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."

5 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. playlist by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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....

    1. Re:playlist by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So how long will it be before someone cries foul, waves a 'playlist' patent and tries to make a dishonest buck out of this?

      Good question. Here's another one: how long until the corporations have fully astroturfed the playlists? They co-opt everything else. What's stopping them in this case?

  2. Failure to adapt. by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:You are looking at it all wrong. by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:brings life to obscure music with COVER songs, by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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;