So. It always happens this way, doesn't it? As soon as something really exciting begins to blossom and gain large amounts of support, the powers that be whip out their axes and chop down the budding branch of opportunity. If you have read some of my previous postings, you might have gotten the sense that I was an advocate for Internet radio. Well, I am, along with many other listeners, musicians both amateur and professional, artists both signed and unsigned, and even some record labels. But not the Copyright Royalty Board. They want to make it nearly impossible for small-time Internet radio stations to stay afloat and flood the Internet air waves with music. No, let's take away something positive and leave more room for sex, violence, hate, and everything else that pollutes computer screens across our great country.
How are they trying to kill Internet radio? In short, by increasing licensing fees for webcasters. Every time a song is played over the air it is called a performance. For every performance there is a fee that must be paid to the record company, performing rights society, publisher, artist, etc. so the record labels and recording artists can receive the appropriate performance royalties.
Why are they doing this? Of course the goal of this fee hike is not to wipe out Internet radio, but that may indeed be the reciprocal effect. Money is the issue, obviously. Apparently, even with the amount of Internet radio stations and webcasters in existence, the CRB feels that there is a need to increase licensing fees. Of course this is encouraging for recording artists, but where will we hear their music if Internet radio stations have to shut down? Terrestial radio? Ha. Don't get me wrong, I understand that Internet radio may not be the most popular way to listen to and find new music, but it sure is a viable and convenient option. And it is an extremely valuable tool for up-and-coming artists to get their music to ears outside of their family and friends. We are fully immersed in the digital age; that is not debatable anymore. And as technology will only progress and the Internet becomes a more integral part of everyone's daily routine, it doesn't make sense for measure to be proposed to possibly limit the spread of music via Internet radio. What happened to terrestrial radio could be echoed on the Internet, i.e. consolidation. Only the major players with the most money will be left standing. Then where is the variety? Luckily, however, this is not the same situation and something as dire as that is unlikely to happen. It just feels that way.
Something that is so good for artists and record labels alike needs to be stimulated, helped to grow and develop. If the artists and labels felt that they were not receiving their fair share from online radio play, is it fair to assume that they would have made some noise about it, or even endorse this move? I think so. Artists are all for promoting their music by any and all means, and the record labels enjoy having so much exposure to such a wide variety of people at little to no cost. So if no one is complaining (I don't think people have been complaining about Internet radio, except for maybe the suits at the CRB and other corporations, but of course I could be wrong) then why raise the rates (again!)? Of course prices go up with almost everything as long as the clock on the wall keeps ticking, but this move will have significant effects on many webcasters and possibly force them out of business, or at least force them to institute a subscription-type service for their online radio. If that happens, what's the difference between Internet radio and satellite radio? Exactly. Which is why Internet radio is so attractive: it is free and has a certain cool factor that other types of radio do not have right now. We live in a "me first" world and people enjoy having control, so please, don't take the remote (or keyboard, mouse, trackpad) out of our hands. Leave us some territory to explore before it becomes eaten alive and sucked lifeless by big money companies!
On the other hand. I could be rambling about something I am not fully, 100% educated on. Which is why I am going to read this article by Doc Searls on the Linux Journal again. Extremely informative and helpful on this hot topic. Thank you!
So say a prayer, cast a spell, wish upon a shooting star. Send positive vibrations to the CRB to try and sway them the other direction and help Internet radio bloom!
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Friday, March 9, 2007
Want new music?
Well, it seems that there are more and more music social network sites popping up on the Internet. As mentioned in a previous blog, Last.fm and Pandora are front runners when it comes to personalizing radio stations and finding new songs. But there certainly are others, and the number of people using these sites is constantly growing. Take for instance these three online music communities: MOG, URGE, and iLike. Of these, what most intrigues me is MOG.
A social music community dedicated to music lovers who mainly listen to their music on their computer or iPod, MOG is similar to Last.fm in that it displays what each user is listening to. What is cool about the MOG technology is that it updates music stats in real time without the listener/user having to do anything. It keeps track of how many times each song is played in iTunes, or almost any other media player. This might be a little unnerving and creepy, but these days it is second nature to realize that we are constantly being watched by someone. Plus, the user makes a choice to display these personal music-listening habits. The benefits of this are for other people, as they can begin to grasp who each user is in a musical sense and possibly sample new artists they have never heard of.
MOG also utilizes blogging. This is where it gets cool, because it allows for audio and video embedding. So if a person is blogging about a certain song or artist or music video, it is possible to embed the actual subject for all readers to view/listen. This aspect of the network interests me the most because it lets people really divulge to others their personal feelings about music, whether it be in general or for a certain song or artist. There are many "celebrity" artists that are members of MOG, and when I say celebrity I mean recognized artists. For instance, Matthew Caws, a personal hero, has a profile on MOG. The singer and guitarist for Nada Surf, he regularly updates his profile with blog posts and makes the music he is currently listening to visible (and listenable) to other users . This is really interesting, in my opinion, because it lets one see what their favorite artist is listening to and drawing inspiration from. It builds a closer connection with artists and fans than just the music. While assuredly some people think of music only as background noise to their life, there are those of us who want to learn more about the artists and become connected on a more personal level. MOG makes this possible while enhancing and broadening users' musical palettes.
