141–150 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, trying out other music managers is a very good way to come to appreciate iTunes and how it works. I encourage everyone who thinks they're unhappy with iTunes to check out these other applications.
Yes, but why can't I just drag and drop mp3 files on my iPod/iPhone directly from the file manager?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't that bad, I would say I'm listening to pretty broad spectrum of music, most of it being not very popular, and Spotify has roughly 75% of what I need. OK, when something that was there disappears after a while then it's seriously irritating, but still, the true selling point of Spotify is the quality of the program itself: it's super slick, fast and has the best interface ever in the category of music players…
..except availability on Spotify of their catalogue is not artists' business but their label's, regardless of degree of indie-ness. My attitude is the complete opposite: "I can listen to Madonna but not to Tallest Man on Earth, who is from Sweden? Kthxbye".
(Worth to note: Spotify actually has Tallest Man on Earth in its' catalog, I'm now listening to the guy)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not really possible, since the labels have a government supported monopoly (with pretty serious enforcement, and lots of laws in place to prevent most clever workarounds) on pretty much all the music that anyone wants to listen to. Even people who like to listen to indie music usually have some more mainstream music owned by the big labels that they want to listen to. The problem is that most people won't st…
Ok, so what about a service that doesn't revolve around music delivery/listening?
Google music. Who cares? Oh right, you guys don't have Spotify. I don't know anyone that has it that bothers with iTunes or actually buying music anymore. Get the free version, and get any music anytime and the occasional ad. Pay a few bucks a month, and you get any music anytime with no ads.
Spotify is great as long as you don't step out of the narrow scope of the music offered. Try finding anything released <6 months ago and report back. rdio and MOG are even worse in that respect. Grooveshark is the only service that has a decent though a Kazaa-like chaotic catalogue.
One really scary thing I've heard though, is that the masters for a lot of older music is missing, so while the labels might have the rights and even the willingness to license the music, they just don't have it anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "Write a music player client that can stuff your music into an encrypted blob" is a bigger hurdle for most people than paying $25/month. Besides, doesn't Grooveshark already do this for free?
Sounds like a good idea for an OS project, if it doesn't exist yet. But how cheap is storage in the cloud? 25$/months is definitely too much, if that's what S3 costs for 100GB?
It's a bit high for music backup.
I came to this conclusion myself about 6 months ago, after Dalton Caldwell spoke at a YC dinner. I realized it was basically hopeless to start startups that touch label music, because even the ones that seem to be succeeding (in the sense of not being sued out of existence) are only allowed to live so the labels can suck investors' money through them. But by creating a startup-free zone around themselves, all the lab…
The situation isn't entirely hopeless. Even within the most aggressive labels (and by that I mean their legal departments) there are parties who do encourage innovation. These are the people that go to bat for artists and are trying everything imaginable to promote them. They try new advertising campaigns, are experimenting with alternate branding, and moving to the sports business model (ie endorsements). Its unfort…
Don't be fooled by the crowd that says the music industry is "investing" in talent, they are lending money (and producers, which of course they charge to the artist again)! There are some ridiculous stories about the music industry.
I don't know if it was just me growing up, but music changed dramatically right after Napster was forced to kill itself. Perhaps someone else can support this: "Music" has never been the same since then. It seemed so much more available, so much more pervasive, more frequently invasive to my life; better than it is now. Like I said, I've grown. But it seems that as the generation behind me moved online in a major way…
"But I have a take on that - people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn't make any money out of records because record companies wouldn't pay you! They didn't pay anyone! Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone. So if you look…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds naive. The people running the labels are very cynical, and the way they're compensated makes them even more so. They don't have equity. They're motivated by bonuses that come out of this year's revenue. So they're not interested in building stuff. They just want to extract large amounts of money, this year, from whoever they can.
Yes, perhaps thinking the labels changing their ways (or hoping they do) over time is naive. I'll admit that (but I'd like to say optimistic instead). What the music industry needs is a platform where unsigned artists can go to promote their music without the help of the labels. This platform could probably act like a label, but better serve the artists and users. It would have to garner a lot of eyeballs so it could…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, perhaps thinking the labels changing their ways (or hoping they do) over time is naive. I'll admit that (but I'd like to say optimistic instead). What the music industry needs is a platform where unsigned artists can go to promote their music without the help of the labels. This platform could probably act like a label, but better serve the artists and users. It would have to garner a lot of eyeballs so it could…
The idea of simply creating a different distribution mechanism (eg CDBaby) for unsigned artists so that they don't have to sign with a major label is popular with the tech crowd, but fundamentally flawed. It assumes that unsigned artists can all produce well recorded, popular music on their own. Most can't. A good producer can pick a rough artist or band and get something popular out of them, but it often involves bo…
Its true that the endorsement approach only works for popular artists, but everyone else can take the Youtube approach and let their content speak for themselves. Plus, not every artist wants to be mainstream popular. A lot of artists just want to get their music heard and know more about the people who listen to them. They make their money by touring and merch just like the popular ones do.
And artists don't need a lot of capital anymore. Yes, labels sink enormous sums into the production and marketing of a track in the hope they have a Lady Gaga hit, but I think you'd be surprised by how many successful artists there are that have chosen to go their own way and do just fine.
Hell, I'm looking at the data right now its its quite convincing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, have you ever visited or spoken to anyone at a label? Next time you are in SoCal, email me. I'm serious. :)
I'm not sure if you can answer this or not, but in your opinion what would it take to get some type of voluntary licensing going for music? I personally would rather pay a monthly fee than pay for each individual song or cd. I also want the ability to do what I want with the music. I don't want to have to work to get music on an mp3 player or worry about whether I'm going to randomly lose access to songs in library,…