Digital Noise: Music and Tech

Bill Gates has said that prognosticators often overestimate the amount of technological change that will happen in a year, but underestimate the changes that will take place over a decade. With the Zeroes coming to an end this week, and Steve Guttenberg's recent column questioning the viability of recorded music in 2020 as inspiration, here's my pick of 10 trends in music and technology that will shape the next decade.

Will the original iPod become an object of fetishization in 2020, like vinyl records are today?

(Credit: Apple Computer, via Wikimedia Commons)

Songs instead of albums
Musicians will always find ways to record their music--it's a fundamental drive, like painting for a painter or writing for a writer. But I agree with Guttenberg that fewer musicians will release suites of songs organized around a common theme or sound. As much as I love my long-playing records, they arose out of economics rather than art--they were a convenient way for companies to bundle multiple songs (particularly songs that might not have sold as singles) in an affordable package. With digital files already taking the place of physical recordings, there's almost no economic reason for the album to persist. By 2020, the concept of the album will be an anachronism with a few vocal adherents--like vinyl records are today--but most music will be released and consumed as songs.

Streams instead of downloads
Where did we get the idea that digital music has to be downloaded? It started with the CD and file-trading networks--content owners wouldn't sell us music in a form that could be consumed on our computers, so we ripped our own and swapped the files through Napster and its brethren. But now, every time a new song or album comes out, or we rediscover an old act, we have to rip or download the recordings, then transfer them to whichever device(s) we want to play them on. There's got to be an easier way!

If you had access to every song ever recorded, on any device, from any location with an Internet connection, wouldn't you rather pay for that service than buy a new CD or two every month? People say they want to own music, but when it's just a digital file, what do they want to own--a collection of ones and zeroes sitting on a segment of their hard drive? Why bother?

I think the real problem is that today's streaming services don't give you every song ever recorded and don't work on every device, and broadband data access--particularly wireless--is not ubiquitous. Those flaws stem from business problems (licensing, DRM, format incompatibility, and insufficient broadband infrastructure) rather than technology problems. And the business problems are gradually being resolved--look at the introduction of Rhapsody and Spotify for iPhone, and Apple's acquisition of streaming music service (and music locker) Lala. By 2020, most professionally recorded music will be consumed as on-demand streams and people won't pay by the track.

In the cloud rather than on hard drives
Some songs will never be available on demand--think of tracks from friends or obscure independent acts, or live covers (where licensing can be incredibly complicated, involving multiple performers and songwriters). But as users become accustomed to listening to more professionally recorded music on demand, they'll expect their personal collections to be available in the cloud as well. After all, who wants to spend time backing up a 120GB music collection on an external drive, or choosing particular recordings to eliminate in order to clear space on a cell phone?

This is where Apple's Lala acquisition really makes sense--imagine if iTunes served not only as an on-demand music service but also as a locker for songs you'd previously downloaded, ripped, or obtained elsewhere. Suddenly, the 16GB of storage on an entry-level iPhone would seem generous instead of paltry.

Fidelity rather than file size
Once our music lives in the cloud, we'll no longer have to worry about running out of space on our local drives or devices. Microsoft's SkyDrive already offers 25GB of online storage for free, and I could easily see that increasing one-hundred-fold by 2020. That's right: free terabytes of storage. It'll take a little bit longer, but eventually bandwidth--even wireless bandwidth--will increase to the point where streaming lossless digital files makes sense. Listeners will rediscover what they've been missing--detail in the midrange, and tons of information at the low and high ends of the spectrum--and the era of the MP3 will be looked back (and down) upon as the dark ages of audio quality.

Extras become standard
Again, with concerns over storage gradually disappearing, what's to prevent artists from packaging their music with artwork, lyric sheets, video outtakes, and even interactive applications? Today's artist-specific iPhone apps will become standard. Casual fans will stream a couple songs for free. Hardcore fans will pay to download the entire app and pore over it obsessively.

Production rather than consumption
Digital technology has already democratized the recording process--what used to take tens of thousands of dollars and a professional studio can now be accomplished with a laptop and a free program like Garage Band or Audacity. The results usually don't sound as good, but the experimentation process is fun, and sometimes a gem emerges. Digital technology and the Internet have also made promotion and distribution far easier than they were a decade ago. By 2020, music fans will spend almost as much time creating and sharing recordings with their friends as they do listening to professionally recorded music. Don't believe me? Think of this: 10 years ago, writers were a comparatively rare breed. Now, everybody's got a blog, or at least a Facebook page. In another 10 years, everybody will be a musician--or at least a recording artist.