Another site, Urge.com, is somewhat similar. Started by MTV Networks (a division of Viacom International Inc.), Urge enables users to create profiles and playlists, like MOG. There are 35 preset radio stations (included in the "free" package; 150 stations are available in the other paid subscription packages) to choose from, different from MOG (MOG's radio stations are personalized and not preset). However, Urge offers the option to download music. There are three models from which a person can choose: The free set-up, where the basics of the site can be had and music tracks can be downloaded for 99 cents; The Urge "All Access" option at $9.95/month or $99/year that allows for free, unlimited downloading but does not allow that subscribed music to be transferred to an MP3 device; And the "All Access To Go" option at $14.95/month or $149/year, with the main benefit of allowing the transfer of downloaded songs to be transferred to portable MP3 devices. That is cool! Considering the amount of money people spend on new music, assuming that there are SOME people that still buy music, that could equate to 10 or 15 new CDs (vinyl, cassettes, online tracks/albums, what have you). Considering that that amount of money spent ($149) would render only roughly 100-150 songs, this option is pretty attractive. On the other hand, one could just download for free. Illegally. The whole lure of this is the legal aspect, I think. People who are afraid that the big bad RIAA will sue them for illegally downloading music will probably like this, among other services like Napster, but I feel that a majority of the online-music-downloading population will turn their cheek(s) to this. Not only because it is run by MTV, but because of other reasons such as the music library. What good is an affordable download service if the tracks you want aren't available? It doesn't specify on the website how many songs are available other than "millions." That may seem like a large number but is a relatively small chunk of the recorded music that exists today. Another downside is that the provided radio stations are "Professionally Programmed," not user generated. Does that sound like fun? Take a look, or a listen, rather, at radio today and tell me that that is a smart move. Then again, there are still many, many people who enjoy radio just how it is, so perhaps this is a smart move by the suits at MTV.
I've got one more online social music community for you, and it is called iLike. According to iLike,
"The iLike service is designed to help consumers discover and share music together. A key part of the service is the "music by new artists". Most music lovers are eager to hear new music by new artists - radio has become boring, and the Internet is where people are going to find new music."I especially like the part about radio being boring! Jokes aside, this service is special because of its emphasis on new music. Honestly it is not much different than MOG or Last.fm, just another way to discover music through friends and other users' playlists, with an easier outlet for upcoming artists to get their music heard. But it is another option! And people love variety! Check it out.
So, are the days of listening to radio and going to the record store to find new music over? Not completely. People still listen to radio and discover new music, people still go to the record store to randomly chance upon something new, and people still listen to radio and then go to the record store to purchase said new music. However, it is hardly debatable anymore that there has been a paradigm shift, that is still in transition, to the Internet. Thanks, mostly to my generation, for upsetting the means of doing music business throughout the last century! No longer can record companies and radio programmers (consolidators) rely on traditional methods to generate revenue and make people happy. It is a time of creation, so let's start thinking!
A social music community dedicated to music lovers who mainly listen to their music on their computer or iPod, MOG is similar to Last.fm in that it displays what each user is listening to. What is cool about the MOG technology is that it updates music stats in real time without the listener/user having to do anything. It keeps track of how many times each song is played in iTunes, or almost any other media player. This might be a little unnerving and creepy, but these days it is second nature to realize that we are constantly being watched by someone. Plus, the user makes a choice to display these personal music-listening habits. The benefits of this are for other people, as they can begin to grasp who each user is in a musical sense and possibly sample new artists they have never heard of.
MOG also utilizes blogging. This is where it gets cool, because it allows for audio and video embedding. So if a person is blogging about a certain song or artist or music video, it is possible to embed the actual subject for all readers to view/listen. This aspect of the network interests me the most because it lets people really divulge to others their personal feelings about music, whether it be in general or for a certain song or artist. There are many "celebrity" artists that are members of MOG, and when I say celebrity I mean recognized artists. For instance, Matthew Caws, a personal hero, has a profile on MOG. The singer and guitarist for Nada Surf, he regularly updates his profile with blog posts and makes the music he is currently listening to visible (and listenable) to other users . This is really interesting, in my opinion, because it lets one see what their favorite artist is listening to and drawing inspiration from. It builds a closer connection with artists and fans than just the music. While assuredly some people think of music only as background noise to their life, there are those of us who want to learn more about the artists and become connected on a more personal level. MOG makes this possible while enhancing and broadening users' musical palettes.
