Spot(ify) On!
Here's an interesting insight: did you know that you're not getting the "full" Internet experience?
Well, that's kind of an exaggeration, and it's a bit of a stretch from the example I'll give you to my conclusion, but bear with me!
I recently felt like the left-out-kid when I followed a funny thread and found a very nasty, but viral, video that all the ICs (Internet Cognoscenti) had been passing around for quite a while. To get the gist (and don't tell your mom I sent you here!), take a look at this "reaction video." http://www.comedycentral.com/tosh.0/2009/07/09/2-girls-1-cup-the-biggest-reaction-video-ever/
The real "story" behind the story isn't the truly twisted video... it's shooting the reaction of the people who watch the disgusting thing. And as it turns out, there is a whole small industry in "reaction" videos to this, and no doubt other funny/weird/revolting content.
Now, I keep up with a lot of stuff on the Internet. I have three full pages of RSS feeds, many of which are simply aggregator sites, on my iGoogle site. Between that, and the stuff I get passed from my friends and co-workers, I feel as though I don't miss a lot.
But then you find out about an application like Spotify (www.spotify.com), and you can't help but wonder what else you're missing. And the reason you're missing it is even more concerning: because the site is designed to supply music content, and because there is no obvious payback to the record industry, they're not supporting it. You simply can't access this service inside the US. (Right now, Spotify is only available in Finland, France, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK.)
The idea behind Spotify is to make a library of millions of songs available instantly on your computer, or your mobile device. Spotify also allows you to share songs with your friends. You discover a great tune and pass it along. Included with your Spotify membership are such features as offline music, playlists, sharing, "find similar," biographies of groups, purchase, search, and even artist-dedicated streaming radio.
The record industry, of course, would prefer we bought the songs via iTunes for $.99. There's nothing to say that you still wouldn't like to have the song in your owned library. While Spotify does permit you to create playlists, even collaborative playlists (for that open office space tune sharing, or a Friday night get together), I would still want to have a locally owned library. And Spotify does have a "premium," or paid level, ($15/month) which shows no ads (oh, did I forget to tell you? the basic plan includes ads, which is how the folks at Spotify make their money). Ostensibly, there is room in there for payback to the record industry. It's just that their ever-dwindling share of that once-fat pie would shrink further still.
No, I won't hide the fact that I think that the record industry behaved badly for so long it's hard to let them off the hook. I think that rather than $.99 per song they could be charging $.50 and still making a decent profit. And I think that for years, they stood as gatekeepers between us and who-knows-how-many amazing talents: they simply would not cut records for or promote artists they chose to ignore. And there were few, if any, avenues for these artists to get in front of the public (other than through local venues). Now, while there are still some marketing and managing benefits to an artist or group having a label, it's not an absolute pre-requisite. Through avenues like Blip.fm, or Pandora, users can find music "similar" to something else they like, discovering all kinds of new talent along the way. Some of my greatest musical adventures have been avenues chasing from one artist to the next, all because a Blip DJ I like blipped a song, I "discovered" it, and that led me to try a song that came up as an erroneous result, and... well, you get the idea.
And because I publish my blips to my Facebook and Twitter accounts, my friends have heard many of these songs, discover them, and then often return something to me saying,"If you like that..."
I wholeheartedly endorse this kind of viral movement of music throughout the Internet.
So I was really disappointed to discover that I'd have to wait - perhaps indefinitely - for Spotify to come to a computer near me. Here's how The Daily Beast's Nicholas Ciarelli explained it:
According to reports, Google and Spotify have considered a partnership in which consumers would be able to use Spotify's premium service for no charge on an Android smartphone, while Google would foot the users' bill. Spotify has a similar arrangement with Telia, a Swedish mobile carrier that bundles the music service with its phones and pays for the first three to six months. For Google's Android software, such a partnership would be a deft maneuver against Apple's iPhone, the defending champion of smartphones.
"Deal or no deal, though, the most consequential roadblock to the U.S. launch has been anemic support from some of the major U.S. record labels, which speculate that not enough users will upgrade from Spotify's free, ad-supported service to the premium version. Witness the statements by Warner Music chief executive Edgar Bronfman Jr. during a conference call with analysts last month. "Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry, and as far as Warner Music's concerned will not be licensed," he said. "This sort of 'get all the music you want for free and then maybe we can with a few bells and whistles move you to a premium price' strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future.""
Perhaps we won't buy as much music as we once did. There are certain songs I don't mind listening to, but I don't care if I own them. So yes, if they were available free, my $.99 would not make the coffers of the RIAA. My personal feeling about that is: if advertising money supported the artists and the distribution network, then that would be fine with me. And, I would be willing to pay a reasonable premium fee to pay the artists and the distribution system, have access to a full and rich library of listening, and not necessarily house a particular song on my own hard drive.
Whatever the ethics and path we take to get there, clearly, the recording industry is changing - has changed - and will never go back to the way it once was. And an application like Spotify is one good alternative.
