guarded secret. It takes more work but ultimately it makes charting harder to fix. Fourthly, motivations. Okay here is the big conundrum that OMD's etc still have not addressed successfully: What features will successfully attract fans? What features will attract bands? How do you balance those features so that your site attracts MORE fans than bands? Because, (and here is where ReverbNation, and many others, have it wrong) if Bands voting for bands is part of the mechanism for charting, then they will abuse it as you describe. In fact if bands interacting with bands is part of the mechanism on any level it will be abused. The band/fan interaction has several problems. For example, listeners/fans do not want band after band contacting them looking to convert them to a fan... that's myspace, and to an extent RN. BUT bands want some control over getting fans, they want to think they can gain fans by effort as well as by automated mechanisms. The two needs do not easily meet. Doesn't mean they can't only that no one has got it right yet (in my opinion). At one point Songstuff had artist song links and charting, but in essence that was not our core direction. Okay I have to sign off just now, but I will try to return and see if I can be a bit more encouraging! What i have said so far is just off the top of my head based on experience but let me mull it over a bit. Cheers John For example:

(3482 posts in this topic and I'm still waiting to play the Inagaddadavida card lol) Once In A Lifetime - Talking Heads

Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun - Pink Floyd

Welcome to Songstuff RC

lol You MIDI user you! That maybe true but the reasoning is the same, the ease of additional instrumentation in a multitrack environment... when you may find that only you are present from the band during the recording of your part... playing to a click keeps things tight, but it does play havoc with pieces where the emotion of the vocal performance in part dictates tempo... ie the other instruments are keying off the vocal interpretation. That might not be a common thing these days, but it is a factor, even if it is just for part of the song. That sort of thing plays havoc with multitrack recording where visual cues may be missing (incidentally using a video recorder can be useful, record the original performance to playback synched to the audio recorder when doing overdubs) during later sessions. You can see why a lot of pop music is devoid of those subtle variations. Anyhoo..... lol

Hi Different people have different ways of working, but certainly a beat that doesn't suit your piece will change the feel. Beats are incorrectly emphasized and that fights with the track you record, making performances more hesitant and lacking the energy of conviction. When I record I put together a beat that goes with the song as early in the process as possible... ie one of the first steps after recording a guide guitar and vocal or piano and vocal, sometimes recorded using a click track playing in my headphones. I then construct the beat against that guide track. Even if I was using loops I would still start with that simple guide. I know it's not going to make it to the final mix, it's just a guide for recording the other tracks. Sometimes I might just record a guide vocal and the click itself. Why the metronome/click? For me that is more related to synchronising with midi instrumentation etc. All real instruments is another matter. Bands communicate visually as well as through the music. Well rehearsed bands can "go with the mood" using subtle variations in tempo that after the fact can be difficult to recreate without the rest of the instruments playing... that is why back in the pre digital music days bands often made guide takes with the whole band playing before using the benefits of multitracks for overdubs and individual instrument replacement. Recordings that are made using the whole band playing certainly give a more authentic sound, but generally there are problems with isolation of sounds when doing that, especially in budget studios. In other words the bass spilling onto the guitar track... if you want to replace the bass it becomes harder to do as some of the old bass is present on other tracks! The fact is it is easier to deal with adding sequenced digital tracks if the real instruments have played to click. That simple fact has added to the lack of tempo variation in modern music as a means to communicate feeling through music, probably more than any other factor. In contemporary music there is very little accelerando/deccelerando. This isn't always compatible with some music genres as it robs too much "feel". So, what to do... to a great extent depends on what you want to end up with and how you are going to provide it. For example, ideally you might want a real symphony orchestra to playing accompanyment, in reality you are more likely to play those parts with a synth. If that is a detailed arrangement that could be numerous instruments arranged in a sequencer.... and here you run into the need for the real instruments to play to a click track. You can of course program accelerando or deccelerando in midi... it's just not as straight forward. You can also record midi tracks heedless of the precise tempo, varying with the real instruments... but just wait until you want to print a score, or edit the midi notes... and you will instantly think "I wish I had used a click track"! So the answer is you have to be flexible in your approach but think ahead to the needs of the song and it's arrangement, and plan your recording accordingly. In days of the past studio time was expensive, so bands generally had to practice and experiment in rehearsals... now with the profusion of home studios of a good quality bands/writers can afford more experimentation in the recording studio and then (depending on the needs of the recording) take the results of the home experiments into the studio and use that as a starting or reference point. Certainly only the rich or well sponsored bands could afford to go into a studio unprepared. A bit of a ramble but I hope I made sense!