^^^
Last edited by popsicle (May 11, 2012 6:28 pm)
Offline
Sydney, Australia
Poppi wrote:
Was I expected to know in advance that this is an ongoing project?
You weren't. But you also aren't expected to ongo with the project.
Pooppi wrote:
.As far as "exclusivity" goes, I find it a strange coincidence that those who would appear to have the unhealthiest things to say are very obviously a part of the chip scene. And it's only week 1. My feeling is at this point that this site is merely another place for those who are already chip artists to coalesce
Perhaps that's because the majority of the people here are from the chip scene.
You have to remember that this did emerge from people heavily involved in chip, it hasn't had much chance to spread elsewhere.
But if we don't let people join in after week one, it would just remain an incestuous wank fest of chip wouldn't it?
.˙. by cutting off entry off (which you wanted) we create an impregnable army of chip (which you did not).
Offline
Poppi this might be reassuring! The closest site I can think of to weeklybeats was http://www.lazerscale2010.com/ which seb and I participated in, the sample size was a lot smaller than weeklybeats but it was mainly chip people and there was a fairly wide range of styles and sounds. Even if weekly beats starts out chip heavy I would guess people will start to experiment a bit more as they go on.
Offline
adelaide
I agree with Poppi re: closing it off. It makes sense to me - one question might be whether or not we are expecting many more people or not.
I disagree with Poppi re: chip-centric nature of WeeklyBeats. Plenty of people not involved in the chip scene seem to be into WeeklyBeats.
Offline
NSW
^^^
Last edited by popsicle (April 13, 2012 4:49 pm)
Offline
Los Angeles
Poppi wrote:
Trash80:
1. I've made my counter-argument.
What counter argument? The About Text on the site? I'd like to hear a reason to close it off other than how I phrased the about text. Please give me some reasons. 
Edit, I reread. Oops! Your first response had your point...
Poppi wrote:
Doesn't that defeat the purpose – of sticking to a 52-week challenge??
... And I responded as well. I don't feel that it defeats the purpose. I'm going to try and write 52 songs. I don't care if someone else starts mid-way and writes 26 song in 26 weeks. The idea is to push yourself productively and to be creative over the span of the year. Though we still have 4 days to decide to close it off after the first week is over to only people who submitted material. And I'm open to it, I just wanted more of a reason.
Poppi wrote:
3. Was I expected to know in advance that this is an ongoing project?
No? It's not really decided or anything. Its too far down the road.
As far as your other points I suggest you reread this thread. the most unhealthiest thing I've read that was directed toward you was godinpants saying it was a pointless thread. I see no reason to carry on any other discussion other than the question in the topic.
Last edited by Trash80 (January 3, 2012 6:43 pm)
Offline
Ok I'm purposely not going to get into some of the stuff that I would like to address thats been said in here, because well, basically it's not constructive.
What it comes down to is, who does it hurt if the site keeps allowing new people to join and participate?
It's a brand new site, it's only been even publically known about for something like 2 weeks. Maybe if this keeps going in 2013, when people have had a whole year to discover Weekly Beats exists it will get closed down to new participants a week in til January.
Maybe it will happen in a few months if the site really takes off. For now allowing people to take part later in the piece is IMHO only going to make it a tighter community.... Seems to me people like to introduce their friends to their online viewing (or participating) habits. It seems to make them feel more like they're part of something.
Offline
Adelaide, South Australia
+1 re: Rdomain's post
Last edited by Tristan Louth-Robins (January 4, 2012 5:31 am)
Offline
it doesnt make sense to make this project exclusive to be honest. For the attendants, it is something personal and this project obviously can not force the any of the attendants to finish the challange they started, sentence noone to do or pay anything because they couldnt or didnt keep up with the challange.
It is something personal and i can understand the moral behind the expectation of exclusivity of such attendant. It is a challange - a contest with their very selves at a certain point. Such exclusivity brings a necessity of fairness to exclude any attendants from the project immediately who are failed to provide their weekly tracks either.
However, a %100 participation or success of attendants to the project shouldnt be expected. Of course results of such exclusivity is unpredictable however it is highly risky. With a production of 10-15 songs per week, this project would end up as a total failure, a pointless, basic tool to feed a false ego of the attendant, which would also wrong the purpose of the attendant as well. The Attendants failure is getting the concept of the challange, it is not only a challange for theirselves, it is also a challange for them to familiarize their faces and sounds with the followers of this project.
Because this platform is also a stage. Attendants are working hard to upload a good track here, and share it public to provide a high quality music to the 'followers' of this project, while challenging theirselves. Simply, own ego of the attendant would be the wrong point to focus, both for the attendant and the project itself.
Main idea of this platform is - and should be - to offer good music to the followers, creating familiar faces, sounds and artists for the followers on a weekly basis. No matter if someone joined in week 2 or 20...
hopefully this could be an acceptable counter argument for this exclusivity discussion
Offline
Babylon, NY
Walls and walls of text that will change nothing because nothing was broken in the first place.
Just make some music and enjoy.
Offline
St Louis
the main benefit of not allowing more people is that it would control the amount of tracks uploaded, which would be both a good and a bad thing.
Offline
Adelaide, Australia
godinpants wrote:
nah, it was pointless way before I joined in.
Offline
Adelaide SA
+1 to George Bowles,
But one question: are people still allowed to join or not?
Offline
adelaide
Less tracks = less costs as well... just sayin.
Offline
Madison, Alabama
I vote to leave it open for now and see what happens.
I imagine the user base will be in flux for the first month or so (people dropping out when they realize this isn't for them, etc.) If in a month or so the influx of new users becomes too much (i.e. there are so many users it is impossible to listen to all the tracks, server space cost becomes prohibitive, the site's design becomes a problem for so many participants, etc.) it could be closed off.
Just an idea.