|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - sharpshot
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 ... 263
1151
« on: February 27, 2015, 05:18 »
I wonder if Yuri is reading his get out clause 
1152
« on: February 27, 2015, 04:56 »
I don't like inexperienced reviewers guessing what buyers want. If a buyer can't find what they want, they will go to another site. So I think sites should accept almost everything. They can make their site look the way they want it through the search. Removing images that have sold well or that are likely to sell well costs us and the site time and money, makes no sense to me.
In theory it might be nice to only have a collection of images that fit a sites ethos but who wants to end up like ImageVortex?
1153
« on: February 27, 2015, 04:44 »
They usually sort out problems like this, unlike some other sites. I will wait and see their response.
1154
« on: February 26, 2015, 10:57 »
Muse only made $34 million last year according to Forbes, so you can see that having their music on youtube is hitting them
1155
« on: February 26, 2015, 05:19 »
1156
« on: February 26, 2015, 04:41 »
Its funny that young people often think old music is rubbish and older people think the opposite.
hahaha good luck finding a modern band on par with The Who or The Queen ... keep dreaming, young guys, it's a creative desert nowadays.
I prefer Muse to Queen. There's maybe 10 Queen songs I really like, their last few albums didn't do it for me at all.
1157
« on: February 26, 2015, 04:36 »
Maybe Ingimage should take notice of what's happening with Getty/istock? They took away any incentive for non-exclusives to supply istock and now it's in decline, while Shutterstock is doing well. Why don't some other sites learn that lesson? Pond5 is doing great paying 50%, I know they are mostly a video site but I think it still proves that paying their contributors a reasonable amount had helped them become successful.
1158
« on: February 26, 2015, 04:27 »
No surprise that istock is declining. How many of us have removed large chunks of our portfolios or left? They made so many changes and the site never seems to work as well as their rivals. Its inevitable that buyers will end up looking elsewhere and then there's no reason to come back.
Going to be interesting to see how this pans out.
1159
« on: February 25, 2015, 18:35 »
A royalty % less than half of Pond5 and alamy, doesn't get me motivated to apply.
1160
« on: February 25, 2015, 16:35 »
Its funny that young people often think old music is rubbish and older people think the opposite.
A lot of those 80's hits were covers of older song or were heavily inspired by them. Sometimes I prefer the most recent versions, like "Barbra Streisand" by Duck Sauce that uses a sample from "Gotta Go Home" by Boney M that was more than a bit inspired by "Hallo Bimmelbahn" by Nighttrain.
1161
« on: February 25, 2015, 06:39 »
I listen to the first album by Jake Bugg and the 2 La Roux albums a lot. Nothing groundbreaking about either of them and its easy to spot their influences but the music is good and listening to something more recent is refreshing.
Who cares if most of modern music is rubbish? I think there's more music being made now than ever before and even if I only like 1% of it, that's probably more than I have time to listen to.
1162
« on: February 25, 2015, 05:27 »
Hobostocker, not liking new music is just a sign of getting old. There's always people saying that new music isn't as good as it used to be but they just can't appreciate it. And every generation steals from those that went before them, even the Beatles did it. Here's a few examples http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2014-02-09/10-little-known-songs-that-inspired-beatles-classics/
i can tell you a few days ago i had the guts to listen to the entire iTunes top-40 and even the whole Beatport top-100 .. yes one by one ... i spent the whole day on it because i felt i had to "get up with the times".
it turns out i liked barely 5% of those songs and in a few cases i almost needed to throw up (Dubstep, Brostep, Trap, HipHop) and lower the volume to preserve my sanity.
sure, maybe i'm getting old but maybe this music just sucks despite being mixed and mastered very very good.
my impression is producers are totally clueless about what to do next, all they're doing is remixing over and over old stuff and cloning all the top-10 hits in the hope that something will stick on the wall, i mean even using the exact same sounds this especially visible on Beatport.
so, is it my fault being an old f-art or today's music is incredibly boring and predictable ? we'll see ... in the meantime i won't play that cr-ap anytime soon.
I think people grow tired of new music because they don't listen to it all the time. Music grows on you, the more you listen, the more you get in to it. How many times have you listened to that old stuff? And there's so much music around now, lots of the good stuff doesn't even get in to the charts. Try these:- St. Vincent (David Byrne is back) Mean Lady Sleaford Mods (not for the faint of heart!) Metronomy Lusts
1164
« on: February 24, 2015, 12:48 »
I sent my email to [email protected] yesterday and have only had an automated response so far. Hopefully they are working on their announcement that they have screwed this up and will go back to being an agent I think that's their only option, if they like making money.
