Members Anderton Posted October 27, 2015 Members Share Posted October 27, 2015 From the newswire: YouTube unveiled its new music app, "YouTube Music," on Tuesday at an event in Los Angeles. Designed for people who use YouTube as a main source of music, the new music streaming app works closely with traditional YouTube videos, allowing users to switch to an "audio only" version and stream music in the background while they access other apps. YouTube Music will be free to use, but the free version includes ads, which you can remove by signing in with a YouTube Red membership. I guess it's time for WalMart to start a streaming music service...maybe General Motors, too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 27, 2015 Members Share Posted October 27, 2015 Seems like the YouTube app is a natural extension since they've been monetizing their music videos for a while now, and if anything, they've probably been a bit slow in releasing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 27, 2015 Members Share Posted October 27, 2015 Well, I've had the beta in G's Play Music for a while now (since early 2014). But I don't even use that account to log into YT, usually. I haven't found the minimal ads on YT all that distracting as a rule -- although I've seen some longer content that's shoved full of breaks. The MST3K 'official' channel tends to insert commercials in their annotated reruns. (Plus, my artist page on YT is administered from a different G account.) Now -- unlike the most folks (I guess), who make YT the number one place online for 'listening' to music -- I seldom go there with music on my mind -- except when following links from pals sharing music tips. I have some pretty clued in FB friends, particularly in the roots/blues/R&B field, so they've turned me on to some great stuff. After watching the vid, I often add artists and or key tracks to my GPM library in that system. For me, my $10 a month is all about GPM (where I've been since MOG was closed down at the beginning of 2014 by Beats to make way for their abysmal, and thankfully short-lived Beats Music). The integration with GPM is nice that searches for song/artists that aren't found in the GPM catalog but are on YT show up in the search results page -- and every once in a while I do shell out to YT to watch something that way -- but I'm usually already listening to music and want to add it into my playlist, not interrupt what I'm doing and watch (or ignore) a video. (So far, no way to sandwich a vid play in between GPM tracks -- it it would seem pretty weird, anyhow, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Seems like the YouTube app is a natural extension since they've been monetizing their music videos for a while now, and if anything, they've probably been a bit slow in releasing it. I agree. YouTube was already the king of the streaming services - people use it more than any other service to stream the songs they want "on demand" already; it's a no-brainer for them to offer a music streaming service that gives people the option of ditching the ads in exchange for paying a subscription fee. Let's see how they do on the "value added" aspects, such as playlists, new music suggestions, audio playback quality options and so forth. If they can get all that happening in a solid way, they could definitely become a real streaming powerhouse - again IMO, they already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 27, 2015 Members Share Posted October 27, 2015 Access to higher audio quality on videos would definitely be a plus. They've done uncharacteristically good work in turning the music side into a generally first rate service, a really good player, good 'work flow' putting together playlists or just an afternoon's listening, seamless integration with a 50k track personal upload library. I have some issues with the Android app but it's because I have a huge favorites library (2340+ albums). The Songza acquisition and integration seems to have gone a long way to satisfying folks' desire for better playlist and radio type options. (The on-the-fly radio still isn't too sophisticated, seems to me, seeming to cue off the last track played, rather than a given set of tracks. Hard to see why they can't implement a multi-track approach, maybe do the same similarity search only with the last five tracks or something. I dunno. I don't really use robo-radio because it drives me to the skip button -- and has across every platform I've ever used -- I really can't do Pandora, for instance.) Still, I was looking at a Spotify 'tips and secrets' type of article and they have some really nice stuff there, like boolean searches. Oddly, for the first year or so I was on GPM, their search was pretty stunted, only searching on one term, you couldn't combine artist name and track name, for instance. Now it's at least a little more like G's web search -- though, somewhat annoyingly, the most returns a search can give is 100 -- far too few given the extraordinary amount of (often quasi-duplicate) content on the web. It's a shame to have mediocre re-release versions of tracks crowding out original label versions because there are so many returns. One other issue with the search system: the 'search bar' starts searching as soon as you start typing -- which slows down its ability to accept more typing -- if you should happen to type in an error it might take several seconds for it to display, in which case you then have to back up (as it does a new search on every letter) finally allowing your correction. Careful typing seems such a headache just to use a music player. =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted October 28, 2015 Members Share Posted October 28, 2015 The record industry is dead. All these streaming companies are trying to drive the herds to their sites for a lousy buck. Higher resolution is not the answer. Neither is content. Its all about getting what you want NOW and FREE. The value of music is zero today. The issue goes beyond the record industry, its one of ethics and as a pessimist of human nature, I do not see ethics making a comeback with the web. The web is all about lowest common denominator and its pretty low so instant availability and FREE is here to stay and if you can`t get it on site A, site B will sprout up and offer the content. So we can sit here and talk about what each company offers and which service is more "valuable" but most people don`t care. They just want it now and they want it free. Oh, I already said that… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 28, 2015 Members Share Posted October 28, 2015 Subscription streaming pays recording and publishing rights holders. Hopefully, that's the artist if he or she was savvy enough to avoid an exploitative contract. A lot of nonsense has been put out about streaming and royalties -- and when we dig into the details of those stories we almost invariably find that an artist has been receiving a pittance per stream because his/her record company takes 80 or 90% or even more! (80% is reportedly the average.) Here's a Forbes piece (and related series) that explores just how canny the labels are at taking a very fat slice: Inside The Black Box: A Deep Dive Into Music's Monetization