Slashdot Mirror
Online Music Brings New Life To Old Music
Rick Zeman writes to tell us The Washington Post has a look at how online music has helped to revitalize eclectic or out of print music. From the article: " Because the Internet has changed how people discover and share music, the rules of marketing it and the hierarchy of who determines what's hot have also changed. As radio-music listenership declines, the industry finds itself spending more time courting a broader field of tastemakers who, through Web sites, are popularizing songs that never get radio play. The primary tool in this transition is the playlist -- a sequence of tracks posted on blogs or shared on music purchase sites such as iTunes.
Not just that, but also 'about 2,700 albums have been brought back through the Vault, with more than 5,000 scheduled to follow' with those albums not having enough demand to justify another printing."
"The primary tool in this transition is the playlist"
So how long will it be before someone cries foul, waves a 'playlist' patent and tries to make a dishonest buck out of this?
Stupid idea perhaps, but my god if there haven't been some godawful 'patents' showing upand causing trouble of late.
I'll go back to the cynics corner now....
As radio-music listenership declines, the industry finds itself spending more time courting a broader field of tastemakers who, through Web sites, are popularizing songs that never get radio play.
If only the radio industry could begin to realize that people do *NOT* like to listen to the same 7 songs over and over again throughout the day with the occasional "older" song thrown in to attempt to trick everyone.
If they could instead harness what we really want to hear (podcasts, *true* variety (across genres and decades), and less pointless commercials). It's obvious, through the success of podcasting and sat radio, that the formats they have been using in the past are done.
It's amazing to me that they are so slow to adapt as they watch their numbers fall.
In any case, the argument about pressed CDs being longer-lasting is moot. I am very picky about storing and handling my CDs properly in order to minimise damage, but I have noticed a number of pressed full-price discs in my collection have become degraded enough over a 10 year period to cause skipping. So far, fortunately nothing so bad that it can't be recovered with cdparanoia and burnt on to a blank.
This is still, in fact, illegal here (Australia) but I don't care. If anybody cares to argue with me about it, they had better be prepared to expect some injuries.
In any case, I also have a lot of home-burned CDs which have given me no trouble at all over the same period or longer.
You can't discover what you like if you are never exposed to it
I hate to smash your faith in humanity and the arts but he was right; Most people don't WANT to find something new. Most people are happy to listen to the same songs over and over. Most people don't buy a lot of music (and I'm not talking about Kazaa users either). Most people don't know Led Zeppelin from Pearl Jam. Check out your radio dial. Alternative* stations are small for a reason; low listenership. People would rather listen to old disco "hits" than to try out new music.
The RIAA charges so much for the few songs they let radio stations play that the average station can only have a thousand or two songs on hand
I'm not an expert here so please forgive any misunderstandings: First, I'm fairly sure that it's BMI not RIAA that handles the costs to radio stations for broadcasting rights. Secondly, I'm also fairly sure that less popular songs go for a cheaper price. A station could bolster their playlist by playing unknown songs that cost less per play.
I think what part of it is is that people are more likely to use radio as background noise to keep them company than they are to really listen to it. Satellite radio sells their service based on the idea of a familiar playlist and the fact that it's commercial free. Sure, the commercial free part of it is probably the lead selling point but I think the familure format of the station makes it very comfortable to most subscribers.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
This is still, in fact, illegal here (Australia) but I don't care. If anybody cares to argue with me about it, they had better be prepared to expect some injuries.
So backing up your disc is illegal in Australia but injuring someone who disagrees with you is not?
I agree with your comments about music-sharing services on the net destroying the RIAA's business model.... but I don't think I can agree with some of what you're saying.
For starters, I don't think it's at all "insulting" to analyze the situation the way I have. It's not really an issue of people being totally "unexposed" to anything but what the big radio stations (and presumably the RIAA by extension?) want them to hear.
People have *many* opportunities to explore and hear all sorts of music. If they stay locked into a very narrow view of what's "good", that's by their own choice. For example, I don't need a local radio station to play classical music in order to develop an appreciation for it. I could go to the symphony hall and hear it performed live, if I liked, or I could get my hands on any number of records, tapes, CDs or DVDs of classical performances. Even my public library lets me check them out for free. I've even heard it played on piano a fair number of times over dinner at various nicer restaurants in town.
