cheddatom

I'm pretty sure that if anyone downloaded some terrortones they would check out the website. Half the appeal of the CD for me was the little comic that you get. If all you did was download a torrent then obviously you'd miss out on that extra connection, but most people investigate IME, especially as it's so easy with google.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340277882' post='1702085'] ...Surely we can all agree that this is a bad thing? No one wants to work without being paid for it. [/quote] I think we could all agree on that. it's a bit more complicated though. If a band is a self-marketing entity, what about special offers or free giveaways, which are seen as acceptable in most industries.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340275275' post='1702022'] Remember when I was arsing on about music radio earlier? And that it was dying? This will be one of the reasons why... It's only a small step beyond the historic arrangement, except it puts prattling DJ's out of a job. [/quote] Personally, I think that's a great thing, but obviously not for struggling DJs

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340271703' post='1701930'] The owners of Spotify have monetized it very nicely thank you at the expense of the artists to the point where their royalty rate is much less than that of the the old selling recordings model. [/quote] So the major labels should set up their own version and distribute more profits to themselves and their artists. Or negotiate with spotify. I like last FM but no idea what their royalty rate is. These services which predict what you'll enjoy are great, and people really do find new music from them.

I would suspect many more people listen to music on streaming services than actually download torrents. Some of these streaming services are illegal but that's not obvious to the average consumer. It seems to me, artists and labels should be demanding more revenue from these new mediums, as opposed to arguing about file-sharing which is much less common IME

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340206964' post='1701070'] Don't knock it. If the swashbucklers of the 60's hadn't bullied, bribed and cajoled their acts onto the airwaves and news pages we'd still be listening to Doris f***ing Day.[/quote] I totally disagree. I can recognise good sh*t, even when it is sh*t. There has always been a lot of sh*t sh*t marketed by major labels, and depending on the marketing, people buy it regardless of the fact it's not even good sh*t. Not every act needs a development budget, and i'd argue that the best acts don't need it at all. I'm in over my head here (if it wasn't obvious) so shall now bow out of the thread, crushed under the heavy desire to get the f*** home and sink a beer.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340205633' post='1701035'] ...Even when I worked on a specialist music station... Anything that wasn't signed didn't get on...[/quote] And you would admit that a great number of sh*t bands have been signed up and pushed to radios, right? [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340205633' post='1701035'] Anyway, back OT, Same as with multi-channel TV, the internet hasn't opened things up or improved matters. It's just lowered the barriers and the quality threshold's gone with it. Which is what makes me laugh about illegal downloading - 25,000 tracks on the hard drive and only thirty-odd are any good. [/quote] so you're saying that record labels filtered out the sh*te, but you also seem to agree that the record companies ensured the sh*te got played.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] So, bands that broke through off the back of the internet? Arctic Monkeys? and - er ... [/quote] I'm actually very interested in this question. There was a lot of suggestion that the Arctic Monkeys owed more to major labels than they did the internet. Personally I have heard a hell of a lot of new bands through Spotify and friends, and I can only assume these bands would not have come to my attention if it weren't for the internet. Perhaps the majority of "airtime" on spotify is taken up by major label acts though - I don't know, it'd be very interesting to see the relevant statistics.

when I was at school we used to complain about how the radio stations always played the "commercial crap" and how little merit there was to the acts that were "broken" by the music industry. Rightly so! There is some sh*te on the radio and always has been. Getting more acts out there is only going to open up the possibility of there being less sh*te on the radio. Getting less acts out there will reduce this possibility. Isn't it simple maths? Obviously if you want to be in a famous band and get rich from it then the fact that every band can market itself is a big downer. But if you ignore the economic side of the debate, the internet is clearly exposing more people to more music, and this can only be a good thing in terms of "musical merit".