Another site, Urge.com, is somewhat similar. Started by MTV Networks (a division of Viacom International Inc.), Urge enables users to create profiles and playlists, like MOG. There are 35 preset radio stations (included in the "free" package; 150 stations are available in the other paid subscription packages) to choose from, different from MOG (MOG's radio stations are personalized and not preset). However, Urge offers the option to download music. There are three models from which a person can choose: The free set-up, where the basics of the site can be had and music tracks can be downloaded for 99 cents; The Urge "All Access" option at $9.95/month or $99/year that allows for free, unlimited downloading but does not allow that subscribed music to be transferred to an MP3 device; And the "All Access To Go" option at $14.95/month or $149/year, with the main benefit of allowing the transfer of downloaded songs to be transferred to portable MP3 devices. That is cool! Considering the amount of money people spend on new music, assuming that there are SOME people that still buy music, that could equate to 10 or 15 new CDs (vinyl, cassettes, online tracks/albums, what have you). Considering that that amount of money spent ($149) would render only roughly 100-150 songs, this option is pretty attractive. On the other hand, one could just download for free. Illegally. The whole lure of this is the legal aspect, I think. People who are afraid that the big bad RIAA will sue them for illegally downloading music will probably like this, among other services like Napster, but I feel that a majority of the online-music-downloading population will turn their cheek(s) to this. Not only because it is run by MTV, but because of other reasons such as the music library. What good is an affordable download service if the tracks you want aren't available? It doesn't specify on the website how many songs are available other than "millions." That may seem like a large number but is a relatively small chunk of the recorded music that exists today. Another downside is that the provided radio stations are "Professionally Programmed," not user generated. Does that sound like fun? Take a look, or a listen, rather, at radio today and tell me that that is a smart move. Then again, there are still many, many people who enjoy radio just how it is, so perhaps this is a smart move by the suits at MTV.
I've got one more online social music community for you, and it is called iLike. According to iLike,
"The iLike service is designed to help consumers discover and share music together. A key part of the service is the "music by new artists". Most music lovers are eager to hear new music by new artists - radio has become boring, and the Internet is where people are going to find new music."I especially like the part about radio being boring! Jokes aside, this service is special because of its emphasis on new music. Honestly it is not much different than MOG or Last.fm, just another way to discover music through friends and other users' playlists, with an easier outlet for upcoming artists to get their music heard. But it is another option! And people love variety! Check it out.
So, are the days of listening to radio and going to the record store to find new music over? Not completely. People still listen to radio and discover new music, people still go to the record store to randomly chance upon something new, and people still listen to radio and then go to the record store to purchase said new music. However, it is hardly debatable anymore that there has been a paradigm shift, that is still in transition, to the Internet. Thanks, mostly to my generation, for upsetting the means of doing music business throughout the last century! No longer can record companies and radio programmers (consolidators) rely on traditional methods to generate revenue and make people happy. It is a time of creation, so let's start thinking!
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Tempting The Giants
Google, parent of YouTube, is far along on its trek to make partnerships with as many media companies as possible. The goal is to ensure that the content on YouTube is copyrighted and licensed so as to avoid future debacles like the one between Google and Viacom. The only problem is convincing the larger media companies (like Viacom) that giving up some control of their content by putting it on YouTube will be beneficial for both marketing and monetary reasons. Most large studios have been reluctant to cut a deal with Google and YouTube, though there has been marked success with smaller companies.
With each partnership, YouTube has created a designated channel for each company. For example, PBS has its own channel, which can be found in the "Partners" section of the "Channels" menu on the YouTube website. Other partners' channels include sports associations such as the NBA and NHL, along with MTV and Cartoon Network's 'Adult Swim' program. This is a great way of exposing each network's content and gathering an online fan base.
How can companies monetize the content they license to YouTube? According to Google, ad revenues will be split between the content provider and Google/YouTube. While at this time the revenue from ads is relatively small, undoubtedly turning off some possible partners from signing deals, the time of pre-rolled advertisements is probably not too far away. Unless users are absolutely turned off by the idea of scowling through a 5 to 15, or even 30 second advertisement before a video, there is a strong probability that decent money can be made through splitting ad revenue.
But how do they convince viewers that watching commercials is worth it? Well, for one, make the ads funny. There area numerous commercials that I enjoy, such as this Sierra Mist ad:
I find that hilarious, and I feel that if pre-running commercials are funny, and much shorter than 30 seconds, there won't be much of a problem for YouTube addicts. Also, unless a legitimate competitor to YouTube arises with equally attractive content and zero commercials, Google doesn't have much to worry about and they can start trying to make back some of the ridiculous amount of dollars they spent on acquiring YouTube.
Another possibility is to run commercials only on major studio content (like NBC, CBS, Viacom, etc.). All user-generated content could be commercial free, unless the user is affiliated with a studio or publisher, then the terms would be stipulated in the contract. Though this may stem users to broadcast the ad-laden content themselves, thus infringing copyright, a fail safe filter could be developed to prevent anyone but the licensed company from running the video, thus forcing viewers to see the commercial. This is just a thought.
So while Google is busy trying to get everyone on board with YouTube, is it safe to say that we are diving into an even deeper pool of advertisements? Will there eventually be an Oscar's Award Show for commercials? We are so saturated with advertisements that anything seems possible at this point. Here is another idea: Create competitions for YouTube users to generate their own commercials to be run before videos, much like what Doritos did for the Super Bowl.
The promotional possibilities of YouTube are frighteningly endless. These days the Internet is such a huge player in marketing that it is downright silly to not take advantage of every possible outlet. It is only a matter of time before we see every major network willingly partnering up with YouTube and other online media companies.
With each partnership, YouTube has created a designated channel for each company. For example, PBS has its own channel, which can be found in the "Partners" section of the "Channels" menu on the YouTube website. Other partners' channels include sports associations such as the NBA and NHL, along with MTV and Cartoon Network's 'Adult Swim' program. This is a great way of exposing each network's content and gathering an online fan base.
