Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Partners With LyricFind To Display Songs Lyrics In Search Results (billboard.com)

Posted by msmash on from the saved-you-a-click dept.

Google has signed a multi-year licensing deal with LyricFind, a Toronto-based firm that provides lyrics of songs. As a result of the collaboration, users will now see song lyrics directly in the search results, both the companies have announced. From a BillBoard report:A query for the lyrics to a specific song will pull up the words to much of that song, freeing users from having to click through to another website. Google rolled out the lyrics feature in the U.S. today (June 27), though it has licenses to display the lyrics internationally as well. While the terms of the deal weren't disclosed, LyricFinder Chief Executive and co-founder Darryl Ballantyne projects publishers and songwriters seeing "millions" of dollars in additional revenue from this arrangement.The move comes six years after Microsoft partnered with LyricFind to display lyrics on Bing.com (Archived link).

35 comments

  1. internationallyricdatabase by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    Does anyone remember this site? They were shut down because allowing searches on lyrics and providing lyrics were deemed to be a copyright violation. People argued that getting the lyrics in the cd jacket was part of the allure of buying the product.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re: internationallyricdatabase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now its an allure to sign up for google play.

    2. Re:internationallyricdatabase by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I must be missing something in this story. I don't remember ever NOT getting lyrics in a Google search. Right now, I'm going to do a search on, I don't know..."Biz Markie Just a Friend lyrics".

      https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

      So what exactly is the change that Google's announced?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re: internationallyricdatabase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^ this.

      You say she's just a friend, ohhhhhh babbbbby youuuu.

      Lol classic.

    4. Re:internationallyricdatabase by fl_litig8r · · Score: 1

      I think what you're missing is that the actual lyrics will now appear in the search results, instead of just links to pages with lyrics. This happens now with certain other searches, like "what day is labor day 2016". It gives you the answer directly in the search results.

    5. Re:internationallyricdatabase by fred911 · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the provided lyrics are authorized by the license holder and are of higher quality and accuracy than links to unlicensed providers.

        As a result you will probably see licensed results ranking higher than others.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:internationallyricdatabase by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the provided lyrics are authorized by the license holder and are of higher quality and accuracy than links to unlicensed providers.

      I don't believe you.

      I'm going over the unlicensed lyrics to the Biz Markie song that I found on Google and comparing them to the actual song. Since there is no difference, I don't see how licensed lyrics are going to be more accurate. I also don't see how licensed lyrics are going to be of a higher quality. Do you mean they'll be in a fancier font? Will the licensed version correct grammatical errors that the actual songwriter made? How are the licensed lyrics going to be of a higher quality? Will they be delivered faster?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:internationallyricdatabase by fred911 · · Score: 1

      " How are the licensed lyrics going to be of a higher quality?"

      Simple... licensed lyrics are authoritative and the source can be trusted. Just because you see a correct response in a yahoo or answers.com Q&A page doesn't give it any credibility.

      "Will the licensed version correct grammatical errors?"

      A licensed version wouldn't have errors by nature.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    8. Re:internationallyricdatabase by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Simple... licensed lyrics are authoritative and the source can be trusted. Just because you see a correct response in a yahoo or answers.com Q&A page doesn't give it any credibility.

      We're talking about song lyrics here. There's no reason to believe that Google's source will be any more accurate than the many web sites and wikis that focus on lyrics.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Those poor lyric websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new form of going out of business with better automation over automation puts ad ridden websites out of business.

    1. Re: Those poor lyric websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google removes ad revenue from translated websites too. Even when you dont work for the man, you are working for the man.

  3. Search syntax by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    It would be nice if google implemented a "lyrics:" keyword, much like the "site:" keyword. That way, I could enter into the search box something like...

    .
    lyrics: streets of london

    1. Re:Search syntax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's pathetic compared to the DuckDuckGo bang syntax.

      Normal search query (search in DuckDuckGo): "streets of london"
      Redirect search to Google: "!g streets of london"
      Redirect search to Bing: "!b streets of london"
      Redirect search to Wikipedia: "!w streets of london"
      Redirect search to google maps: "!maps streets of london"
      etc, etc, etc.

      See here: https://duck.co/help/results/s... and here https://duckduckgo.com/bang.

      DuckDuckGo's results often aren't the best, but they make it up by having a damn nice interface. Google's search syntax is just embarrassing in comparison.

    2. Re:Search syntax by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      I agree about duckduckgo. I use it frequently.

    3. Re: Search syntax by BLToday · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the DDG info. Didn't know about it. DDG is now my default search engine on every device since it doesn't get in the way with overbearing ads.

    4. Re:Search syntax by lgw · · Score: 1

      Normal DDG search for lyrics will show you the start of the lyrics above the search results (much the way most searches show the start of the wikipedia article above the other results).

      !lyrics would be nice though.

