What is Youtube to you?

[Julio Di Benedetto]

I copied theses quotes to start a new thread from the Now Playing conversation about Youtube......


"Interesting to hear that youtube is used these days by lots of people primarily to browse for music."...Pete Kelly


"That only bothers me is if the music is up there without the artist's or label's consent.  It's not unusual to see entire albums up there, and I would be surprised if most of the postings had prior consent.  The default assumption these days seems to be that you must have consented to it, even if you didn't know about it or didn't see it up there when you last checked."... Forrest Fang


"Don't think audiophiles would be going to YouTube for stealing music or anything.  I see it as a good form of promotion."....drone on


"What drone on said. The top referrer to my site is YouTube, with an average bounce rate of 35%. In my case, it's an excellent form of promotion."....Altus


"Yes, but that's the individual artist or label's decision to make, not the listener's.  I'm completely OK with the occasional piece of mine appearing on a blog mix, for example.  What I'm not OK with is a person posting one of my releases in its entirety anywhere in any form without my consent or my label's. This has happened more than once and I've had to sent take down notices."....Forrest Fang


"While I agree with what Forrest says (I wouldn't be best pleased if someone uploded one of my albums without my permission), I still think it's where a lot of people are going to find new music, so I make a video (usually a montage) whenever I release something and put it up on the choob.

I can't think of better ways to get it 'out there'. soundcloud (for example) doesn't work in that way, in my experience."....Pete Kelly


"When music that is mentioned here in the "Now Playing" thread that I might be interested in I follow whatever links are offered and also head to youtube which usually has a fair share of the artists music  to help me decide in my purchase.  It is a great resource.  I agree with Forrest about artists rights yet most of the youtube post I listen to have so much admiration for the music being posted its hard to fault it. 

Really a lot of my music purchasing decisions are often based more on youtube than the artist websites because of the silly 30 second sound clip rule that many adhere.....perhaps a Youtube thread?"...Julio Di Benedetto


"Pete and Julio,

I know there can be an inherent tension between an artist or a small label's rights and a listener's desire to hear as music as he or she can for as cheap as possible, and that YouTube for some fulfills that need alone, while other use it as a basis for experimenting with purchasing new music.  Ultimately, if musicmaking can no longer pay for itself and, instead, musicians continue to lose money paying for mastering, licensing of photos and artwork, you will have fewer musicians able or willing to do this at a continued loss and I think the pool of available music will gradually become the poorer for it.  If listeners truly respect the musicians whose music they like, they should pay for it, unless the musician chooses to make it available for free.  I try to balance my pay releases with some "free" material, such as my "Seeds of Memory" EP on Thomas Park's Treetrunk netlabel, as a way of giving those unfamiliar with my work a taste of what I do.

I buy quite a bit of music, physical and virtual, so I try to put money where my mouth is, as I think it's the right thing to do."...Forrest Fang


"What you say here Forrest is becoming a disturbing reality, or perhaps is a reality.  The idea of a pool of music becoming a puddle is a sad picture.  Some might say that there is so much out there that maybe its not a terrible thing yet it would be for the wrong reason.  All suffer for sure.

I feel that artists / musicians need to step up their personal exposure via websites / Bandcamp etc....and offer music fans a decent amount of music to listen to to help the purchasing process and thus avoid the need for youtube browsing.  This is my reason for going to youtube because I often cant find the music discussed here.  30 second sound clips @ amazon, itunes & cdbay does not promoted sales in IMHO. I realize that what you say Forrest goes much deeper and  started with the Napster thing and now "Free" is the first step towards success 

This is a huge topic.....one worth chatting about for musicians and even more so music lovers."....Julio Di Benedetto


"This is an interesting topic. You guys should create a separate thread for it so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle."....Chris23
 

[petekelly]

Yeah, Youtube's audio quality is very poor, but I think that it shows that we live in an increasingly visually orientated culture, where people (the majority of ?) prefer to listen to music with a visual element. I went through a phase of making a considerable number ofvideos and uploading to my channel for that reason.
Personally I use it primarily to rediscover classics that I've heard throughout my musical life (just revisited 'White punks on dope' by the Tubes !)
Paypal are weasels and they take their cut from pretty much everyone, but they seem to have a monopoly of sorts. Spotify is increasing it's artist royalty payments, but they still pay very little. I wouldn't describe Bandcamp as greedy at all, they charge you nothing if you want to give your work away and I don't recall that they take 30% either.

However, the bigger point is Forrest' s point (which I've made it myself ocassion), I can see that some artists may well just call it a day when they are finding it more difficult to cover their costs and music will be the poorer for it. Releasing music isn't a 'level playing field' nowadays, just because everyone can do it.

[Altus]

Audio quality is far from stellar on YouTube, but for the purposes of sampling or discovering music, it's certainly good enough.