Mystery Now, sure, if you're the kind of artist who sells records that no one ever actually listens to, the move to the streaming model is going to be a rough go. But if you make music people want to listen to, streaming is an ongoing revenue stream. I did the math on one of my favorite albums. Since I switched to GPM in February 2014, around 21-22 months, the rights holders have made around 34 dollars off that one album just from my plays, based on the rate Google pays me per stream. My favorite artists seem to make a lot off my plays, but, of course, there are other artists, artists that I even have in my physical collection, that haven't been played once by me in a decade of streaming. Good thing those guys got their dough out of me when they did. In fact, a real factor in me bonding with the subscription streaming model as it emerged a decade ago was going through my physical collection of ~1900 albums when I moved. And shaking my head over how many things I paid good money for that I barely ever listened to (sometimes not even listening all the way through the first time). Sadly, a lot of the other records in that collection were purchased used. And that means that though one or more resellers made money, the artists and other rights holders did not. That's fine, I suppose, certainly, that's the way we approach used book and record sales in the US. But it's a lot of money changing hands without touching pocket to the musician. Anyone who high hats me on my support for streaming better not have a bunch of used or cut-out records in his collection. LOL (Also, something a lot of aspiring types often don't seem to realize: artist/labels in the US get nothing for terrestrial radio air plays for their recordings; songwriter/publishers get the same amount per presumed radio listener as they get per stream per court-set formulas.) Anyhow, that is why I like subscription streaming. If the big labels and stream companies are right about the economy of scale, they can make it work at the current $10/US, according to them. If not, then we'll need get consumers adjusted to spending even more. Because, don't forget, $10 a month is almost twice what the Average US consumer currently spends on music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 28, 2015 Author Members Share Posted October 28, 2015 Its all about getting what you want NOW and FREE. The value of music is zero today. The issue goes beyond the record industry, its one of ethics and as a pessimist of human nature, I do not see ethics making a comeback with the web. The web is all about lowest common denominator and its pretty low so instant availability and FREE is here to stay and if you can`t get it on site A, site B will sprout up and offer the content. And right on cue (emphasis added)...a news item from youredm.com: As the world of music continues to struggle to find a happy medium, some record labels are actively making the change they find necessary to survive in today’s ever-changing market. Spinnin’ Records, which has been one of the top labels in the EDM industry, has announced their latest undertaking: Spinnin’ Premium, their new service that will offer free music that can be downloaded during a period of 2 weeks, where the only thing you need to give to Spinnin’ to get a premium account is your email. The new move is embracing the fact that more people are leaving a pay-for-music model to opt into free streaming models. It’s a move that Martin Garrix announced just a few days ago, when he revealed that his new music would be released for free, and it’s clear Spinnin’ is following in his footsteps. To celebrate the launch of Spinnin’ Premium, the label has put out their first release under the new freemium model: Ghostchild, a track by Firebeatz & Apster which is available for free download to all who sign up for the premium account. Regular scheduled releases moving forward will also become free downloads under the new model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 28, 2015 Members Share Posted October 28, 2015 The record industry is dead. All these streaming companies are trying to drive the herds to their sites for a lousy buck. Higher resolution is not the answer. Neither is content. Its all about getting what you want NOW and FREE. The value of music is zero today. The issue goes beyond the record industry, its one of ethics and as a pessimist of human nature, I do not see ethics making a comeback with the web. The web is all about lowest common denominator and its pretty low so instant availability and FREE is here to stay and if you can`t get it on site A, site B will sprout up and offer the content. So we can sit here and talk about what each company offers and which service is more "valuable" but most people don`t care. They just want it now and they want it free. Oh, I already said that… When "owning" a song became intangible, the writing was on the wall. That some embrace LPs or cassettes is largely a reaction against this intangibility. Granted, this is a small minority, but it shows that some people like the physicality of having a music medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 28, 2015 Members Share Posted October 28, 2015 If music was meant to be tangible, they'd make it out of concrete. Oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted October 29, 2015 Members Share Posted October 29, 2015 I've never paid for a music service. I've always seen it a little differently as far as youtube in general goes. Since I was using it and contributing to it from the early days I've always seen myself as participating in an experiment, and putting up with lousy audio quality compared to what I'm used to. Streaming audio has never rated as "Real Music" to me. I'm accustomed to hi-fi. Participating in the give and take nature of the web is all I need to do. I think of the different forums I've participated in alone as giving back. From music to firearms to alternative energy to the martial arts to IT, and other interests, I've given away so much free consulting. I could have retired long time ago if I charged a fee for everything I've contributed and I know many people can say the same thing. I don't owe anyone or any web-based service anything. My view of the Internet may be a bit old fashioned. I find the ever-increasing ads that you can't skip on youtube downright abusive and a violation of the spirit of the web. So I don't see music as worthless, but just that I've given back and deserve to listen to web-based music or watch a whole movie if I want. The web is a big bartering system; at least that's how it started out and I still see it that way. We all know how much or how little we've contributed. Looking back I've spent more time and effort on the web giving it away for free than I have for my real highly paid IT consulting job. I may spend 20 minutes on site when I drive to a job, but get paid for 2 hrs plus drive time. Then I turn around and spend days writing a detailed tape buying guide or how to modify a popular wind turbine with ceramic bearings to make it quieter for not one red cent. Do I owe the web anything? Nope!!! (I think that may have been a rant and a bit OT... maybe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.