How can companies monetize the content they license to YouTube? According to Google, ad revenues will be split between the content provider and Google/YouTube. While at this time the revenue from ads is relatively small, undoubtedly turning off some possible partners from signing deals, the time of pre-rolled advertisements is probably not too far away. Unless users are absolutely turned off by the idea of scowling through a 5 to 15, or even 30 second advertisement before a video, there is a strong probability that decent money can be made through splitting ad revenue.
But how do they convince viewers that watching commercials is worth it? Well, for one, make the ads funny. There area numerous commercials that I enjoy, such as this Sierra Mist ad:
I find that hilarious, and I feel that if pre-running commercials are funny, and much shorter than 30 seconds, there won't be much of a problem for YouTube addicts. Also, unless a legitimate competitor to YouTube arises with equally attractive content and zero commercials, Google doesn't have much to worry about and they can start trying to make back some of the ridiculous amount of dollars they spent on acquiring YouTube.
Another possibility is to run commercials only on major studio content (like NBC, CBS, Viacom, etc.). All user-generated content could be commercial free, unless the user is affiliated with a studio or publisher, then the terms would be stipulated in the contract. Though this may stem users to broadcast the ad-laden content themselves, thus infringing copyright, a fail safe filter could be developed to prevent anyone but the licensed company from running the video, thus forcing viewers to see the commercial. This is just a thought.
So while Google is busy trying to get everyone on board with YouTube, is it safe to say that we are diving into an even deeper pool of advertisements? Will there eventually be an Oscar's Award Show for commercials? We are so saturated with advertisements that anything seems possible at this point. Here is another idea: Create competitions for YouTube users to generate their own commercials to be run before videos, much like what Doritos did for the Super Bowl.
The promotional possibilities of YouTube are frighteningly endless. These days the Internet is such a huge player in marketing that it is downright silly to not take advantage of every possible outlet. It is only a matter of time before we see every major network willingly partnering up with YouTube and other online media companies.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Restricting the flow of art, or saving money?
As if illegal file-sharing wasn't a big enough burden to deal with, it seems the naysayers of free distribution of art have decided to tackle another issue. No, the RIAA is not involved in this one. No, the MPA (Music Publishers' Association) and NMPA (National Music Publishers' Association) are the main attackers in this extension of online music war. Their main complaint concerns the production and sharing of guitar tablature and online sheet music. They insist that such user-based websites infringe on copyrights and take away revenue from published guitar tablature books and sheet music. Such targeted sites include TabCrawler.com, which has not been shut down yet, whereas Guitar Tab Universe has obviously been contacted and prompted to make changes.
As a guitarist, I have personal experience with such guitar tab sites. Before I realized I didn't need literature to teach me how to play a song, I would occasionally visit such websites and find tablature to the desired song and try to play it. The thing is, these websites are user-contributed. They aren't the official transcripts of what was recorded by the artist on the album. This has its pros and cons: It encourages music listeners and players to become more involved with the music and write out how they think it sounds to post on such websites for others to see and tweak, but it also leads to numerous inaccuracies in the music and, in some eyes, illegal acts of copyright infringement.
These websites are designed to give interested players a general overview of how a song is thought to be played, with much of the performance left up to personal interpretation. Depending on the intricacy of the song the tab can be really close to how the actual song sounds, or perilously wrong. If one wants to know how the song was actually played, then published, artist endorsed tablature books can be purchased. Personally, while I dabbled in tab websites, I also bought several published books by artists including Incubus, Led Zeppelin, Weezer (from the Blue Album), and Jimi Hendrix. When I purchased these books, it wasn't because I was concerned about the possible legal ramifications of getting tablature from an unofficial online source. No, it was because I wanted an accurate representation of the music and I wanted to know exactly how it was played. When you are in the early stages of playing an instrument like the guitar, at least in my case, there is great thrill in learning how to play music from your favorite artists and personal heroes (I was so stoked on learning how to play, or at least try to play, Jimmy Page's solos). While the pleasure derived from playing other artists' music has significantly declined since my early playing days, I still have a blast rocking out to other music that I didn't personally create. It's just fun playing along to music that you love to listen to!
It seems that the argument resides here: Are open forums in which people converse with others about how to correctly played a recorded artist's songs illegal? Should it be considered copyright infringement and should it be stopped? There are legitimate concerns on both ends of the argument. For example, according to an article in The Independent, sheet music publishing in Britain is a £50 million a year industry. The question is, are these websites cutting into profit and seriously hurting sales? As of now there are no solid figures, which makes me question why this is an arising issue. Tab sites have been around since the Internet became popular. The last time I visited any guitar tab website was at least four years ago, back when there was seemingly no problem at all. If it is a real problem, why did they wait so long to address it and take action?
I fully understand that the sales taken away from these websites could hurt many people financially. However, I fail to see what the fuss is about. Sheet music publishing will be fine when it is all said and done, because serious musicians intent on learning songs will go to the official, certified source, not some amateur guitar tab website. Please note that this issue does not deal with only guitar tablature but classical music and all other kinds as well. It seems that guitar tab websites are the most targeted right now because, well, everyone plays guitar. That's a given.
This issue sounds eerily familiar to the RIAA's quest to sue everyone with a computer that has music on it, and it may be getting a little redundant. Will we always live in a world of legal battles concerning music and copyright, or will universal access become the wave of future? I sure hope the latter wins the fight.
