so what's different [Archive]

Droolbucket

October 28th, 2007, 04:47 PM

I've got you beat.... I grew up in the vinyl age. Here's the fundamental difference....
I, and everyone I knew, bought blank cassettes and taped albums WE ALREADY OWNED so we could enjoy them in our cars. At the time, manufactured cassette albums were really shitty, with nothing above about 8K (or so it seemed). We could get much better quality by buying the album, and getting a good quality blank cassette and taping it.
I honestly don't know of anybody who taped somebody else's album just so they wouldn't have to pay for it.
What I AM guilty of is taping a 45rpm record of a song I didn't like, because I had to learn it for a cover band. Usually if a song was climbing the charts that nobody in the band liked, somebody would get the 45 and we'd tape it to learn it. I justified this, wrongly, by figuring I was out promoting this song every night by playing it live.:Roll eyes:

In the first example linked, the author goes to great lengths to justify pirating and talks about how the artist got screwed anyway. He then goes on to talk about how his favorite cartoonists are getting screwed by free downloads (pirating). Pretty blatant double standard, even with the 8th grade economics course thrown in.

The problem with digital music is people are downloading music THEY DON'T OWN. I have no problems with burning a mix CD from CD's I already have. I also dump my CD's onto my daughter's MP3 player with no qualms. I've already paid for it. I don't burn CD's off the internet, because it's theft.
The music industry is in a pretty tough position in this digital age, and I have no idea what the ideal solution would be. Smarter minds than mine have been debating this for the last couple of decades, give or take a few years. All I can do is monitor what goes on in my household, and try to instill values in my kids.

Or maybe pop open a beer and tune in the Nascar race......:grin:

Droolbucket

Disclaimer... my few remaining brain cells collide with each other in random and unpredictable ways, sort of like the Asteroids video game, and so my opinions may have nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. I'm gonna blurt 'em out anyway.

bunnerabb

October 28th, 2007, 09:02 PM

"We tend to forget that the "piracy" of file-sharing is, in some respects, a philantrhopic gesture; requiring a significant donation of time and computational resources."

Oh, my great granny's fucking underpants, it is.

Spock

October 28th, 2007, 09:21 PM

The Robin Hood type of thinking. Somone worked hard to steal from the rich, so it must be a good thing they did.

sowhoso

October 28th, 2007, 09:32 PM

c'mon...the robin hood argument is awful as we all know the rich made their riches off the backs of the poor peasants.

that's not what we're talking about here.

sowhoso

October 29th, 2007, 01:38 AM

Oh, my great granny's fucking underpants, it is.

ok, so what do you think it is that makes peeps share mp3s through p2p nets? what do you think they gain from it?

sowhoso

October 29th, 2007, 01:52 AM

http://www.giantmike.com/pics/ifruit/53.png

bunnerabb

October 29th, 2007, 03:48 AM

ok, so what do you think it is that makes peeps share mp3s through p2p nets? what do you think they gain from it?

Ripped off music files.

They upload their own to feel like they're "contributing".

I got a hot flash:

Giving a bum a sandwich is philanthropic. Clicking your mouse three times and giving away 2903475982790438754 copies of the new Green Day album, ain't.

nobby

October 29th, 2007, 06:41 PM

Lessee...

Tapes are lossy and degraded the sound
You could share mix tapes with a few people you know and they could make a shitty copy of your shitty copy
Tapes cost money
There was no way to instantly share your mix tapes with 70 million other motherfuckers at once

Other than that...

:Roll eyes:

I'd add to that that in making a tape copy, you had try to get the hottest levels you could because of the low S/N ratio of the consumer tape deck and medium, which back in the days of dynamics meant you had to listen to the whole album while watching the meters to make sure you had hot enough levels but not too hot, cue the tape up at the beginning (past the leader) add up the lengths of the songs, determine if you could get both sides of an album onto one side of the tape (usually not) babysit the whole process in real time so you could shut off the tape machine at the end of the side, flip the LP over, maybe flip the tape over, try to determine if you had enough time on the tape to just hit record, or if you had to rewind, which of course meant that you had to rewind the second side every time you played it back.