Suggestions rather than searches
In a world of on-demand music in the cloud, search will become vitally important. Users will want to be able to find songs not only by title, album, or artist, but also by a few snippets of lyrics, or even by humming or playing part of a melody. (Imagine a combination of the voice search function available on Google Mobile with an advanced version of technology like Shazam, which can identify recorded music from a few snippets.) But search is only part of the question--once everything's available, how will users decide what to listen to? By 2020, personalized recommendation services, like those provided by Pandora, Slacker, and MOG, will become even more important than search, and will have to be integrated into any on-demand music service that hopes to survive.

Festivals rather than big concerts
Live music is already a long-tail world--with the exception of old, established acts and the very occasional pop sensation, very few bands can fill large arenas or football stadiums. This trend will accelerate as the last bands from the golden age of radio retire, labels take even fewer big promotional risks, and the market continues to fragment under the explosion in recording releases. In 2020, no single act will be able to sell 50,000 tickets at Qwest Field like U2 hopes to do this summer. Instead, the only shows that will pack large arenas will be festivals, where listeners can pick and choose among dozens of acts and classes of entertainment--just like they'll be doing online.

Spectacle rather than personality
With recording revenue plunging, bands must draw fans to their live shows in order to make a living. The common wisdom today dictates that musicians need a personal connection with their fans. They must blog, tweet, maintain their MySpace and Facebook profiles, and generally act like your next door neighbor who's always pestering you to see his band. There's a word for receiving "personal" messages from your favorite 100 bands--it's called "spam." Eventually, this cloud of self-promotional noise will dissipate, and will be replaced by old-fashioned word of mouth. Only acts that put on a great show--not just singing and playing songs, but entertaining in the old-fashioned sense of the word, with video and stagecraft and humor and spectacle--will cut through the noise. Bonus points for the first act that somehow integrates an audience-accessible game console into their act.

Retro takes on a new meaning
In 2020, the original iPod will be almost 20 years old. As the music world is overtaken by a nearly infinite selection of high-fidelity music, streamed over super-fast wireless connections to increasingly inexpensive portable devices, hardcore nostalgists will drag out their first-generation iPods and fill them with treble-heavy 120kbps MP3s. Meanwhile, grandpa will still be down in the basement with his collection of LP records and his lava lamp.

Yesterday, I compiled my list of the five most welcome products for digital audio that came out in 2009. Today, I'm following it up with my list of the year's five biggest digital audio duds.

An image from the infamous online commercial for Songsmith, Microsoft's reverse-karaoke software.

(Credit: Microsoft)

Zookz. The breathless pitch got me interested: a mysterious online service was getting ready to compete against subscription-based download service eMusic. But where eMusic limits users to a set number of downloads, this mystery service would offer unlimited music and movie downloads. How could this be? Wouldn't users just download all the material they wanted then cancel their subscriptions? How could content owners let this happen?

The trick: Zookz was based in Antigua, and according to the company, this meant it wasn't subject to those silly little things known as U.S. copyright laws and royalty rates. Unfortunately, the country of Antigua didn't agree, and days after the public beta launched, Zookz disappeared into the digital ether with a promise to refund subscribers' money.

Jango Artist Airplay. I liked Jango's online radio service back when it launched in 2007. This year, in what looked like a desperate bid for new revenue, the company launched a service called Artist Airplay, in which bands could pay for placement on appropriate Jango stations. While Jango's CEO tried to tell me this was a reasonable new marketing opportunity, I saw it as a new form of the old pay-for-play deal that beginning bands often fall for.

With regular marketing, everybody pays more or less the same amount for the same class of services and the music sinks or swims on its own merits. With pay-for-play, artists buy exposure. There's only one problem: the resulting conflict of interest drives discerning listeners--including people who might actually pay you for your music--away. Jango Artist Direct may not be as stark as those pay-to-play "showcases" and "band battles" where all the audience members are other bands and their friends, but I believe it's better for beginning artists never to start down this slippery slope. Then again, I thought users would never be ignorant enough to click on search advertisements in massive numbers, which is one reason why Sergey Brin and Larry Page are multibillionaires and I'm not.

Vevo. As long as we're talking about Google, let's talk about YouTube, which the search company owns. It's a great source for music videos, and its APIs have formed the basis for music-finding apps like Muziic and TubeRadio. Users love it. Unfortunately, the companies and artists who own the copyrights to many of those music videos don't love it--the videos are expensive to produce, and the ad revenues from YouTube and other online video sites are scanty to nonexistent. Google is also lukewarm about music videos on YouTube, finding that the cost of policing copyright and complying with take-down notices is more than the money they can earn from selling ads.