As a guitarist, I have personal experience with such guitar tab sites. Before I realized I didn't need literature to teach me how to play a song, I would occasionally visit such websites and find tablature to the desired song and try to play it. The thing is, these websites are user-contributed. They aren't the official transcripts of what was recorded by the artist on the album. This has its pros and cons: It encourages music listeners and players to become more involved with the music and write out how they think it sounds to post on such websites for others to see and tweak, but it also leads to numerous inaccuracies in the music and, in some eyes, illegal acts of copyright infringement.
These websites are designed to give interested players a general overview of how a song is thought to be played, with much of the performance left up to personal interpretation. Depending on the intricacy of the song the tab can be really close to how the actual song sounds, or perilously wrong. If one wants to know how the song was actually played, then published, artist endorsed tablature books can be purchased. Personally, while I dabbled in tab websites, I also bought several published books by artists including Incubus, Led Zeppelin, Weezer (from the Blue Album), and Jimi Hendrix. When I purchased these books, it wasn't because I was concerned about the possible legal ramifications of getting tablature from an unofficial online source. No, it was because I wanted an accurate representation of the music and I wanted to know exactly how it was played. When you are in the early stages of playing an instrument like the guitar, at least in my case, there is great thrill in learning how to play music from your favorite artists and personal heroes (I was so stoked on learning how to play, or at least try to play, Jimmy Page's solos). While the pleasure derived from playing other artists' music has significantly declined since my early playing days, I still have a blast rocking out to other music that I didn't personally create. It's just fun playing along to music that you love to listen to!
It seems that the argument resides here: Are open forums in which people converse with others about how to correctly played a recorded artist's songs illegal? Should it be considered copyright infringement and should it be stopped? There are legitimate concerns on both ends of the argument. For example, according to an article in The Independent, sheet music publishing in Britain is a £50 million a year industry. The question is, are these websites cutting into profit and seriously hurting sales? As of now there are no solid figures, which makes me question why this is an arising issue. Tab sites have been around since the Internet became popular. The last time I visited any guitar tab website was at least four years ago, back when there was seemingly no problem at all. If it is a real problem, why did they wait so long to address it and take action?
I fully understand that the sales taken away from these websites could hurt many people financially. However, I fail to see what the fuss is about. Sheet music publishing will be fine when it is all said and done, because serious musicians intent on learning songs will go to the official, certified source, not some amateur guitar tab website. Please note that this issue does not deal with only guitar tablature but classical music and all other kinds as well. It seems that guitar tab websites are the most targeted right now because, well, everyone plays guitar. That's a given.
This issue sounds eerily familiar to the RIAA's quest to sue everyone with a computer that has music on it, and it may be getting a little redundant. Will we always live in a world of legal battles concerning music and copyright, or will universal access become the wave of future? I sure hope the latter wins the fight.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Internet Radio and the Social Music Revolution
Last.fm, an Internet radio station, is the self-proclaimed social music revolution. Their reasoning for such a grandiose title? It blends features from other networking sites like MySpace with Internet radio (similar to Pandora), while allowing its users to share music with other users. This is made possible by each users' individual profile, dedicated solely to music listening, that is created by listening to personal music collections or the radio service on the website. Music charts are created according to the number of plays of each song and artist, and these charts are made viewable to all users. Primarily used as a way to discover new music by browsing other users' profiles and listening to the Last.fm personalized radio, which is similar to Pandora's in the sense that it creates a station of similar sounding artists based around one artist, this social network is a great way for music lovers to discover new artists and for artists and labels to promote their products. It may not be THE social music revolution, but it is certainly a part of it. It is a great music recommendation tool and, undoubtedly, previously unknown artists are discovered everyday. But there are other means of finding music.
The aforementioned Pandora online radio service is a similar online device. What is lacking is the ability to create profiles and interact with other users. The goal of the Pandora service, according to the website, is "To help you discover new music you'll love." That is a noble mission. It is impossible to imagine a world without music, even a day without one's ears being tickled by melodic or percussive patterns, arousing emotions from the very depths of our being. I am listening to Pandora right now, as I have created several different radio stations based on some of my favorite artists, including: Coheed and Cambria, Ben Harper, Matt Pond PA, 311, and Death Cab for Cutie. It is on the Death Cab station right now and just played a song by Wolf Colonel, an artist I have never heard of before. It wasn't a bad song and it had qualities reminiscent of Death Cab, though it wasn't a rip-off of their sound. This is what Pandora aims to do: Analyze musical qualities of songs and artist and find similar artists. While this may not seem like an intelligent way to branch out and find new music, it really can be. If one is interested in hearing new music from a certain musical genre, then a station created from a prominent band or artist representing the sound of that genre can be created and alike artists and bands will be heard.
Of course, there are limitations to Pandora's radio service. One being the presentation of bad music. Not all new music will be liked by the listener, and I have experienced this on many occasions. Luckily, one is allowed to skip to the next song in the lineup, however, only six song skips are allowed per hour. This is not surprising given the amount of legal restrictions surrounding the service. Ah! As I am writing this they are playing a song that, so far, I really don't like. It is by a band called El Toro. Check them out, you may like them. I may too if I hear other songs. That is one of the great things of this type of music service. If I like a song, or even if I dislike a song, I can quickly find a link to one of the artist's websites and listen to more of their music to get a more solidified opinion and form a coherent judgment. Wonderful! Don't you just love the Internet? I do! It is amazing how easy it is to discover new things.
