Hot songs for Blue

You RAWK, Tony... you da man... whoot. :))

Permalink

Woot! Well Done! :)

Permalink

Awesome!!! Great news for blues!

Permalink

WTG Snap!

Permalink

braw!!!:)

Permalink

Good news for the blues :-)

Permalink

Blueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee oooooo hh oooooooooooooo

:)

Permalink

Happy for the BLUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Permalink

Thank you. I'm glad. i was totally bummed when I saw that, like, half of my favorite blue accessible songs were now flagged gold :( :( but I'm really glad to have a few more choices :)

Permalink

Very nice thing to do ! Glad the Blue members have more songs to sing :)

Permalink

YEAH!
my day was made...........

t/y SS

Permalink

That is WONDERFUL!!! YaY Blue!

Permalink

Wonderful News

Permalink

hooray for bloos!!!

Permalink

... peeking round the door ...

Is it still safe in here? Phew! Seems to be. Glad to see the half-full brigade continuing the campaign :-)

Permalink

:)

Permalink

thank you so much!!!!

Permalink

I think this is wonderful news...Great idea staff!

Permalink

lol Pages 8 - 126 are 99.99% gold.... what songs were you referring to?

Permalink

Also, I wasn't being 'pessimistic' or 'negative' in saying what I said... was just being honest... TRUTHful. Like when a Dr must tell a family that their loved one died, or a collection agent calls you to collect your money... In both cases, the people (the Dr. and the collection agent) aren't really being NEGATIVE, they are just stating the facts, objectively... in fact, I laughed with my 'lol' at the beginning, because I honestly think that Tony must have been joking... I certainly hope so anyhow. Because going from about 65% of NEW songs being gold before to around 96% now... that's nuts. In no way is that 'good', no matter how you SPIN it. VERY bad for the blues... very. But, anyone can just be ultra positive and use ridiculous logic about how it ISN'T bad in relation to other things that have no association... such as... WELL, at least we're breathing AIR today! Or, well, yes, you have about 90% less songs to sing tonight, BUT, at least you still have a place to live. LMAO OK... nice way of clouding the truth...

Permalink

tony wrote:We just switched a few of our 'hot' songs over from gold to blue. You can find them listed under Sing & Record - New. Enjoy!

Edited on June 17, 2009 at 3:13 AM Permalink

@soulfulsinger: we're only talking about 5 songs here and they are listed first on the "New" releases page. The reason we did this (and will continue to do similar things) is that we want to make sure that the songs we can have available to non paying members are the most popular/recent.

Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.

Permalink

Not many songs for blue to record, most of the feature songs are subscribe only, I think everyone knew this would happen sometime in the future ,,the almighty Dollar.
I supose thats me Gone.

Permalink

Yeah!!!!!! Yippie for the blue.....i feel like a dandilion thats slowly being weeded out...

Permalink

Woopy!!!!!! 5 songs. blue got a lot taken away.
What's the good news?

Permalink

I know for extra stuff Is a good thing to pay for but don't take thing's away. Like song's that have already been blue.

Permalink

pretty soon blue is going to be a thing of the past... Just watch.

Permalink

Sorry for sounding negative but It's just looking that way.

positive... your songs are gone

negative... your song are gone

It all comes out the same way.

Permalink

That's all!!! LOL

Permalink

Thanks for your time.

Permalink

mikegarth wrote:Woopy!!!!!! 5 songs. blue got a lot taken away. What's the good news?

Permalink

Being gold is best... :D SS rules.

Permalink

Being gold is great when you can afford it! I am definitely feeling the shrinking blues but getting a chance to sing at all for free is a great blessing!

Permalink

Per wrote:

mikegarth wrote:Woopy!!!!!! 5 songs. blue got a lot taken away. What's the good news?

The good news is that we will release songs for blue members on a regular basis now (something we haven't done in a while). We will also ensure that the songs we can have available to blue are the most popular / recent songs in our library.

Permalink

Maybe old geezers like me would like to have a few of the older songs back. I know I lost over 65% of my recordings. Was thinking of going gold, but looks like SS will disappear just like sims did. Can't really see the point now. That's why I quit recording. That and the fact that my favorite genre all but disappeared. Not a lot of bluegrass at all, even in the bluegrass genre.

Permalink

redneck_enuf wrote:looks like SS will disappear just like sims did.

We're not going anywhere. In fact, the recent deals we made with all music producers (except Chartbuster) puts us in a stronger position than ever before.

I hope you stick around :)

Permalink

I don't know what everyone is getting so upset about!

It has never been a secret that the site is not totally free, and it takes MONEY to run a site like this, Why is the world freaking out because they are expecting the people ENJOYING the site to help bear the burden of MAINTAINING the site?

You want new songs?? Consider that it takes MONEY to purchase the new songs that you want to sing.

You want the servers updated, do you think that is free?

I don't think it is at ALL unreasonable that there is a limitation to the number of songs that can be stored by users who do not pay for the site, also, it is not unreasonable that the new songs coming onto the site should be accessible to people who pay to use the site, BEFORE they are accessible to the people who don't, we ALL know they are not going to be gold FOREVER.