I don't agree that sites like PayPal and Bandcamp are greedy for taking a cut. They're businesses. They have overhead costs and staff that need to be paid. This money has to come from somewhere.

Regarding Bandcamp, their pricing structure is very fair. By the way, they only take 10%, which is ridiculously low.
http://bandcamp.com/pricing

[petekelly]

I stand by what I said about Paypal - they take a cut from everyone, all those ebay sales - everything. They are rolling in it.

Slightly off-topic, I used to think Youtube was just vehicle for inanity and general juvenile stuff that didn't interest me, but now I think it's a valuable resource for information and news which is out of the reach of the mainstream media. Sure, there's a pile of nonsense there, but using your judgement, you can find out about things that you wouldn't do ordinarily.

[APK]

Isn't it the case that you can upload higher quality audio with YouTube if you want? As with their video options too. It isn't all the same low quality.

And not everyone feels the need for the very best quality audio, many are using low budget audio systems/ear buds etc. and would probably be happy to have the album for free at that quality.

I'm surprised that people don't mention the streaming on Bandcamp. If all the tracks are streaming and it is so easy to record that stream, then it is like having free albums to download. I only just discovered that on Bandcamp you have to be a Pro user and pay a monthly fee to be able to turn a track into non-streamable.

I'm on the side of an artist's personal rights. Putting up an odd sample or perhaps a track is not so bad, but putting up a whole album without permission is ignoring those rights and ownership. People should be more respectful.

[chris23]

I rarely preview albums via YouTube unless they appear in the Discog's video pane when I'm looking something up.

Here is what I have observed regarding my own purchasing habits:

1. I'm more likely to buy something when I can first stream the entire release. Although I think it is wise for labels and artists to put previews, montages, ans samples on their websites, the simple fact of the matter is that I'm risk adverse; I am more likely to spend money on something I've heard and know I will like than something I can only preview in 30 sec clips.

There is no shortage of good music out there. I buy about 1 CD and maybe 2 digital albums a week. Why pay for something that you can't be sure about when you can buy something you know you like?

2. Bandcamp provides an incredibly convenient mechanism for pre-viewing potential purchases. Moreover, because of the social media component, a large number of my purchases are based on seeing what like-minded people are buying. One of the fun parts of Bandcamp is that it enables you to "follow" other fans and see, via a feed, what they are buying. This is a great way to learn about new music. (And it involves no active social media presence on the part of the artist or label. Bandcamp, in other words, provides free  advertising via word of mouth. Not bad for a 10% cut that also covers hosting fees.)

3. About 50% to 66% of my purchases are digital. I'm a collector at heart, so I'd always rather have physical media than digital files. But I can't afford to buy that much material and the shipping costs from overseas are killer. The implication of this I that I'm more likely to buy a digital album if it is priced well. I would probably drop 5 USD on an album that I like with no debate. But if I see a digital album for close to 10 USD when the CD is 12 USD, sometimes I end up in a state of indecision that simply leads me to buy something else entirely.

[Altus]

Isn't it the case that you can upload higher quality audio with YouTube if you want?

Yup. Like Immersion said, you can encode your file with uncompressed audio so it only gets compressed once instead of twice when uploading to YouTube. That's what I do.

Regarding Bandcamp, if someone is going to rip the streams (there's a very easy way to do it via Firefox), they weren't going to buy it anyway. Just another form of piracy I guess. Agreed it's a shame they don't allow you to choose which tracks you want available to stream without paying $10/month.

Immersion, that sucks about the high rates you're getting for PayPal. In Canada, the rate is 2.9% + $0.30 (i.e. $3.20 fee on a $100 sale). I guess the rate is higher in different countries? Believe me, I've heard horror stories about PayPal, but I've been using them for years to buy stuff and receive money through my site. Never had an issue.

And what are they doing with all that money? Probably rolling around in it.

[Julio Di Benedetto]

I think because Im so used to watch videos, mostly Youtube and sometimes Vimeo, of for example surfing footage or TED or gear demo's or silly / funny cat videos on my girlfriends Facebook page I don't  associate Youtube with piracy and artist rights.  It really never occurred to me.

As Ive said Youtube is a resource for me to listen to demos of music I can find fuller length examples or to discover artist music Im not familiar with which assists me in my purchasing decisions.

Have I ever used Youtube as a Video Jukebox....yes, not for ambient but more for music from my teenage years, pop and synth pop.  I'll get an Abba song stuck in my head and have to hear it 

As for anyone recording a youtube stream....why both

Personally I dont feel Youtube music videos are the same as file sharing, maybe because of the visual element where posters have gone to often great lengths to create a montage to accompany the music that they did not write but are posting.  File sharing had / has a hoarding characteristic to it....."70,000 song and counting and all free"

I suppose though infringement is infringement when you boil it down.