Supported by advertisements, Last.fm and Pandora are free services. However, there are optional fee-based subscriptions that subsequently get rid of the advertisements. So if these seemingly sophisticated and hip music recommendation networks and personalized radios are free to the public to take advantage of, what is the point in listening to terrestrial radio or even satellite radio? While there certainly are limitations to these online music listening services, I feel that the possibilities and ease of finding new music outweigh the limitations and restrictions that may be encountered. While there may be the occasional great song that is played on terrestrial or satellite radio, it seems far more likely that the frequency of good music played will be heard on personalized online radio stations and music social networking sites. Whether the music is discovered through personalized radio or recommended by another user who may be thousands of miles from your location does not really matter. What matters is that there are multiple ways to find new material and enrich one's musical palette. It sure beats having to put up with annoying radio personalities and mainstream repetition. Can radio survive? We shall soon see. As discussed by my professor's most recent blog, probably not once WiFi connectivity is universal, as people may opt to listen to radio online.
It is easy to predict that Internet radio and music social networks will trump other forms of radio but only time will tell. It is possible that Internet radio will remain a luxury side item but what is most important here is that the option exists. Variety, among other things, helps make the world a sometimes, actually very rarely but seemingly normal, functioning place. For now I take comfort in knowing that there are many different ways to find new music. As Michael Franti said,
"I don't know if music can change the world overnight but I know music can help us make it through a difficult night. Sometimes that's all any of us need, to make it into tomorrow."
How true it is. Music is so important to everyone's life, and life in general. It is necessary to realize that sometimes it doesn't matter what the source for new music is, but that one is able to find new music at all.
The aforementioned Pandora online radio service is a similar online device. What is lacking is the ability to create profiles and interact with other users. The goal of the Pandora service, according to the website, is "To help you discover new music you'll love." That is a noble mission. It is impossible to imagine a world without music, even a day without one's ears being tickled by melodic or percussive patterns, arousing emotions from the very depths of our being. I am listening to Pandora right now, as I have created several different radio stations based on some of my favorite artists, including: Coheed and Cambria, Ben Harper, Matt Pond PA, 311, and Death Cab for Cutie. It is on the Death Cab station right now and just played a song by Wolf Colonel, an artist I have never heard of before. It wasn't a bad song and it had qualities reminiscent of Death Cab, though it wasn't a rip-off of their sound. This is what Pandora aims to do: Analyze musical qualities of songs and artist and find similar artists. While this may not seem like an intelligent way to branch out and find new music, it really can be. If one is interested in hearing new music from a certain musical genre, then a station created from a prominent band or artist representing the sound of that genre can be created and alike artists and bands will be heard.
Of course, there are limitations to Pandora's radio service. One being the presentation of bad music. Not all new music will be liked by the listener, and I have experienced this on many occasions. Luckily, one is allowed to skip to the next song in the lineup, however, only six song skips are allowed per hour. This is not surprising given the amount of legal restrictions surrounding the service. Ah! As I am writing this they are playing a song that, so far, I really don't like. It is by a band called El Toro. Check them out, you may like them. I may too if I hear other songs. That is one of the great things of this type of music service. If I like a song, or even if I dislike a song, I can quickly find a link to one of the artist's websites and listen to more of their music to get a more solidified opinion and form a coherent judgment. Wonderful! Don't you just love the Internet? I do! It is amazing how easy it is to discover new things.
Supported by advertisements, Last.fm and Pandora are free services. However, there are optional fee-based subscriptions that subsequently get rid of the advertisements. So if these seemingly sophisticated and hip music recommendation networks and personalized radios are free to the public to take advantage of, what is the point in listening to terrestrial radio or even satellite radio? While there certainly are limitations to these online music listening services, I feel that the possibilities and ease of finding new music outweigh the limitations and restrictions that may be encountered. While there may be the occasional great song that is played on terrestrial or satellite radio, it seems far more likely that the frequency of good music played will be heard on personalized online radio stations and music social networking sites. Whether the music is discovered through personalized radio or recommended by another user who may be thousands of miles from your location does not really matter. What matters is that there are multiple ways to find new material and enrich one's musical palette. It sure beats having to put up with annoying radio personalities and mainstream repetition. Can radio survive? We shall soon see. As discussed by my professor's most recent blog, probably not once WiFi connectivity is universal, as people may opt to listen to radio online.
It is easy to predict that Internet radio and music social networks will trump other forms of radio but only time will tell. It is possible that Internet radio will remain a luxury side item but what is most important here is that the option exists. Variety, among other things, helps make the world a sometimes, actually very rarely but seemingly normal, functioning place. For now I take comfort in knowing that there are many different ways to find new music. As Michael Franti said,
"I don't know if music can change the world overnight but I know music can help us make it through a difficult night. Sometimes that's all any of us need, to make it into tomorrow."
How true it is. Music is so important to everyone's life, and life in general. It is necessary to realize that sometimes it doesn't matter what the source for new music is, but that one is able to find new music at all.