So it was an involved process and took about an hour, as opposed to clicking a mouse button once or twice and waiting for almost a minute.

That's why you only made a cassette copy for the car. Between that and the aforementioned cost of the tape, you might be better off just biting the bullet and paying full retail for the prerecorded tape, and a lot of folks did just that,

Tim Armstrong

October 29th, 2007, 06:51 PM

Bob Olhsson

October 29th, 2007, 07:29 PM

Love the Robin Hood bullsh!t. It's as if looting the store doesn't affect all of the folks who create the music.

What has gotten crushed is classical music, jazz, electronica, folk, bluegrass and all of the indi "art" music that was never on major labels to begin with and produced by artists who needed to sell a couple thousand copies just to cover their expenses. The worst part is that independent investment in artists has collapsed which means the current generation of youngsters has pretty much gotten fucked out of any hope for music as a career unless their parents are rich.

But hey, a bunch of assholes got to make some money in the NASDAQ.

ggunn

October 29th, 2007, 08:08 PM

...and then there's the amount of actual work involved in making mix tapes!!!

Yep, carefully line up the tone arm, drop it gently into the groove, hit play, listen to the song (as nobby said, watching the VU needles), wait for the last faint sounds to end, hit pause, lift needle, change record, repeat.

Mix tapes were a labor of love!

Cheers, Tim

Slight tangent here...

From one to another who did lots of this kind of thing back in the day, were you in the slightest bit mystified by the "mysterious" thumps in the 18 1/2 minutes erased from the Nixon tapes by Rosemary Woods? Go to the top of the section you want to erase, go to record mode, roll tape for a while, stop and listen to the tape. There's still more stuff you want to erase, so back up a little, go to record mode, roll tape, stop, listen, repeat... Get a thump on tape every time you do that.

I remember hearing the newscasters and senators puzzling over it, and yelling at the TV "You idiots! Ask anyone who's ever built a mix tape; they know exactly what those thumps are!" That erasure was no accident, but it was clumsily done, like maybe by a secretary who didn't know how to cover her tracks.

sowhoso

October 30th, 2007, 04:31 AM

I copied and shared my collection back in the day with tapes. At the most fundamental level what's different? nothing, it seems to me.

awhile back I read this by janis ian and began to wonder:

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

recenly radiohead had given peeps the opportunity to pay zero dollars/pounds for their last album yet peeps are willingly paying a purportedly $8 on average.

on the subway peeps throw loose change into a guitar or violin case for something they can have for free.

there's more to all of this than reason or logic may imply.

Tim Armstrong

October 30th, 2007, 04:38 AM

So this isn't a conversation, you aren't interested in what anyone else has to say?

Did you read ANY of our replies to your earlier posts?

Tim

Tim Armstrong

October 30th, 2007, 04:40 AM

From one to another who did lots of this kind of thing back in the day, were you in the slightest bit mystified by the "mysterious" thumps in the 18 1/2 minutes erased from the Nixon tapes by Rosemary Woods?

By the time they were actually playing that stuff on the network news, I was so disgusted that I wasn't paying that much attention. Hey, I was a 14-year-old with ADD, whattaya want?

:Coolio:

Tim

sowhoso

October 30th, 2007, 04:43 AM

So this isn't a conversation, you aren't interested in what anyone else has to say?

Did you read ANY of our replies to your earlier posts?

Tim

sorry if it seems that way, I have read all the responses (even bob's) and it is a conversation. so far I just don't see anything that steers me another way.

sowhoso

October 30th, 2007, 04:52 AM

some stuff that's legally free (lots of bands doing it for awhile):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/01/DDGNR41E2B1.DTL

sowhoso

October 30th, 2007, 05:01 AM

sowhoso

October 30th, 2007, 05:13 AM

where the money's at (hasn't it always been this way):

Here, from Wired's music blog, is a list of the top grossing touring bands of 2006.