[Julio Di Benedetto]

This past week, Sam at Projekt made me aware of a site that not only had links to my music that had been posted to youtube in video form, but also had stripped the music from the videos and made them available as MP3s.  The fidelity is of course not the same, but besides the rights issue, that's a problem, too, if you don't want to see your music being presented in a lo-fi fashion.

This really does illustrate  your point.....the rights issue and the lo fi aspect after all the precious time mixing and mastering.  That would make me rather 

[El culto]

IMO the howling concerning copyright issue on Youtube is completely overrated in the discussion.

I have a Youtube account and for each new release I upload at last one music video (sometimes 2 videos). Each week I use the search on Youtube to check for possible illegal uploads. If somethings appears, I simply use the copyright complain form provided by Youtube - almost always the illegal content is deleted between 2-4 hours. So, the copyright concerns some are mentioning here seems to me like a "phantom complaining discussion" because everyone has clearly the option to control/sort out that matter by doing something actively.

Greetings,
Tomas

[Julio Di Benedetto]

On the upside we get to see creative videos + music from talented artists like Tomas, Pete & Anthony.  This is where Youtube really shines for me regarding music, and my second  video favorite.....anything to do with Wolves  .

P.S. Any video work from you Forrest or made with your consent?

[El culto]

IMO the howling concerning copyright issue on Youtube is completely overrated in the discussion.

I have a Youtube account and for each new release I upload at last one music video (sometimes 2 videos). Each week I use the search on Youtube to check for possible illegal uploads. If somethings appears, I simply use the copyright complain form provided by Youtube - almost always the illegal content is deleted between 2-4 hours. So, the copyright concerns some are mentioning here seems to me like a "phantom complaining discussion" because everyone has clearly the option to control/sort out that matter by doing something actively.

Greetings,
Tomas

Yes, getting a copyrighted file off of Youtube is much more straightforward than it used to be.  But I think it points to a greater ethical issue about whether music has become devalued to the point where it viewed by many as a "free" commodity by default.  It is not simply a matter of complaining that the car is replacing the hose and buggy.  The so-called new business model leaves musicians and small labels out of the picture almost entirely, and companies like Pandora are actively seeking to cut what are already miniscule royalties any further.  This may not have any effect on people who offer their music for free, who are hobbyists or who already operate at a loss, but it certainly discourages throwing more good money after bad.

If that amounts to "howling," then I guess I am a wolf.

Forrest

For the new business model:

At the end of the day there are only 2 kind of listeners…those who can "live or feel the music" and are willing to support the artists and those who rip them off by just having "something new" in their collection. Finally, even all those rippers constantly do need new music (like a drug), but personally i don't think they will ever see and understand value in any music they can get in this way. For them it´s just a silly hobby to collect and build a library which has no meaning at all…anything they have is just replaceable and kind of "meaningless" in long terms…for me, those people aren´t be able to give value to music or art, because two weeks later they urgently need the next release (by artist x or y) which is then available…. and so on. Of course, the availability of illegal music for any artist is critical, but even so it´s also a question who "gets it" - those rippers have anything but also nothing because after some time they deeply understand inside that any of this stuff they own is just based on something like a repeating pattern "great i have it" - no matter how many music they will get by this illegal way, I strongly believe it won't make the person happy about their music collection - finally for them it´s just based on collector behaviors. So, I don´t think it´s really worth to spend any time analyzing those "listeners" who are looking for a musical quickie only :-D

Greetings ,
Tomas

[Julio Di Benedetto]

I will look for those videos Forrest...thanks

I feel the business models of the music world are long gone and maybe thats ok as they were very exclusionary.  Few had personal studios and pro studios or even semi pro were expensive and means of distribution were also very limited.

Today the opposite is true which has ultimate lead to a free music market place and one that few artist can survive on their creations. 

My personal music efforts are labors of love funded with the desire to share and Im under no delusion that the money I put into production and musical toys will be reimbursed  so to speak by music sales....it really does not change anything.  I think I can say "WE"...are driven by elements beyond finical gain.  I dont believe it is total motivating factor.  Certainly it is good to be recognized critically and also monetarily but the critical will fire up an artist and sustain him or her creativity much more than the money.....Ok I am delusional 

[Julio Di Benedetto]

At the end of the day there are only 2 kind of listeners…those who can "live or feel the music" and are willing to support the artists and those who rip them off by just having "something new" in their collection.

The only thing I might add is that some don't realize they "are ripping off" it simply normal to do so.......solutions? 

[Julio Di Benedetto]

It's sort of funny in a way, the last Youtube post I made here was "Disintegrating Loops #6" in the now playing thread  without a thought to anything we are discussing....it was just there. I did not think.

Should I have?