It's also not really a fair comparison, in my opinion, to compare video rentals to music listening habits. People who are avid enough of movie watchers to consider signing up with a service like Netflix are already more likely than average to explore a wide range of films. Hollywood only puts out so many films at a time. (On average, you have what? Maybe 2-3 new DVD releases per week?) People who watch movies on a regular basis often watch as many as 2 or 3 movies over just one weekend, and maybe a few more during the week. They easily "burn through" watching whatever the latest, hyped-up new releases are - and have to seek out other material.
With music, people also listen to the same songs over and over if they like them. Far fewer people watch the same movies over and over. (Even people who buy movies on DVD as opposed to renting them for a night or two usually just enjoy having them in their personal collections for the sake of collecting. They take pride in having a nice selection for their friends to borrow or view when they come over more than owning them for many repeat viewings themselves.)
"The fun of collecting is gone," said Michael Crowley, who said he spent his childhood hunting for bootlegged copies of obscure acts in hidden-away record shops run by edgy people with nose rings. "They're not that fun if you can download them with a few mouse clicks," said Crowley, a Washington journalist who wrote about the rock snob's demise by digital music for the New Republic.
I don't find this to be true at all. There's plenty of obscure albums which I remain unable to find on bittorrent, despite continued effort. Every so often, I find one.
If I were paying, it might be another matter. But that's a different discussion altogether.
There's still a hunt, still an effort needed, it's just moved down the long tail as more and more music is made available online.
While we're on (or off) the topic, can you shine some light onto why all the major online music stores sell music sampled at 128kbps?
Keep in mind that 128kbps AAC is higher quality than 128kbps MP3, so if you're avoiding the iTunes Music Store because you don't like the sound of 128kbps MP3s, I suggest you try downloading some of the free tracks they offer (look in the bottom left corner of the home page, new free songs released every Tuesday). You can do this without giving them any credit card information, although you do have to register with a valid e-mail address.
Of course if you've heard 128kbps AAC and aren't satisfied, then I fully agree that you shouldn't send them your money.
To answer your question, the reasons Apple and their competitors offer compressed music are:
1) smaller files use less bandwidth for the user to download, therefore costing Apple less money
2) smaller files take less time to download, so the user gets closer to instant gratification
3) smaller files take up less space on disk, which isn't really significant on most desktop computers but is quite significant on portable media players such as iPods
4) the average person doesn't notice an audible difference between 128kbps AAC and lossless
Given #4, the demand for higher quality really isn't as strong as you expect, especially in light of #2 and #3. Throw in #1, and it's a no-brainer.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
He's spot on. I downloaded a truck load of music recently (just felt the urge), probably less that 20% of it was from this century with many of the songs going back as far as the 60's (long(ish) before I was born). With online downloads available I can get all the great tunes that make up my tape collection (remember tapes[cassettes]? No?). And it ain't just old stuff, a lot of what I buy online I just can't get at my local stores because it's not popular enough.
And I hope you understand that I actually - gasp! - bought the CD and ripped and encoded it all by myself. I know, I know - it was a moment of weakness, and I really hate myself for having done it. I'll try not to let it happen again</sarcasm>
Seriously, though, I have no regrets having bought this album or any others out of the small handful of original, pressed, expensive CDs I've purchased in the last few years. But in almost each and every case, I've come across the tracks online somewhere, downloaded them and given them a test listen before the cashola left my pockets. If the RIAA had their way, I'd be out several million dollars in legal penalties, and maybe behind bars. I just don't get that.
Back to the original point. Bands that are getting started and want exposure: pick a good cover song, and include it alongside your original material. You WILL get more attention that way. Just do us all a favor, and don't destroy the memory of the original by doing such a fantastically bad job of covering it that we end up hating both your version and the original as a result! Case in point - Marilyn Manson's "Sweet Dreams (are Made of This)". If you enjoy the original, for the love of god, don't listen to this "cover".
"I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." -- Tom Lehrer