1165
« on: February 24, 2015, 08:29 »
as David Byrne point pointed out, there's soooo many artists who are not cut for live shows, and i can say there are also many genres of music that cannot be played live due to the high production costs involved, what's going to happen once the only way to earn money is from streaming and a bunch of digital downloads ?
i can tell you what, they'll all stop playing music and go flipping burgers as producing music is NOT CHEAP nowadays and the cost/benefits scenario is totally stacked against musicians.
Most of the great musicians of the past didn't make any money until late in their careers and I think they made almost all their best music when they were skint. Its unfortunate that most of them don't get properly financially rewarded for their music now but it isn't stopping them making great music. Listening to a lot of music from the past year, the standard seems higher than ever. They must be making music because they love doing it. If 5% go on to make a lot of money, that's probably not much different to the other arts.
1166
« on: February 23, 2015, 18:27 »
I find it hard to believe that David Bryne and Iggy Pop couldn't live off royalties from their songs, unless they did really bad deals on their hits. It must be much harder for less successful musicians but those two should of made enough to never have to work again. I know Iggy Pop had some expensive habits and might of spent it all in his wild days but I bet he had fun doing it
i think many so called rockstars are totally inflating their real value, and if now streaming is the leading way to sell music i'm not surprised they're feeling the heat and live gigs are their last way left to make some money, problem is that even doing gigs is not exactly enriching artists like in the past, there's a good reason way even the top sellers like ACDC are gigging left and right no stop to make quick bucks while they can.
A lot of them don't seem to have a problem getting on a rich list or paying huge divorce settlements, so I disagree with you on that one. A dreadful glam rock star from the UK who is now quite rightly in prison is still allegedly making a small fortune from a few songs he wrote in the 70's. Some of them were screwed by the record companies but if that didn't happen, we wouldn't have some great songs like this one.
| <![CDATA[<a href="http://youtu.be/kqVpk0qxmfA" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://youtu.be/kqVpk0qxmfA</a>]]> |
1167
« on: February 23, 2015, 07:36 »
I find it hard to believe that David Bryne and Iggy Pop couldn't live off royalties from their songs, unless they did really bad deals on their hits. It must be much harder for less successful musicians but those two should of made enough to never have to work again. I know Iggy Pop had some expensive habits and might of spent it all in his wild days but I bet he had fun doing it
1168
« on: February 23, 2015, 05:07 »
The only question that needs to be answered is will Envato go back to being an agency, or I have no option but to leave. I will send an email now.
1169
« on: February 22, 2015, 09:28 »
Doesn't indicate how much they make from people like me who listen to streamed music but will pay for a download if they really like it. When I was a kid, I used to listen to music for free on the radio and tape it. I don't see streaming as much different, there is obviously a lot more music available now but the good stuff should always make money.
1170
« on: February 22, 2015, 05:52 »
I think I will give them until the end of the month, surely they are going to have to fix this or they might as well close now? Can't quite believe they are so slow reacting to this, a great way to lose buyers, as they are going to be looking for missing images on other sites now.
1171
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:41 »
Its a bit of a lottery and I got lucky with a $150 sale last month. I can ignore the low ones if I get the occasional big one like that.
1172
« on: January 26, 2015, 06:48 »
Took a lot of attempts to accept my UK NI number for the TIN. Why do they need that when most other sites don't ask for it? I almost gave up and closed my account.
1173
« on: January 03, 2015, 16:09 »
They might be as good as dead soon, if more contributors leave and more buyers have to go to other sites to find their images. Just goes to show that sites do need to have some respect for us. Without our images, they have nothing, I can only presume Getty intended to destroy istock all along, as they have done such a good job of it. Still doesn't make sense because Shutterstock is so strong now, so I still don't see how wrecking istock has helped them.
1174
« on: December 22, 2014, 06:44 »
I think if they were taking it seriously, they would be doing exactly what they are with images. Their USP with images is that they let people sell anything that meets their technical requirements. Pond5 seem to be doing that with video and it works very well. I see no reason why alamy should have one strategy for selling images and a completely different one for selling video. Their CEO didn't seem very enthusiastic about video in one of their question and answers videos. That's when I decided not to apply again.
1175
« on: December 20, 2014, 10:46 »
Shame they don't take video seriously. No idea why they bothered offering it when they obviously aren't fully committed. I like alamy but they should either of not bothered with video or gone for it properly. What they have now isn't good for contributors or buyers.
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 ... 263
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