[petekelly]

I'II say one thing about the choob, it's become a very good resource for tutorials for all manner of gear. I know that some people post videos that are pretty clueless, but on the whole, there's a lot of useful information there. I dare say it's the first point of call for a lot people (particularly if they aren't eager to read manuals !)

One thing I don't understand is how some (pretty hopeless) gear tutorials get so many views and comments and other really useful stuff hardly gets any ? Was there some 'buying' of views and the likes in the past ? I suppose one reason could be the usual reciprocal flattery of social media in general.

No lupine laments here !

[jdh]

Concerning auditioning music,I use You Tube to hear complete tracks before purchasing a FLAC version elsewhere.The audio quality as mentioned is horrible on You Tube but for a one time listen,it is fine.Bandcamp is my default site for listening first.If the music I want to hear is not there,I go to You Tube.
Similar to Chris,I will not buy anything,or nearly anything without hearing the complete track.I remember in the day going to my local record store and playing the complete LP or CD before buying.As an example,a recent artist who I greatly enjoy and have 8 titles of put up a 23 minute track for purchase.Out of those 23 minutes,20 were ambient bliss,3 were noise.I did not buy.If I had not heard that 3 minutes of noise prior on Bandcamp or You Tube,I would have purchased and it would have gone into the bin.
Sorry,a 30 second or 90 clip of a 20 minute track in 2014 does not cut it.
I have also noticed that on BC,pricing is all over the map (cannot figure out how an artist determines the price in the first place) but that yes,in some cases downloads are more expensive than the physical CD which baffles me.Plus then you have all the different currencies and exchange rates.I do think that all music is worth something.Even if an artists is offering something for free,if I enjoy it and will listen to it over and over,well worth the price of admission.After all,you can choose to buy or not,listen or not.Pay or not.

[chris23]

It's sort of funny in a way, the last Youtube post I made here was "Disintegrating Loops #6" in the now playing thread  without a thought to anything we are discussing....it was just there. I did not think.

Should I have?

In my opinion: yes.

There are two outcomes for people who hadn't heard the album before. After listening to the samples you linked: 

(a) they decided not to buy the album
(b) they decided to buy the album.

In the first scenario, the artist neither lost nor gained anything. (And there is always a chance that the listener was intrigued enough to return to the choice in the future.)  In the second, the artist gained something. Something > nothing.

There is a chance that there was someone out there who was considering buying the album "site unseen" in 2014, but who has now realized that there is no point in doing so (thanks to your link) because they can hear it for free on YouTube. My intuition is that this probability is smaller than that associated with outcome (b).

--

I don't know the right answers when it comes to this stuff. But my intuitions align a bit with Tomas's. I suspect that people who take the liberty to enjoy the work of artists without compensating them will not suddenly start spending money on art if the free material were to disappear. The free material (samples, streams, YouTubez) is helpful to paying fans. To not make it available to prevent the non-paying fans from enjoying it does a disservice to the paying fans and, ultimately (I suspect), the artist.

Having said that, I also resonate with one of Forrest's points. Namely, sometimes I worry that the ease with which music can be distributed these days may have broader effects on the way we value art in our culture. The ease with which I can obtain good music makes my life more rewarding (as a fan), but that same convenience might lead others devalue the art or to take it for granted.

[Julio Di Benedetto]

It's sort of funny in a way, the last Youtube post I made here was "Disintegrating Loops #6" in the now playing thread  without a thought to anything we are discussing....it was just there. I did not think.

Should I have?

In my opinion: yes.

There are two outcomes for people who hadn't heard the album before. After listening to the samples you linked: 

(a) they decided not to buy the album
(b) they decided to buy the album.

In the first scenario, the artist neither lost nor gained anything. (And there is always a chance that the listener was intrigued enough to return to the choice in the future.)  In the second, the artist gained something. Something > nothing.

There is a chance that there was someone out there who was considering buying the album "site unseen" in 2014, but who has now realized that there is no point in doing so (thanks to your link) because they can hear it for free on YouTube. My intuition is that this probability is smaller than that associated with outcome (b).

Interesting Chris......I feel that the act of sharing should only work in one way and that is a positive one, however a very negative aspect also exists as is being discussed.  Ultimately if I want to promote the music I love and want to bring it to the attention of others I suppose I will have to live with any negative, unseen scenarios because the worst thing possible would be silence. 

The question remains.....with this free music mentality ingrained in society, what is the solution.....i dont know but so long as we keep talking about the music we love and there is exposure in all forms then it will prevail.

Good debate.       

[El culto]

I don't think you broke the law by posting the Youtube link to that album...

Clearly not!

The video is up since 13.09.2012 (!!!) with currently +/- 47000 views

If the artist/label (in more than 6 months) hasn´t done something against this full upload, then it seems he´s/they´re fine with it for whatever reason. The argument "he/the label may haven´t seen it yet" won´t work at all concerning Youtube.

Greetings,
Tomas