3 ms·

> there is tons of music that has been created in the past 5+ years that exists exclusively there, and it would be a tremendous cultural loss if it were to disa

by cJ0th 11y ago

> there is tons of music that has been created in the past 5+ years that exists exclusively there, and it would be a tremendous cultural loss if it were to disappear. I don't know. We would obviously loose a fragment of history but if those tracks were so important culturally then they would have been distributed more widely. For instance, pressed on CD or vinyl or utilized in a movie or pirated in some way. While I do like soundcloud I don't get what's so special about it. My hunch is that it is not so much the website but the fact that the internet is mainstream these days. There were websites where artists could share their music and have a profile before Soundcloud. Just to name a few: Besonic, mp3.com, myownmusic ...

URSpider94 11y ago
I think you're taking a rather narrow view. soundcloud has become a storehouse not just for music, but for SOUND -- ambient environments, spoken word, audio diaries, etc. saying that anything of value is released on CD already would be like saying that the personal correspondence of Poe, Emerson, Thoreau, etc is worthless because we already have their published books. In this way, I think it's also unique vs. other music sharing sites, in that people don't typically post their recording of a Chinese night market on their CDBaby or YouTube channel ... Soundcloud:sound :: Flickr:photos
- cJ0th 11y ago
  I was merely responding to GP who just mentioned music. And I think that most of what is released on soundcloud has no substance but that is fine. > saying that anything of value is released on CD already would be like saying that the personal correspondence of Poe, Emerson, Thoreau, etc is worthless because we already have their published books. No, not at all. What I meant to imply is that if something is of worth culturally then at least some people would put some effort in keeping it alive. Like I said, it needn't be a CD. A pirated rip that is spread over bit torrent would be just as good. The bible is still around because people painstakingly copied it not because some single entity kept one copy alive for good. As far as general sounds are concerned, there are other places like freesound.org or archive.org. Thus I don't think soundlcoud has a monopoly on sound.
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    I get your point, and I think it's a reasonable point of view. I guess my belief is a little different -- I feel like people are fairly bad judges of what something is worth culturally. Sure, we get the high points right, but the Internet is chock full of stories of undiscovered genius that nearly ended up in the trash bin. See for example http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/02/18/found-at-auction-the-unseen-photographs-of-a-legend-that-never-was/ http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/02/18/found-at-auction-th... Soundcloud contains an incredible collection of sound clips. If you take the virtual bulldozer to it, then you're just increasing the chance that something of value doesn't get copied over to archive.org or freesound.org, because the original owner isn't willing or able to do so.
    - cJ0th 11y ago
      That's quite true. Trusting a company to stay alive for ever is a problematic strategy, though. I guess the best we can do is to encourage people not to upload their stuff to soundcloud or any other for-profit website in the first place if marketing their stuff is not what they aim for.
ghaff 11y ago
It's generally unfortunate when major batches of content--whether MP3s or an online magazine--end up inaccessible to the future. And I find it a bit worrisome that a relatively small non-profit plays such an outsized role in archiving the Internet. That said, a huge number of works that people create have always ended up in the trash, thrown out, or archived only in a few obscure places. What makes it a bit frustrating with digital is that it's relatively practical to save so much more--if perhaps not necessarily everything that's even been posted to a public site--but few really good mechanisms (or funding) to do so.
- cJ0th 11y ago
  I am slightly optimistic that we will find better ways to archive important media in the future. However, there is also the danger that people will get too obsessed with the past and hold onto highly problematic issues that otherwise would just fade away. In other words, archiving stuff promotes all kinds of fundamentalism.
baddox 11y ago
The trouble is that cultural importance is an aggregation of the preferences and behavior of millions of people, but hosting and backing up digital content requires deliberate action (and money) from individuals. In other words, stuff doesn't just automatically get hosted and backed up because a bunch of people enjoy the stuff.
- cJ0th 11y ago
  I think we have to accept that life is messy and there won't be a perfect solution but many different tools that enable us to keep more and more stuff alive. Peer2peer technology could be part of the solution. Spreading stuff on bit torrent doesn't require too much work from an individual.

by cJ0th 11y ago

URSpider94 11y ago

I think you're taking a rather narrow view. soundcloud has become a storehouse not just for music, but for SOUND -- ambient environments, spoken word, audio diaries, etc. saying that anything of value is released on CD already would be like saying that the personal correspondence of Poe, Emerson, Thoreau, etc is worthless because we already have their published books. In this way, I think it's also unique vs. other music sharing sites, in that people don't typically post their recording of a Chinese night market on their CDBaby or YouTube channel ... Soundcloud:sound :: Flickr:photos

cJ0th 11y ago
I was merely responding to GP who just mentioned music. And I think that most of what is released on soundcloud has no substance but that is fine. > saying that anything of value is released on CD already would be like saying that the personal correspondence of Poe, Emerson, Thoreau, etc is worthless because we already have their published books. No, not at all. What I meant to imply is that if something is of worth culturally then at least some people would put some effort in keeping it alive. Like I said, it needn't be a CD. A pirated rip that is spread over bit torrent would be just as good. The bible is still around because people painstakingly copied it not because some single entity kept one copy alive for good. As far as general sounds are concerned, there are other places like freesound.org or archive.org. Thus I don't think soundlcoud has a monopoly on sound.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  I get your point, and I think it's a reasonable point of view. I guess my belief is a little different -- I feel like people are fairly bad judges of what something is worth culturally. Sure, we get the high points right, but the Internet is chock full of stories of undiscovered genius that nearly ended up in the trash bin. See for example http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/02/18/found-at-auction-the-unseen-photographs-of-a-legend-that-never-was/ http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/02/18/found-at-auction-th... Soundcloud contains an incredible collection of sound clips. If you take the virtual bulldozer to it, then you're just increasing the chance that something of value doesn't get copied over to archive.org or freesound.org, because the original owner isn't willing or able to do so.
  - cJ0th 11y ago
    That's quite true. Trusting a company to stay alive for ever is a problematic strategy, though. I guess the best we can do is to encourage people not to upload their stuff to soundcloud or any other for-profit website in the first place if marketing their stuff is not what they aim for.

ghaff 11y ago

It's generally unfortunate when major batches of content--whether MP3s or an online magazine--end up inaccessible to the future. And I find it a bit worrisome that a relatively small non-profit plays such an outsized role in archiving the Internet. That said, a huge number of works that people create have always ended up in the trash, thrown out, or archived only in a few obscure places. What makes it a bit frustrating with digital is that it's relatively practical to save so much more--if perhaps not necessarily everything that's even been posted to a public site--but few really good mechanisms (or funding) to do so.

cJ0th 11y ago
I am slightly optimistic that we will find better ways to archive important media in the future. However, there is also the danger that people will get too obsessed with the past and hold onto highly problematic issues that otherwise would just fade away. In other words, archiving stuff promotes all kinds of fundamentalism.

baddox 11y ago

The trouble is that cultural importance is an aggregation of the preferences and behavior of millions of people, but hosting and backing up digital content requires deliberate action (and money) from individuals. In other words, stuff doesn't just automatically get hosted and backed up because a bunch of people enjoy the stuff.

cJ0th 11y ago
I think we have to accept that life is messy and there won't be a perfect solution but many different tools that enable us to keep more and more stuff alive. Peer2peer technology could be part of the solution. Spreading stuff on bit torrent doesn't require too much work from an individual.