1. Rolling Stones $150.6m
2. Tim McGraw and Faith Hill $132m
3. Rascal Flatts $110.5m
4. Madonna $96.8m
5. Barbara Streisand $95.8m
6. Kenny Chesney $90.1m
7. Celine Dion $85.2m
8. Bon Jovi $77.5m
9. Nickelback $74.1m
10. Dave Matthews Band $60.4m

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/01/rolling_stones_.html

there's nothing like seeing your favorite band live. Bob talks about it all the time.

nobby

October 30th, 2007, 05:22 AM

where the money's at (hasn't it always been this way):

Here, from Wired's music blog, is a list of the top grossing touring bands of 2006.

1. Rolling Stones $150.6m
2. Tim McGraw and Faith Hill $132m
3. Rascal Flatts $110.5m
4. Madonna $96.8m
5. Barbara Streisand $95.8m
6. Kenny Chesney $90.1m
7. Celine Dion $85.2m
8. Bon Jovi $77.5m
9. Nickelback $74.1m
10. Dave Matthews Band $60.4m

That's right, the top dozen or so bands make tons of money touring, and the vast majority of bands either can't break even touring, or maybe eke out a meager living.

sowhoso

October 30th, 2007, 05:46 AM

That's right, the top dozen or so bands make tons of money touring, and the vast majority of bands either can't break even touring, or maybe eke out a meager living.

I think that's a typical old hat response.

Touring has always been where bands make the most $$. but, only if the band is worth their weight in salt, otherwise they're always broke until they get good enuf.

bunnerabb

October 30th, 2007, 06:38 AM

Do you have any idea what it takes to keep a tour of that size on the grid?

Lighting, audio, trucking and transfer, planes, buses, drivers, pilots, union scale labour at every venue, T-Shirts, vendors, FOH and Mon engineers, LD, spot ops, video, video techs, remote trucks, backline techs, hotels, travel agents, on staff physicans, accountants, attorneys, caterers, promotion, ads, set desingers, electroncis techs, programmers, website admins, promoter cuts, venue rental, wardrobe, dry cleaning, regional maintenance, nutritionists, personal trainers, advances to cover per-diem.

You're paying a fucking army.

All of the

Audio
Lighting
Trucks
Planes
Buses
Video
Trussing
Etc..

Is hired. Rented. And it ain't crap. It's very high buck stuff.

The insurance alone would make Bill Gates whine.

And you need performance bonds for every venue.

And insurance bonds per venue and promoter.

Those numbers are not the bottom line, but, yeah they made a lot of money.

Easy to do when your name is Mick Jagger.

What about Billy Bloke out thrahsing it in a van and trying to break even on a 10,000 CD run and merch when half of their "loyal fans" have already got the album on LimeWire?

Touring and promoting your LP have been hand in hand for years.

Hard to promote something that's essentially free.

Tim Armstrong

October 30th, 2007, 06:51 AM

Bunner, this asshat has his hands over his ears and is going "nananananana, I can't hear you, nananananan...."

He's decided that taking for free that which was produced for sale is okay, and anyone with half a brain should see that. Irrelevant facts about real-life musicians and technicians trying to make something resembling a living be damned!

Cheers, Tim

jerryskid

October 30th, 2007, 08:24 AM

"Following the lead of the Grateful Dead, many jam bands allow MP3 downloads on noncommercial sites. Mostly fans break up entire concerts into semimanageable files, but some go to the length of cutting the files into individual songs and post the files that way."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/01/DDGNR41E2B1.DTL

BUT, these concerts, including the Grateful Dead, are audience tapes made by an attendee. This is done with the blessing of the bands, who figure that audience recordings have always been free. The soundboard tapes are not available for download, though many are available for sale.