      You left off the absolute best DDG feature though: !wa for Wolfram Alpha Try this search:

      !wa e^x+e^-x

      Best online calculator in the world, because it does so much more than compute results. It will show you graphs of the above, tell you that's the same as 2cosh(x), and so on. The integral solver is very handy for physics problems.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. Worst-case test by PPH · · Score: 2

    It works with Louie-Louie.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Worst-case test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works with Louie-Louie.

      Inagada La Vida, baby!

    2. Re:Worst-case test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jock-A-Mo.

  5. "Much" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> A query for the lyrics to a specific song will pull up the words to much of that song

    "Much"? Why not "ALL"?

    >> LyricFinder Chief Executive and co-founder Darryl Ballantyne projects publishers and songwriters seeing "millions" of dollars in additional revenue from this arrangement.

    Well...at least one of those two groups, right?

    1. Re:"Much" by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I was wondering how these "millions" might be made. I had to RTFA to find out that every time a lyric is displayed, someone gets paid.

      So it seems simply typing something like "streets have no name" into Google will mean some twat who wears sunglasses indoors when it's not sunny gets paid some money. I guess it starts with LyricFinder, who collect a small amount from Google. They take their cut and pass on a small amount to , who takes their cut and passes on a small amount to . So it goes on, several dozen times until some "poor and starving" artist gets their money. What we know for sure is that only the rich artists will get anything - the actually poor and starving ones won't have the commercial links to actually get paid, and so the middlemen will just soak up that payment "on their behalf".

      I'm wondering what Google's revenue stream is here. They tend to get paid per-click, so aren't getting paid for the views that they have to pay to serve. Hmm...

    2. Re:"Much" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> I'm wondering what Google's revenue stream is here

      Same as it ever was: ads. However, not instead of individual lyrics sites getting a portion of the ad click-dollars, Google gets the whole payment instead.

  6. Missing a key detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google only displays part if the lyrics then links you to google play for the rest. Seems a bit selfish honestly, they should limit this to known google play subscribers

  7. Dr. Know by kwoff · · Score: 1

    "Starving minds, welcome to Dr. Know, where fast food for thought is served up 24 hours a day... in 40,000 locations nationwide. Ask Dr. Know. There's nothing I don't."

  8. Will be interesting by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Interesting

    when Google has so much power over what we can search for and the results that we get, that they will be able to(at first) subtly modify things, whether its song lyrics or news or opionions, etc;
    Wait, they are already doing that...

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Will be interesting by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I have been using Bing exclusively for the last year. I will occasionally do a cross query to check the quality of the results and it has never been an issue. If I cannot find something on Bing, I cannot find it on Google either.

      I also find that Bing has been innovating in search result (don't know what to call them) gadgets. For example, Bing has an inline base64 encode/decode function... you don't have to head out to a 3rd party site.

      Call me a shill if you want, but I don't think that Google has the dominance in search any more. Their competitors (or at least Bing) are just as good at least and often better.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Will be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer startpage.com which uses Google search but does not track your IP address apparently.

    3. Re:Will be interesting by CaseCrash · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. I'm about 80% google on my computer because I prefer chrome to Edge, but I'm 99% bing on my phone. No real difference on results, but the little extras are slightly better on bing.

      My one cynical thought on this is where are all the people who always say "Microsoft just copies other people" and now here's something they've been doing for 6 years and now google is copying. And... silence?

      --
      No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
  9. This isn't News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This has been enabled for quite some time.. i don't get the news here, this was not JUST enabled. Two years ago: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-lyrics-19613.html

  10. Well this one worked by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    https://www.google.co.uk/webhp...

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  11. "Did a tiger just run out of my Butt?" by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Of course one reason to look up a song is because you misheard some lyrics and want to know what the song was. 'scuse me while I kiss this guy. So I wonder if it can do soundex matching?

    Personally I would prefer if it gave the Literal or Bad Lip Reading version of the lyrics as well. "who has two thumbs and likes BJs?" "Did a tiger just run out of my Butt?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:"Did a tiger just run out of my Butt?" by tepples · · Score: 1

      Of course one reason to look up a song is because you misheard some lyrics and want to know what the song was.

      Misheard lyrics are more likely to pull up misheard lyric sites like amiright.com, provided that someone else misheard them the same way. Unlike the major lyrics sites, these don't have quite the same pressing need to license lyrics from the publishers, as there's a clearer fair use argument for their presentation of 1- or 2-line snippets in the context of comment on the vocal style of a popular recording.

      Google would prefer that you buy and carry a smartphone and subscribe to cellular data so that you can use the Song Search widget in Google Play Music.

      Bad Lip Reading version

      What about the misheard Bad Lip Reading version? "Every iPhone poops because it isn't an Android and should be destroyed"

  12. Score search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what we need. Or better yet, write down the score for me from a midi file; or turn my whistle to the mic into a score. Use your imagination to give me more 'convenience'.

    That's a good plan.

  13. Catch up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google playing catch up to Bing? Who would've thought.