Friday, February 23, 2007
RIAA = Big Brother
Though it has been happening for years, every time news is reported about the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) it just gets more and more ludicrous. Supposedly the RIAA is increasing its crackdown on illegal file-sharing, specifically within college campus networks. According to an Associated Press article by Ted Bridis, "the music industry is sending thousands more copyright complaints to universities this school year than last." Obviously it is not giving up its fight to curb illegal downloading. And, obviously, the RIAA is not thinking of more effective ways to get people to stop stealing music.
What gets to me the most is that this "crackdown" is aimed specifically at college students. I of course have a bias because I happen to be a college student, but that is not why I am outraged. Well, thinking about it I am not necessarily outraged. As I sit here writing this, eating a bowl of recently prepared pasta and pondering the goings on of the music industry, I find myself slightly annoyed and highly entertained at this specific situation. What irks me is that the RIAA has the nerve to target the literal future leaders of this country. How can I back this opinion up? Take a gander at the penalties becoming popular by many universities:
- First time offenders usually receive a warning via e-mail. Usually this is enough to discourage violators to cease and desist all illegal action.
- Second time offenders may be called into the principal's office and forced to watch anti-piracy videos provided graciously by the RIAA.
- Third timers may, get this, be suspended for an entire semester. (!)
Threatening e-mails, mind-numbing videos, suspension of Internet connection AND from enrolled classes...it just doesn't make much sense. College students have enough on their plate without having to deal with laughable threats and lawsuits. Not all college students fit the stereotype of 24/7 partying accompanied by 24/7 piracy and sleeping in late. Though I myself fit into one of those stereotypes...I love some good shut-eye...However, there are many, MANY hardworking, dedicated students of academia simply do not have the time to deal with the RIAA acting like they know what they are doing. While there are undoubtedly some individuals who deserve to be "disciplined" for downloading a huge volume of pirated content, there are many who may have been singled out for only downloading or sharing one file. ONE. I know it may be difficult to distinguish between a big-time repeat downloader and a small-time peer-to-peer dabbler, but I do not think that is fair.
While the debate over peer-to-peer file-sharing is large and multi-sided, and the point of this post is not to debate whether it is good or bad, I have to bring up a success story brought on by Napster. The band Dispatch attributes most of its success to file-sharing and illegal downloading. This isn't debatable, as even the manager of the band, Steve Bursky, agrees, "Whenever anyone asks me how the Dispatch phenomenon happened, I'd attribute a huge portion to the early days of Napster." In fact, when Napster was going through the mess of lawsuits they experienced in 2000, Dispatch was there to support Napster and even threw a benefit concert on behalf of Napster.
While illegal downloading can in fact make a legitimate impact in an album's sales, it can also be a huge promotional tool. Dispatch had one television appearance in their eight year history and virtually no radio play. However, they are a music phenomenon and drew roughly 100,000 fans to their last show. Amazing.
Is the RIAA and the recording industry in general doing the right thing by suing people, and especially by targeting college students and pressuring universities to spend time and resources to punish students who download? The business is what it is and it sometimes doesn't look like it will change, but I believe that everyone will realize, eventually, that file-sharing is necessary and can be used to benefit the artist and the label for promotional purposes. The CD is on its last legs and record sales, including online sales, are dismal. It is time to stop fighting the inevitable and learn to adapt to change and make change work for you.
Dispatch information taken from this article.
What gets to me the most is that this "crackdown" is aimed specifically at college students. I of course have a bias because I happen to be a college student, but that is not why I am outraged. Well, thinking about it I am not necessarily outraged. As I sit here writing this, eating a bowl of recently prepared pasta and pondering the goings on of the music industry, I find myself slightly annoyed and highly entertained at this specific situation. What irks me is that the RIAA has the nerve to target the literal future leaders of this country. How can I back this opinion up? Take a gander at the penalties becoming popular by many universities:
- First time offenders usually receive a warning via e-mail. Usually this is enough to discourage violators to cease and desist all illegal action.
- Second time offenders may be called into the principal's office and forced to watch anti-piracy videos provided graciously by the RIAA.
- Third timers may, get this, be suspended for an entire semester. (!)
Threatening e-mails, mind-numbing videos, suspension of Internet connection AND from enrolled classes...it just doesn't make much sense. College students have enough on their plate without having to deal with laughable threats and lawsuits. Not all college students fit the stereotype of 24/7 partying accompanied by 24/7 piracy and sleeping in late. Though I myself fit into one of those stereotypes...I love some good shut-eye...However, there are many, MANY hardworking, dedicated students of academia simply do not have the time to deal with the RIAA acting like they know what they are doing. While there are undoubtedly some individuals who deserve to be "disciplined" for downloading a huge volume of pirated content, there are many who may have been singled out for only downloading or sharing one file. ONE. I know it may be difficult to distinguish between a big-time repeat downloader and a small-time peer-to-peer dabbler, but I do not think that is fair.
While the debate over peer-to-peer file-sharing is large and multi-sided, and the point of this post is not to debate whether it is good or bad, I have to bring up a success story brought on by Napster. The band Dispatch attributes most of its success to file-sharing and illegal downloading. This isn't debatable, as even the manager of the band, Steve Bursky, agrees, "Whenever anyone asks me how the Dispatch phenomenon happened, I'd attribute a huge portion to the early days of Napster." In fact, when Napster was going through the mess of lawsuits they experienced in 2000, Dispatch was there to support Napster and even threw a benefit concert on behalf of Napster.