I know you're trying to ease your conscience by telling yourself it's ok and everybody does it, but it's stealing. I'm I'm a bit guilty myself of downloading a song the band wants to learn without paying, but I never keep it unless I like it, then I go somewhere and purchase it legitimently...

sowhoso

October 30th, 2007, 12:10 PM

Big Acts Follow Radiohead's Lead: Let Their Music Go Free

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/005651.html

sowhoso

October 30th, 2007, 12:20 PM

Bunner, this asshat has his hands over his ears and is going "nananananana, I can't hear you, nananananan...."
Cheers, Tim

well, i'll certainly overlook that puerile remark.

mind you, I paid for radiohead's new album.

i doubt you've read every one of my posts.

sowhoso

October 30th, 2007, 12:21 PM

bunnerabb

October 30th, 2007, 12:46 PM

I dunno. CDs and promotional trinkets still cost a hell of a lot to make.

dnafe

October 30th, 2007, 12:49 PM

"...as record sales decline, the concert business is booming. In July, Prince gave away his album Planet Earth for free in the U.K. through the downmarket Mail on Sunday newspaper. At first he was ridiculed. Then he announced 21 consecutive London concert dates — and sold out every one of them."

TIME

That's all well and nice, but imagine this same Prince, without his world class home studio, without the cash to pop for God knows how many thousand free CDs, without his hard earned and deserved fan base and see if that Prince can pull this off.

Not a rat's chance in hell.

jerryskid

October 30th, 2007, 01:28 PM

Touring has always been where bands make the most $$.

the Quickie Mart down the street makes more money off of beer and cigarettes but that doesn't mean it's okay to fill the gas tank and drive off.....

Tim Armstrong

October 30th, 2007, 03:59 PM

well, i'll certainly overlook that puerile remark.

Please don't! :Twisted:

mind you, I paid for radiohead's new album.

Well, that certainly puts you back on the moral high ground! :Roll eyes:

i doubt you've read every one of my posts.

I've read every one of your posts in this thread, but only skimmed the linked stuff, as it was more of the same old self-justifying crap. You, on the other hand, asked how file-sharing was different from trading tapes, and we told you: perfect copy vs degraded copy, amount of time and effort it takes to actually tape stuff, one copy at a time vs instant access by potentially millions of others. Tape copying by its very nature is like a slow leak in a dry climate, while file sharing is like a dam bursting. You don't APPEAR to have read our replies, or if you did, you certainly don't seem to have considered them valid.

Hey, if anyone wants to OFFER their work for free, I'll gladly take it. I think it's an excellent way to promote BUYING more of their music (which is why my band offers some FREE downloads on our website). I also think the Radiohead "pay what you want" thing is absolutely brilliant.

But in their case and in the case of anyone who's offering their work for free, THEY'RE the ones who decided that the music was free, not the fans, not someone with a computer and an internet connection.

It's their decision, not yours or mine.

Cheers, Tim

ggunn

October 30th, 2007, 04:59 PM

BUT, these concerts, including the Grateful Dead, are audience tapes made by an attendee. This is done with the blessing of the bands, who figure that audience recordings have always been free. The soundboard tapes are not available for download, though many are available for sale.

GD lore asserts (though I have no firsthand knowledge) that Betty or (what was his name - the other well known Dead board op) would sometimes drop a cable with a stereo board feed down into the tapers, who would daisy chain it around to a bunch of their decks. If that's true, then there would be a bunch of soundboard tapes out there in free distribution.

eagan

October 30th, 2007, 05:00 PM

I think that's a typical old hat response.

Sometimes, a "typical old hat response" is typical because it's right.

Touring has always been where bands make the most $$. but, only if the band is worth their weight in salt, otherwise they're always broke until they get good enuf.

Just as a quick side note, bad spelling is going to only make people regard you as more annoying and clueless.

But to move back to one item here; there's a list of top grossing Big Gigantic Tours.

Alright, putting aside the matter of these being Big Gigantic Tours and how they compare to general reality for most of the music business for a second, let's consider that list.

Basic Business 101 question.

OK, you found some list of gross receipts.

Now, tell us what the net was for those people.

JLE

Jeff_C

October 30th, 2007, 06:01 PM

Isn't it just this simple?