From what I have read, the 60s and 70s saw an explosion of festivals and touring bands, and a lot of bands were able to make a reasonable living from their music. (we can argue about whether the music was good or original or if there was much variety between acts...). This began to decline in the 80s and there has been a steady decline since - totally un-related to the internet. At the same time the number of musicians and actually recorded music has increased almost exponentially, due to developments in technology. [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] ...The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever... [/quote] Well, yeh, and I don't think anyone can really disagree with that.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340198365' post='1700853'] Well, obviously I'd say [i]fewer[/i] than 20-30 years ago. For one thing, all those medium sized gigs are gone. Basically, live music is either Enormodrome gigs by dreadful old dinosaurs / simpering pop kids. Or it's a bunch of no hopers down the Frog and Dog. Nothing in the middle, see. In my day you could see name bands in 1000 cap venues. Where are they now, the likes of ... (cont p.94)[/quote] Yes but I think "your day" is longer ago than you realise, and the decline of these medium sized gigs started in the mid-80s when I was born! Way before the internet. I'm always ready to be proven wrong though, as I often am! [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340198365' post='1700853'] Less. Definitley less. The internet has helped thousands of musos to find interesting bands both new and old. And copy them. Cookie-cutter dross, these days. Play me any new band you like and I'll find you a clear precedent inside half an hour. Everyone's ghastly and everything's bollocks. [/quote] Again I think it's always been the case that the majority of music will not be particularly original. A lot of bands people think are original actually grew out of a "movement" or "scene" consistnig of several bands which all sound the same. If not, you can be sure some bands will follow and produce similar sounding stuff. This is always going to happen. I really don't think there's any rational argument to say that the internet has diminished the possibilities for "original" music. On the other hand, along with other technology, it has meant that a lot more bands can record and share their music than before, and obviously this means that the few actually good/original acts do have a chance of being heard. Compared to the tiny few who were picked up by the music industry in the past, I think it's obvious this is an improvement.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340196175' post='1700773'] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? [/quote] I'd guess more, what would you guess? Anyone got any stats? [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340196175' post='1700773'] Is more good music being made or less?[/quote] MORE deffinitely more. I find new music through friends sharing music with me. They will find it in the same way or on straming services such as spotify or last FM. I like the project Piratebay have where they'll stick a new artist's torrent (with their permission) on the homepage to publicise it. There are plenty of grey areas here and I would never dare to suggest I have it sussed.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340192144' post='1700650'] No but there's a difference between getting a single track from a band (in amongst a load of others) on a mix tape from a mate and downloading their entire recorded output because you're too cheap to pay for it. [/quote] Sure, there's a big difference. Personally, I download music ilegally in the following scenarios: The album is no longer available for purchase I want to hear a song/band and the streaming options available are sh*t quality. (here I would download and listen, if I don't like it I delete it, if I do I buy it - I equate this to streaming media services and maybe i'm wrong to do that) I feel quite comfortable with that but this debate is making me question myself. Certainly if any of my bands' albums were ilegally downloaded it would cost me the price of the album, but then no-one has ever listened to my bands and we're not selling any anyway. The "free publicity" would be welcome.

Copyright infringement is not always morally wrong in my opinion. For example, if my friend makes me a mix-tape, that doesn't seem morally wrong to me. Am i wrong?

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340184414' post='1700440'] There are many ways to hear music before you buy it without thieving it. Your illegal actions mean that loss has occurred. Just because that loss led to some gain does not make your illegal action right or good. If you beat the sh*t out of me and that inspires me to become a Karate black belt, I'm not going to thank you for beating the sh*t out of me, am I. [/quote] Well i'm certainly not going to start critiquing anyone's analogies... If you say "band A is selling song X for 50p, anyone who downloads song X and never buys a legal copy is depriving band A of 50p" - you can't argue with that. The pirates have deprived that act of 50p and there's no recompense. If that's as complicated as you're going to allow the debate to be, fair enough. Personally, I think it's a little more nuanced than that. My friend gave me a Ben & jason mix tape once and it was so good I wanted to get all of their albums. I would have bought them all too, but some are "out of print". If I ever see them in a 2nd hand shop I will buy them but I admit, I did download one of them illegally, and I'm very glad I did. It's amazing music and there's no other way for me to get it. when i was a kid we all used to make each other mix tapes. Were we *****?

So, have I got this right?.. If I download a song illegally, i'm a ****, even if i've contributed to that artist's income in other ways If I stream the same song legally, i'm a good guy.

Is the rec out just a stereo output? If so it's probably for outputting a full mix, and so should be after the faders - they should have an effect. It may have direct outputs or record outputs on each channel, which would be pre fader and not effected by the faders.

the limiter at the end of my chain is just limiting peaks. Of course I can still get a volume boost! I also have compression at the start of my chain.

I like to use a limiter all the time. I use them when mixing to control any peaks. In conjunction with removing the "very lows" (a la thumpinator) I find it gives me more headroom from my amp without any audible changes to my tone.

Hmmm, for me it wouldn't work. I like the idea of seperate channels and I do that to an extent, but I wouldn't want a clean delay mixed in with dirty bass for example. A 4 loop box, each loop with EQ on and an EQ on the output sounds like a very useful box though, i'm sure SFX would knock one up. also, you need a limiter on the output :-p

so are these four channels to be used independantly or will you be mixing them?

Are you deffinitely monitoring the main stereo outputs of the mixer?

well there's probably an input gain setting on the soundcard - could be a knob on the actual box or a setting in the software. If you're maxing it out then you'll have to add more gain in Audacity.

I never get compliments, just questions about my pedals