Well, that's kind of an exaggeration, and it's a bit of a stretch from the example I'll give you to my conclusion, but bear with me!
I recently felt like the left-out-kid when I followed a funny thread and found a very nasty, but viral, video that all the ICs (Internet Cognoscenti) had been passing around for quite a while. To get the gist (and don't tell your mom I sent you here!), take a look at this "reaction video." http://www.comedycentral.com/tosh.0/2009/07/09/2-girls-1-cup-the-biggest-reaction-video-ever/
The real "story" behind the story isn't the truly twisted video... it's shooting the reaction of the people who watch the disgusting thing. And as it turns out, there is a whole small industry in "reaction" videos to this, and no doubt other funny/weird/revolting content.
Now, I keep up with a lot of stuff on the Internet. I have three full pages of RSS feeds, many of which are simply aggregator sites, on my iGoogle site. Between that, and the stuff I get passed from my friends and co-workers, I feel as though I don't miss a lot.
But then you find out about an application like Spotify (www.spotify.com), and you can't help but wonder what else you're missing. And the reason you're missing it is even more concerning: because the site is designed to supply music content, and because there is no obvious payback to the record industry, they're not supporting it. You simply can't access this service inside the US. (Right now, Spotify is only available in Finland, France, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK.)
The idea behind Spotify is to make a library of millions of songs available instantly on your computer, or your mobile device. Spotify also allows you to share songs with your friends. You discover a great tune and pass it along. Included with your Spotify membership are such features as offline music, playlists, sharing, "find similar," biographies of groups, purchase, search, and even artist-dedicated streaming radio.
The record industry, of course, would prefer we bought the songs via iTunes for $.99. There's nothing to say that you still wouldn't like to have the song in your owned library. While Spotify does permit you to create playlists, even collaborative playlists (for that open office space tune sharing, or a Friday night get together), I would still want to have a locally owned library. And Spotify does have a "premium," or paid level, ($15/month) which shows no ads (oh, did I forget to tell you? the basic plan includes ads, which is how the folks at Spotify make their money). Ostensibly, there is room in there for payback to the record industry. It's just that their ever-dwindling share of that once-fat pie would shrink further still.
No, I won't hide the fact that I think that the record industry behaved badly for so long it's hard to let them off the hook. I think that rather than $.99 per song they could be charging $.50 and still making a decent profit. And I think that for years, they stood as gatekeepers between us and who-knows-how-many amazing talents: they simply would not cut records for or promote artists they chose to ignore. And there were few, if any, avenues for these artists to get in front of the public (other than through local venues). Now, while there are still some marketing and managing benefits to an artist or group having a label, it's not an absolute pre-requisite. Through avenues like Blip.fm, or Pandora, users can find music "similar" to something else they like, discovering all kinds of new talent along the way. Some of my greatest musical adventures have been avenues chasing from one artist to the next, all because a Blip DJ I like blipped a song, I "discovered" it, and that led me to try a song that came up as an erroneous result, and... well, you get the idea.
And because I publish my blips to my Facebook and Twitter accounts, my friends have heard many of these songs, discover them, and then often return something to me saying,"If you like that..."
I wholeheartedly endorse this kind of viral movement of music throughout the Internet.
So I was really disappointed to discover that I'd have to wait - perhaps indefinitely - for Spotify to come to a computer near me. Here's how The Daily Beast's Nicholas Ciarelli explained it:
According to reports, Google and Spotify have considered a partnership in which consumers would be able to use Spotify's premium service for no charge on an Android smartphone, while Google would foot the users' bill. Spotify has a similar arrangement with Telia, a Swedish mobile carrier that bundles the music service with its phones and pays for the first three to six months. For Google's Android software, such a partnership would be a deft maneuver against Apple's iPhone, the defending champion of smartphones.
"Deal or no deal, though, the most consequential roadblock to the U.S. launch has been anemic support from some of the major U.S. record labels, which speculate that not enough users will upgrade from Spotify's free, ad-supported service to the premium version. Witness the statements by Warner Music chief executive Edgar Bronfman Jr. during a conference call with analysts last month. "Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry, and as far as Warner Music's concerned will not be licensed," he said. "This sort of 'get all the music you want for free and then maybe we can with a few bells and whistles move you to a premium price' strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future.""
Perhaps we won't buy as much music as we once did. There are certain songs I don't mind listening to, but I don't care if I own them. So yes, if they were available free, my $.99 would not make the coffers of the RIAA. My personal feeling about that is: if advertising money supported the artists and the distribution network, then that would be fine with me. And, I would be willing to pay a reasonable premium fee to pay the artists and the distribution system, have access to a full and rich library of listening, and not necessarily house a particular song on my own hard drive.
Whatever the ethics and path we take to get there, clearly, the recording industry is changing - has changed - and will never go back to the way it once was. And an application like Spotify is one good alternative.
Comments