Taking something I own against my will is stealing. Taking something I own but give away is not stealing. The owner chooses how and when to deliver as well as the price to be charged.

If the owner of the music means for each copy to be paid for, you steal when you make copies without paying. A person who steals is a thief.

If you aren't a very deep thinker, you might make yourself feel better by pretending it is OK to steal because the owner doesn't need the payment, or everybody else does it, or because you gave away the stolen copy to someone else who also didn't pay for it. Your feelings do not change the facts.

Most of all, this line of thinking is bad for you. Training yourself not to feel guilty while doing things that are wrong cannot be good for your character. Pop over to dictionary.com and check some of the definitions of sociopath...

Tim Armstrong

October 30th, 2007, 06:40 PM

I've read every one of your posts in this thread, but only skimmed the linked stuff, as it was more of the same old self-justifying crap.

I just went back and read the linked stuff all the way through, and have two things to say:

1. The first guy, after a bunch of the usual self-justifying stuff about Napster, etc, actually goes into suggestions for paying for content.

2. The second guy goes into pretty exhausting detail about the first guy's micropay/upay idea.

Both of them seem to ultimately reject "free" file-sharing, and feel that some form of artist compensation is ethically essential.

Cheers, Tim

jerryskid

October 30th, 2007, 08:23 PM

GD lore asserts (though I have no firsthand knowledge) that Betty or (what was his name - the other well known Dead board op) would sometimes drop a cable with a stereo board feed down into the tapers, who would daisy chain it around to a bunch of their decks. If that's true, then there would be a bunch of soundboard tapes out there in free distribution.

You're talking about Betty Cantor and Dan Healy..yes there's LOTS of soundboard tapes, but the soundboard downloads have been taken off the sites..

Bob Olhsson

October 30th, 2007, 11:00 PM

Johnny

October 30th, 2007, 11:22 PM

Robin Hood was actually robbing the government of exhorbitant tax revenues.

Carry on. You guys are settin' the lad straight better than I could.

jerryskid

October 31st, 2007, 01:09 AM

According to Dan Healy, who I used to work with, the ONLY reason the dead ever allowed taping was because some assholes were beating up fans who happened to buy a ticket in a good sounding spot for taping.

Just a bit of clean up, Bob, that's the reason they put in the taper's SECTION. The Dead always allowed taping.

Tim Armstrong

November 1st, 2007, 04:25 AM

Carry on. You guys are settin' the lad straight better than I could.

Looks like he took his ball and went home!

:Coolio:

Tim

mousdrvr

November 1st, 2007, 08:39 AM

Saving Money was never the point --- getting 100 times more music WAS!

Oh I get it now! So when I go to the Taco stand instead of the Sushi bar, I'm not really trying to save money I'm just trying to get more food than I could otherwise afford. :lol:

This is what Lily calls a distinction without a difference. My term is somewhat less polite. Evil!

That said, He does allude to some good points, although the logic supporting most of them I find naive and like a lot folks up here, I'm a little offended by the "As long as we're fucking the guys who fucked you harder than we're actually fucking you, then we're not really fucking you" rationale.

I do however like his nod to what one of my buddies at work jokingly calls "security through inconvenience". We have a system that collects data from folks who download and run some of our security software. We bang on it and try to extract the juicy goodness ( well badness really ) and then make it more or less publicly available. However we'd like to give folks some incentive to contribute data themselves. Our problem and we've been on it for about a year without much success, is that we couldn't find a way to register contributors in such a way that their anonymity couldn't be compromised by inference if we associated their data to a unique id in any way. So we said "screw it!" we'll configure the software to issue a token and challenge for that. Present the token get the extra goodies. Now we know damn well that anybody could simply post the token of the day on any website so it's really kinda silly, BUT we decided in the end that that would be what my daddy used to call a "high rent problem" At best it'll be like a nag dialog in a shareware program, but in our case that'll be just fine. It can be argued that we, as a research lab, already function under a patronage model, so it might not seem to apply. However this may be the trend.

