Slashdot Mirror
How YouTube Music Key Will Redefine What We Consider Music
First time accepted submitter Biswa writes YouTube launched its ad-free subscription music service called MusicKey. today. From the TechCrunch article: "YouTube finally unveiled its subscription music service today, and in some ways it’s very much like existing streaming music services, especially since it comes bundled with Google Play Music All Access. But YouTube Music Key also very much not like other streaming music services, because of the ways in which music is (or rather isn’t) defined on YouTube. One of the first questions I had about Google Music Key was how the company would define what kind of content from YouTube gets included: Would a home-shot cover of a Black Keys song with 253 views be as ad-free as the official music video for the original? Or was this a private club, designed for the traditionally defined music industry? Turns out, the nature of what Music Key encompasses is somewhat of a moving target, and the limited beta access that will initially gate entry to the service is in part due to that variability."
"Limited beta access" is a shitty marketing tactic that got old and stale several years ago.
The last time it worked was when Google launched Gmail.
Now, even Joe Sixpack knows that "beta" means inferior, so almost everyone will wait for the real launch, by which time their service is old news and not widely reported on.
Not exactly sure what the summary was saying, other then another online music service. I still prefer my music on my computer, or media devices, then streaming.
Be seeing you...
How YouTube Music Key Will Redefine What We Consider Music
In no way, shape or form.
However, the actual question is quite more interesting:
How will YouTube redefine what THEY consider music, now that they get to ask for money for the items included in their new definition?
Or, in other words, will people be forced to replace the music in their skateboard stunt video with humming and whistling to avoid their video from being paywalled?
I suspect torrenting of music to increase because of this. Can't force the market to pay for what it doesn't think it has to pay for.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
nothing new, no need for it, just so Google can claim their piece of pie in this industry over what they already had.
Here's what the pie is. The pie is a market. The pie is cuttable into unlimited slices. Who gets the pie, depends on if they get into the market. Getting into the market guarantees them a slice of the pie. This is why Google entered the market. Because of capitalism, gobbling up as much pie as possible is always desired, even if it's unnecessary and duplicates what's already out there a million times over.
I have yet to see anyone in most markets for pie innovate. It's a system of cloning each other, selling the same things, doing the same things, simply using their own servers and system, putting their names on it. I'm still waiting for the audio industry to make it to HD, uncompressed high resolution audio for streaming and digital sales, but it will never come because everyone is selling the same product and there apparently is no incentive for them to try to improve or do anything differently.
http://www.obamasweapon.com/
Well, if Google includes Google Play Music, and you also watch a lot of youtube, you'll pay the same price as you're currently getting for all-you-can-eat streaming, plus get rid of the ads on Youtube. Otherwise it seems like a pretty stiff price for ad avoidance.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It will redefine how what we consider music, eh?
Seems unlikely. Music will continue to be a cllection of notes and/or beats for some time to come, I think.
Having read TFA, I'm still not sure what it is except that is picks a playlist for you and google reserve the tight to decice what's on the playlist. I've no idea how it narrows it down to your taste.
I guess Ad-free is nice. I've actually started listening to streaming music recently rather than local copies so I get ads. It's a bit odd since it's a local station fro a place I used ot live, so I get to hear all about "Bob's trucks off the access road" or "Trujillo's Plumbing Supplies" for stuff near a city several thousand miles from where I live. I don't find them nearly so bothersome as I thought.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Boo-tube.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
It's redefining music as in: Thank you for your subscription fee! Here's a cat video. No refunds!
I can say unequivocally that YouTube will not redefine what I consider music.
You are welcome on my lawn.
When i wrote about Greek music i did not meant "weird-ass Greek experimentalist music publishers" (as you write) but Greek traditional music that was published from big Greek record companies (back from early 1900) and the rights are worth something (not as much as USA/English pop/rock/e.t.c. but still...) even today - examples (that i listened few minutes before this story published in slashdot):
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReCQf3nToi4
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSl7bfd882k
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T45jERPZOeo
The "mom and pop / indie artist" (as you write) would be that (that i also listened few minutes before this story published in slashdot): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atmbyYtGF9c
Those (all 4 examples) "aren't generating millions of views" but worth something because Greeks like me, while few compared to those that listen the usual USA/English pop/rock/e.t.c., are ready to pay for good (!) music - and since i listen to non-Greek traditional music very often (e.g., i love Korean traditional music, "arirangs", etc: ) i am ready to pay even for that.
I think that "generating millions of views" is not the most important factor for YouTube in this business decision.
For example, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jKZCjvyLeg) is one of many great Korean song that i -a Greek- would suscribe to YouTube if included, imagine a Korean!
How YouTube Music Key Will Redefine What We Consider Music
The answer, of course, is "not at all."
What a bloody stupid headline.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Nope. I'll carry on with free Pandora and my own collection, thanks. I really don't see a $120 annual bill appealing to the same stressed economic group that is now 'cable-cutting'.
Plus buying music from YouTube just sounds like the equivalent to shopping at Dollar General: embarrassing.
>> ad-free subscription music service
Heh. For now. (See cable TV.)
The one thing I still use YouTube for is music. Sometimes you just get an album cover and the song. Sometimes lyrics. Sometimes you get the original video, if it hasn't been taken down. If they put all that behind a paywall, I'll do without for a while and then chose something else that's music-only. The video was just a nice add-on.
I was never a heavy participant on YouTube, uploading just a couple rather lame videos before... wait for it... Google demanded my phone number. That's what made me stop logging in. I just didn't have that desperate a desire to participate
So. Real ID turned me into a passive user. Demands for money will just make me go away.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Netflix instead of cable
Without cable Internet, how are you connecting to Netflix? Or with cable Internet, how are you saving any money?
expects these companies to give you everything for free yet complains when they find a way to give you exactly that (by selling ads)
The problem comes when the ad network serves video ads on a text and still image site. Thus the ads outweigh the rest of the page in download size. And at $10/GB for Internet access away from home and restaurants (source: any U.S. cell carrier's web site), it starts costing the viewer a substantial amount just to download the ads.
Let me rephrase: A video on YouTube is a series of pictures with synchronized sound. Which videos' sound tracks fall within the scope of Music Key?
YouTube already provides a means to contest a Content ID claim. If that fails, the uploader could always upload the video somewhere other than YouTube.
Yoko Ono already did that.
Have gnu, will travel.
Musicians should be paid for performing, not licensing.
Not all musical genres are well suited to live performance. How would, say, a producer of electronic dance music put on a live performance?
Funny thing is, I'm *not* one who just considers "my generation's" music to be music. I listen to stuff ranging from 1920's blues and jazz on up through big band, "classic" 50's rock, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and even some '00s. But I haven't heard a *new* band that I actually like in about 10 years.
But more to the point is the fact that most of YouTube's content is cat videos, how-to guides, and people doing dumb shit on a dare. Very little of what I "watch" on YouTube is "music", and most of the music I "watch" is illegal copies of old tunes that would get YouTube/Google in trouble if they tried to charge to access it.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I pay for records. The internet is free. I guess I'm old-fashioned.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
As far as I can tell, these videos will still play, though they will have ads and may be blocked on devices other than a desktop or laptop computer with Adobe Flash Player.