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."

3 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. How indeed by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  2. Hubris. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:Sweet, wait, huh? by flyneye · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was a shill for a pay service. If you want to PAY for what is free elsewhere.
    Personally, I wouldn't pay for it. Chances are, the band who wrote it and plays it will never see the money, it goes directly to the owners of the song; the music industry. So, if you pay for music, you are actually encouraging an industry that steals intellectual property, rips off the artist and in most cases discards the artist after their peak of profit dwindles. Artists could do without the industry by simply giving away their music, as promotional, and charging to play live. No industry needed for this scenario. This is the age of the internet, the do-it-yourselfer, the tools are within everyones reach. A band doesn't need an industry, maybe a few friends to help is all, that is needed. Fuck the industry. Don't pay for music, it only encourages the middlemen to pump up the price and rip EVERYONE off, while contributing nothing of any real value. It is a parasite. Don't pay for music.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!