While illegal downloading can in fact make a legitimate impact in an album's sales, it can also be a huge promotional tool. Dispatch had one television appearance in their eight year history and virtually no radio play. However, they are a music phenomenon and drew roughly 100,000 fans to their last show. Amazing.
Is the RIAA and the recording industry in general doing the right thing by suing people, and especially by targeting college students and pressuring universities to spend time and resources to punish students who download? The business is what it is and it sometimes doesn't look like it will change, but I believe that everyone will realize, eventually, that file-sharing is necessary and can be used to benefit the artist and the label for promotional purposes. The CD is on its last legs and record sales, including online sales, are dismal. It is time to stop fighting the inevitable and learn to adapt to change and make change work for you.
Dispatch information taken from this article.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Smart marketing, or just annoying?
In a recent New York Times article, it was reported that record labels are beginning to toy with the idea of getting rid of digital rights management, or DRM, on their music and video files released online. Specifically, music videos from popular bands signed to Suretone Records, including Weezer, will be released to unspecified online file-sharing networks completely unprotected; no trace of DRM.
What?! Are you serious?!?! I don't know what surprises me more, that they are releasing DRM-free content, or that they are releasing music videos. This is just so great!
But wait! There's more! Actually, there is a catch: The files released are not complete. More like half of the actual file will be available to view. Why? Once half the video is played, the viewer will be directed to the label's website to watch the entire video. If the user isn't annoyed enough at being duped by a record label's marketing department (for shame!) to not continue to the website, then the video can be viewed with the accompaniment of advertisements. Awesome. Such is the nature of the corporate beast: Think of long-winded, often ridiculous ways to make a buck.
I have a proposal: Instead of planting incomplete files on file sharing networks, just run advertisement banners on the most popular file sharing and music websites that notify the user of free video viewing on the label's website. Why not plant incomplete files? Because the user will find another way to download the desired file, be it audio or video, and downloading this half-file marketing ploy will most likely leave the user annoyed and laughing at the record label's feeble attempt at being sneaky, cool, smart, or whatever the labels think they are. Furthermore, at this point I don't even think it matters if DRM stays or goes. There will always be ways to illegally download the desired content. It's just reality. If DRM was thrown away, people will still find music for free. If DRM remains, people will find ways around it like they have been doing since its inception. Either way, the time will come when the record industry has to realize that music needs to flow like water, like a public utility. Once we all get past this "online revolution" roadblock and realize that there is no destination, just a never-ending journey to (hopefully) bigger and better things, all sides of the music world will be much more productive.
Honestly though, it is encouraging that people are at least thinking and acting instead of fighting the inevitable. Of course, now that Suretone Records has tentatively dipped its toes in uncharted waters, others will follow suit. Let's hope that this probable snowball effect will lead to something big, a compromise where both the recording industry and consumers are happy. Other major sources of revenue will have to open up and CDs will most likely have to go the way of the dinosaurs. Until new age thinking catches up with new age technology it will always be one step forward, two steps back. But I have hope.
Since this post started out focused on videos, here are some examples of music videos I wouldn't mind putting up with advertisements to watch:
OK Go - Here It Goes Again
Chemical Brothers - Star Guitar
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop
What?! Are you serious?!?! I don't know what surprises me more, that they are releasing DRM-free content, or that they are releasing music videos. This is just so great!
But wait! There's more! Actually, there is a catch: The files released are not complete. More like half of the actual file will be available to view. Why? Once half the video is played, the viewer will be directed to the label's website to watch the entire video. If the user isn't annoyed enough at being duped by a record label's marketing department (for shame!) to not continue to the website, then the video can be viewed with the accompaniment of advertisements. Awesome. Such is the nature of the corporate beast: Think of long-winded, often ridiculous ways to make a buck.
I have a proposal: Instead of planting incomplete files on file sharing networks, just run advertisement banners on the most popular file sharing and music websites that notify the user of free video viewing on the label's website. Why not plant incomplete files? Because the user will find another way to download the desired file, be it audio or video, and downloading this half-file marketing ploy will most likely leave the user annoyed and laughing at the record label's feeble attempt at being sneaky, cool, smart, or whatever the labels think they are. Furthermore, at this point I don't even think it matters if DRM stays or goes. There will always be ways to illegally download the desired content. It's just reality. If DRM was thrown away, people will still find music for free. If DRM remains, people will find ways around it like they have been doing since its inception. Either way, the time will come when the record industry has to realize that music needs to flow like water, like a public utility. Once we all get past this "online revolution" roadblock and realize that there is no destination, just a never-ending journey to (hopefully) bigger and better things, all sides of the music world will be much more productive.
Honestly though, it is encouraging that people are at least thinking and acting instead of fighting the inevitable. Of course, now that Suretone Records has tentatively dipped its toes in uncharted waters, others will follow suit. Let's hope that this probable snowball effect will lead to something big, a compromise where both the recording industry and consumers are happy. Other major sources of revenue will have to open up and CDs will most likely have to go the way of the dinosaurs. Until new age thinking catches up with new age technology it will always be one step forward, two steps back. But I have hope.
Since this post started out focused on videos, here are some examples of music videos I wouldn't mind putting up with advertisements to watch:
OK Go - Here It Goes Again
Chemical Brothers - Star Guitar
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