Permalink

blarimare wrote:I don't know what everyone is getting so upset about!

It has never been a secret that the site is not totally free, and it takes MONEY to run a site like this, Why is the world freaking out because they are expecting the people ENJOYING the site to help bear the burden of MAINTAINING the site?

You want new songs?? Consider that it takes MONEY to purchase the new songs that you want to sing.

You want the servers updated, do you think that is free?

I don't think it is at ALL unreasonable that there is a limitation to the number of songs that can be stored by users who do not pay for the site, also, it is not unreasonable that the new songs coming onto the site should be accessible to people who pay to use the site, BEFORE they are accessible to the people who don't, we ALL know they are not going to be gold FOREVER.

Historically, most tracks that started out Gold/Patron-only became available to all Members for a considerable time before eventually being pulled from the servers upon expiration of MUL; new song tracks are produced all the time, so Trevor and staff have enough material to pick and choose from during the lead time needed for the licensing process. Fortunately, many song titles are available from multiple vendors, so I can plan do-overs of Recordings originally based on the now-outta-here Chartbuster tracks.

Permalink

It's not new songs I'm talking about. sure new is OK to pay for. Like new features is a great thing to pay for. I'm talking about the old songs that were blue are now turned to gold. You shouldn't take stuff away that have been here free from day one. or the lic song's come back as new and gold.

Permalink

mikegarth wrote:It's not new songs I'm talking about. sure new is OK to pay for. Like new features is a great thing to pay for. I'm talking about the old songs that were blue are now turned to gold. You shouldn't take stuff away that have been here free from day one. or the lic song's come back as new and gold.

Unfortunately we can't do exactly what we want to do due to the deals we have with content producers. For example, we are restricted in how many songs we can make available to non paying members.

Permalink

3z_rider wrote:Yeah!!!!!! Yippie for the blue.....i feel like a dandilion thats slowly being weeded out...

Know just what you mean. The trouble is, ss is still advertised as a free singing site. But to be honest, I can't be bothered with it all. I suppose a few songs are better than none. Maybe we should all adopt the 'Pollyanna' approach and just be 'glad' we have a voice to sing with lol. Or if you're like me you can always hijack your brother's gold now and then lol. Have a nice day y'all. God bless. Mary x x

Permalink

Per wrote:@soulfulsinger: we're only talking about 5 songs here and they are listed first on the "New" releases page. The reason we did this (and will continue to do similar things) is that we want to make sure that the songs we can have available to non paying members are the most popular/recent.

Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.

With all due respect per(I really do not mean this in a bad way). Isn't the fact that members are paying to use these songs the reason that the performing rights societies are pulling the plug on a lot of stuff simply because someone else is profiting from what should be going to performers and writers?

Permalink

moogaloo wrote:

Per wrote:@soulfulsinger: we're only talking about 5 songs here and they are listed first on the "New" releases page. The reason we did this (and will continue to do similar things) is that we want to make sure that the songs we can have available to non paying members are the most popular/recent.

Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.

With all due respect per(I really do not mean this in a bad way). Isn't the fact that members are paying to use these songs the reason that the performing rights societies are pulling the plug on a lot of stuff simply because someone else is profiting from what should be going to performers and writers?

Artists and writers are of course getting paid so I'm not sure what your point / question is.

Permalink

Per wrote:

redneck_enuf wrote:looks like SS will disappear just like sims did.

We're not going anywhere. In fact, the recent deals we made with all music producers (except Chartbuster) puts us in a stronger position than ever before.

I hope you stick around :)

I'll stick around to listen. But, most of the songs I did are olders country and bluegrass. Not many of them left to record now, even if I am a gold member. New country does nothing for me. I will be a paying member, but I want to have something to record when I join. I understand the reason for Chartbuster being pulled, but there are a lot of missing songs because of it. Not really complaining, just telling it like it is.

Permalink

Per wrote:

moogaloo wrote:

Per wrote:@soulfulsinger: we're only talking about 5 songs here and they are listed first on the "New" releases page. The reason we did this (and will continue to do similar things) is that we want to make sure that the songs we can have available to non paying members are the most popular/recent.

Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.

With all due respect per(I really do not mean this in a bad way). Isn't the fact that members are paying to use these songs the reason that the performing rights societies are pulling the plug on a lot of stuff simply because someone else is profiting from what should be going to performers and writers?

Artists and writers are of course getting paid so I'm not sure what your point / question is.

My point is Per that in this quote you say
"Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.".

My point is. I can only think that maybe singsnap did not pay a performing rights licence in the beginning. If an annual performing license is paid, these songs can be sung by anyone on the ss site. It is the same for karaoke in bars. The bars have to have a performing rights licence to play music, both live and recorded. I'm not meaning to imply anything underhanded by this, but perhaps this is what happened in the first place. But whilst no one was paying anything for singing these songs, I think it was ignored. I think it's only when ss started charging people to sing these songs that the performing rights people stepped in.

Permalink

moogaloo wrote:

Per wrote:

moogaloo wrote:

Per wrote:@soulfulsinger: we're only talking about 5 songs here and they are listed first on the "New" releases page. The reason we did this (and will continue to do similar things) is that we want to make sure that the songs we can have available to non paying members are the most popular/recent.

Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.

With all due respect per(I really do not mean this in a bad way). Isn't the fact that members are paying to use these songs the reason that the performing rights societies are pulling the plug on a lot of stuff simply because someone else is profiting from what should be going to performers and writers?

Artists and writers are of course getting paid so I'm not sure what your point / question is.

My point is Per that in this quote you say
"Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.".

My point is. I can only think that maybe singsnap did not pay a performing rights licence in the beginning. If an annual performing license is paid, these songs can be sung by anyone on the ss site. It is the same for karaoke in bars. The bars have to have a performing rights licence to play music, both live and recorded. I'm not meaning to imply anything underhanded by this, but perhaps this is what happened in the first place. But whilst no one was paying anything for singing these songs, I think it was ignored. I think it's only when ss started charging people to sing these songs that the performing rights people stepped in.

You can read Trevor's post "Update for optimists" in "General Discussion" for more info about this situation.

Thank you.

Permalink

Per wrote:

moogaloo wrote:

Per wrote:

moogaloo wrote:

Per wrote:@soulfulsinger: we're only talking about 5 songs here and they are listed first on the "New" releases page. The reason we did this (and will continue to do similar things) is that we want to make sure that the songs we can have available to non paying members are the most popular/recent.

Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.

With all due respect per(I really do not mean this in a bad way). Isn't the fact that members are paying to use these songs the reason that the performing rights societies are pulling the plug on a lot of stuff simply because someone else is profiting from what should be going to performers and writers?

Artists and writers are of course getting paid so I'm not sure what your point / question is.

My point is Per that in this quote you say
"Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.".

My point is. I can only think that maybe singsnap did not pay a performing rights licence in the beginning. If an annual performing license is paid, these songs can be sung by anyone on the ss site. It is the same for karaoke in bars. The bars have to have a performing rights licence to play music, both live and recorded. I'm not meaning to imply anything underhanded by this, but perhaps this is what happened in the first place. But whilst no one was paying anything for singing these songs, I think it was ignored. I think it's only when ss started charging people to sing these songs that the performing rights people stepped in.

No, by "backing track producers" I mean Sound Choice, Chartbuster etc, not the artists/writers themselves. It doesn't matter if the entire site is free or not, we still have to pay our suppliers, artists, writers etc. Your speculation is 100% incorrect.

You can read Trevor's post "Update for optimists" in "General Discussion" for more info about this situation.

Thank you.

In that case I stand corrected and apologise for my mistake. This does not alter the fact though that the blue members are slowly, but surely getting less and less. I'm sure no blue member begrudges golds getting more options as they are paying, but surely this should not mean that blues get less than they've got now? How long will it be I wonder before blue is phased out altogether.

Permalink

mikegarth wrote:It's not new songs I'm talking about. sure new is OK to pay for. Like new features is a great thing to pay for. I'm talking about the old songs that were blue are now turned to gold. You shouldn't take stuff away that have been here free from day one. or the lic song's come back as new and gold.

I totally agree with you and as I've said before, singsnap is still advertised as a free online karaoke site. Here is how it is worded on the search results page:

"Singsnap is a free online karaoke community where you can sing and record from a large variety of karaoke songs and comment on other karaoke enthusiast's ..."

Permalink

i have a question, Per, and I'll understand if you are unable to answer it....

regarding the contractual obligations that are now in place regarding songs being made available to non-paying members...

would i be correct in saying that it is done as a percentage of the total library per track publisher?

Permalink

Per wrote:

moogaloo wrote:

Per wrote:

moogaloo wrote:

Per wrote:@soulfulsinger: we're only talking about 5 songs here and they are listed first on the "New" releases page. The reason we did this (and will continue to do similar things) is that we want to make sure that the songs we can have available to non paying members are the most popular/recent.

Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.

With all due respect per(I really do not mean this in a bad way). Isn't the fact that members are paying to use these songs the reason that the performing rights societies are pulling the plug on a lot of stuff simply because someone else is profiting from what should be going to performers and writers?

Artists and writers are of course getting paid so I'm not sure what your point / question is.

My point is Per that in this quote you say
"Due to the contracts we have in place with backing track producers we have restrictions on how many songs can be available to non paying members.".

My point is. I can only think that maybe singsnap did not pay a performing rights licence in the beginning. If an annual performing license is paid, these songs can be sung by anyone on the ss site. It is the same for karaoke in bars. The bars have to have a performing rights licence to play music, both live and recorded. I'm not meaning to imply anything underhanded by this, but perhaps this is what happened in the first place. But whilst no one was paying anything for singing these songs, I think it was ignored. I think it's only when ss started charging people to sing these songs that the performing rights people stepped in.

No, by "backing track producers" I mean Sound Choice, Chartbuster etc, not the artists/writers themselves. It doesn't matter if the entire site is free or not, we still have to pay our suppliers, artists, writers etc. Your speculation is 100% incorrect.

You can read Trevor's post "Update for optimists" in "General Discussion" for more info about this situation.

Thank you.

Permalink