This type of thinking does seem to be working for cats like
Jonathan Coulton (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/) You CAN get all of his stuff for free if you try, but he figures if he makes it really convenient for you to give a little cash, reasonably inconvenient to rip him off, and you really like what he's doing, you'll go ahead and do the right thing. Not a great way to get rich maybe, but quite possibly a very good way to get to your true fans, who are really the only people who matter in the end anyway.

Just to be clear I'm not suggesting this type of Laissez-faire attitude toward one's copyrights is the best way to go or that locking your stuff down is in ANY way wrong. It's YOUR stuff after all. It just seems to be becoming one viable strategy.

-mous

paulie

November 2nd, 2007, 01:53 PM

Your argument is invalid.

All the artists you give as references can afford to give their music away because they, at one time or another were sustained (ie. they were able to eat and put a roof over their heads) by record company advances and royalties from a public who mostly bought their music.

Name me an artist who has thrived because a bunch of people copied their music to such an extent and then you have an argument.

Prince took 3 albums to become established, Radiohead took 2 albums to become established. If they had no money during that time and had to divert their attention elsewhere to make a living do you think they would be around today or that their output would still have been as good/prolific? Or would they simply not have been "good enough"?

Everytime you want to hear music you should be forced to watch the X factor on loop because that is your future.

brack

November 2nd, 2007, 03:22 PM

Music piracy is a reality, at least right now it is. Even if some of us pirate and some of us don't. Holding to morality in a tidal wave of piracy won't make it stop.

It has done good things and bad things.

More music is being heard by people who would, before, only listen to the radio. A die hard music fan is apt to pay for the new Derek Trucks CD, but the average rock radio fan is not. But if I tell my rock radio fan friend about this cool CD and he downloads it, next time he sees the Derek Trucks CD he may buy it, and even spread the word, which means more money for Derek and less money for Limp Bizkit, U2, Prince... I think this has a lot to do with the rise of the music middle class, as well as more money available to the average person spend on live performances.

Before piracy, I hated the fact that my really cool, intelligent friends were just fine with being force fed music created for everyone. They were ok with not knowing about these great underground bands, because they spent money on DVD's or gas, or diapers, and got all their music for free on the radio. When they do buy a CD they don't take chances on wasting cash on something they might not like. I'll go to the music store and spend $200, like my wife does on books. My non-musician friends are never going to do that. They're going to download word-of-mouth recommendations and buy Tenacious D at the store because they loved the downloaded mp3's, U2 will have to wait until next time.

I like XM/Sirius and Pandora and Yahoo music as solutions to version 1.0 Radio. Give us free variety and make it as easy as downloading. I love the Pandora method of categorizing your tastes, and it's the best method I've seen of sampling new music. My friends rely on me to scour the music forums, take chances on new music and let them know what's good enough to buy, or download, or stream.

Piracy is stealing. I got pulled over in Mexico and the policeman asked me to bribe him to let me go. I didn't say no, I gave him money and went on. Corruption is a reality in Mexico, and they'd have to arrest every policeman in order to stop it. Standing our moral ground against Mexican corruption won't fix that either, it's going to require a paradigm shift.

I'm starting to hate the word paradigm even more than I did before I joined this forum, hehe. I guess because I'm actually using it in sentences :(

Immanuel

November 2nd, 2007, 09:45 PM

People "share" copied music, because it gives them a hero-like feeling of giving others something. in fact they don't give others something. To give somebody something, you have to own it. If you give away other's property, you are in fact stealing from these people, when you do so. So the buttom line is: File "sharing" people don't give anybody anything. They steal other peoples property and do nothing but that.

Another thing. People, who "share" files are all sissies. If they want to do the Robin Hood thing, why don't they steal bread from the supermarket and give it to the poor people? One reason: They might get busted.

So why do people steal and "share" music and not bread (which indeed would be of much more fundamental use to the poor people, you could give it too)?

Because they can
Because they don't risk their own but
Because it makes them feel like little heroes

How you can be a hero for not putting an effort in anything and at the same time make others do the hard work (create the music, finance the recordings, do them, spend time promoting them (so the loosers (file "sharers") can get to know about them) ... well some stupid people just are like that ... :Thumbdown:

brack

November 4th, 2007, 02:25 PM

I was reading my latest Wired issue, and saw this article. I hope it works.

Wired article on lala.com (http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-11/ff_lala)

Bob Olhsson

November 4th, 2007, 03:39 PM

Where this falls apart is that only a tiny tiny minority of music hobbyists is willing to spend their leisure time actively searching for little gems of music among mountains of drek.

Swafford

November 4th, 2007, 03:44 PM

"As long as we're fucking the guys who fucked you harder than we're actually fucking you, then we're not really fucking you"

The logic behind this is quite robust. You see, artists have been fucked so hard for so long, their metaphorical and spiritual holes are now so large when the small prick crowd comes in for their thrusting, they're just fucking air.

See, they're fucking air, not artists.

That's why they can't cum from fucking. They must masturbate. That's why they are called "jerk offs."

This puerile illogical statement brought to you by swafford, who pays $.99 for his crappy country songs from iTunes so he can play guitar in a crappy cover band whose members, all good thinking, well paid adults, can't seem to figure out how iTunes works, so they steal their material.

But not from me.

Which makes me pretty popular in the band.

And I don't care.

Because they think covering Toby Keith IS ART. And that makes me smarter, and there's nothing I like better then the reassured smugness that is derived by being smarter then a well paid Carny who has a day job.

brack

November 4th, 2007, 05:35 PM

Where this falls apart is that only a tiny tiny minority of music hobbyists is willing to spend their leisure time actively searching for little gems of music among mountains of drek.

I thought so too. Have you tried Pandora? I wish my radio had a Pandora station. I wish I could go to my car and put in Hellacopters and high energy rock played until I changed it to Three Dog Night radio :)

Lala, and Nguyen's answer is social networking, like myspace or something...

Nguyen designed the site to operate like a social network. The lists of CDs you want and have form the core of your profile, and the people you trade with become your "friends." When the software discovers someone with tastes similar to your own, Nguyen figures you'll regularly click on their profile to check out what they have and want. You can even see the music they're streaming at that moment. Users can make playlists and share them, and if they want a broader audience, they can post the lists to groups within the community. The site also features some clever programming to help you expand your sonic palate, providing user-generated recommendations and playlists automatically populated with new-to-you music. All the while, of course, it'll be easy to buy anything you happen to discover.

Discovery is at the heart of Nguyen's plan — the notion that the way to save the music industry is to help fans range widely and explore new artists and genres. Though no other service or retailer shares his exact business model, plenty are working the discovery angle.

"For every Norah Jones there are a thousand artists like her who just haven't been found," says Pandora founder Tim Westergren, whose site streams custom listening channels based around a listener's favorite band or song, using advertising revenue to pay for it. Qtrax, another ad-supported venture set to launch in December, is essentially a peer-to-peer client but says it has inked deals with the four majors. Users will be able to grab any song off the company's network and listen to it for free. And Last.fm, a music-startup success story, focuses on exposing its listeners to new music. Boasting more than 15million users, it was bought by CBS last May for $280 million.

Bob Olhsson

November 4th, 2007, 09:41 PM

In my opinion remarkably little has come out of MySpace for all of the buzz.

Swafford

November 5th, 2007, 02:16 AM

Yeah, it won't ever live up to the buzz, but I find Myspace a useful tool for local and like musicians and fans to network and keep tabs on each others activities. I tend to delete 'friends' (such a creepy euphemism) who fill the bulletin board with hourly updates on what they fed their dog or that cool inversion they used while ripping of Woody Guthrie, and I've gotten a lot of positive feedback on my blow hard blog, the stuff we did in Nashburg, and I get a number of queries on when it will be something more then crappy mp3's and ruminations.

So, you know, better then nothing.