In December, two record companies--Sony and Universal--joined together with Google in a new joint venture, Vevo, to address the problem. This was supposed to be a back-end business-to-business kind of deal, where YouTube users wouldn't know (or care) that certain videos were actually being provided exclusively by Vevo, which would sell short video advertisements to run before them. Unfortunately, the glittery launch party drew undue attention to Vevo's own site, causing its servers to buckle under the load. The entire episode left music fans scratching their heads.

Songsmith. The idea wasn't all that bad. Karaoke is fun. Making music on computers is fun. So why not, reasoned some Microsoft researchers, create a program that fills in audio accompaniment as users sing. Unfortunately, the $29.95 price and unbelievably mockable promotional video turned Songsmith into an Internet laughingstock. Later videos featuring Songsmith's accompaniment to the vocal tracks of songs like Queen's "We Will Rock You" and Van Halen's "Running With the Devil" highlighted the silliness.

CMX. In August, reports broke that the four major record labels were considering a new type of "digital album" format that would include album art, lyrics, and extra content. There was just one problem: Apple was already building its own competing format, code-named Cocktail and eventually released as iTunes LP. I think the entire concept of a digital album is weird anyway: I'm not convinced that lack of album art is a big reason why users are buying singles instead of albums. (The real reason is the Chumbawamba factor, or the fact that a lot of albums contain only one or two good songs.) And iTunes LP doesn't exactly seem to be taking off, although some of the extras--outtakes and videos--are actually quite valuable. But creating a competing format that wouldn't be supported by Apple? That's just plain dumb. To be fair, we haven't heard anything about CMX since iTunes LP launched. Here's hoping this product is killed before it's ever born.

Music-tech entrepreneur Aviv Eyal, who's behind the excellent Livekick concert-tracking site, has a new project: a DJ app for the iPhone and iPod Touch called DJ Mixer Pro. (It was formerly known as DJ Player Pro, but the name has changed to avoid a conflict with another app.)

DJ Mixer Pro lets you manually adjust the BPM on each channel, or sync them automatically with one touch of a button.

The concept is similar to Touch DJ, an Amidio app that I wrote about last month. While the iPhone naturally restricts you to playing one song at a time, these apps function like a virtual DJ booth, letting you play two tracks simultaneously, jump to any point in either track with a touch of your finger, crossfade between them, match beats, adjust tempos, and add various effects.

I was impressed by Touch DJ's technical capabilities, but DJ Mixer Pro is even more extensive. Amateurs like me will love the sync button: as you're playing one track, the sync button will adjust the speed of the second track and place the downbeats in the right place so they're synchronized. You can also adjust beats per minute (BPM), and DJ Mixer can change tempo without changing pitch, so your sped-up tracks don't sound like the Chipmunks. (If you want the Chipmunks, you can turn the pitch correction off.) The loop function is easier to use as well--you can select a specific number of beats in the song, rather than having to start and stop the loop with finger touches. This made it really easy for me to create a couple different loops of the gunshot chorus in MIA's "Paper Planes" (four and eight beats long). You can also do some interesting things bouncing between tracks--I created two separate loops of Nirvana's "All Apologies" and played them over each other. Finally, DJ Mixer offers more indicators about each track, including volume levels and colored bars to match each drumbeat. This video shows you more. Best of all, it's only half the price of Touch DJ--$9.99.

But there's one nagging usability issue: uploading music to the app is complicated. Apple currently does not allow other apps to access the iTunes playback app, and tracks need to be electronically manipulated before you can mix them. This means that users have to upload their music separately into DJ Mixer. This was also the case with Touch DJ, but where that app used a piece of desktop software to accomplish the task, DJ Mixer uses a Web server.

And therein lies the problem. According to Eyal, when DJ Mixer launched in late November (as DJ Player), the company's servers were inundated with users trying to upload songs to pirated versions of the app--he estimates that between 90 percent and 99 percent of the uploads were from users who didn't pay for the app. This created a lot of load on the servers, and hampered legitimate users.

So now, to upload your music to DJ Mixer, first you need to e-mail customer support with a copy of your receipt from the iTunes store or a screenshot showing your purchase history with the DJ Mixer app on it. Then you must go through a Web interface to perform the uploads. The company e-mails you back for each upload as it becomes ready, after which you have to open the app, hit "downloads," and enter your personal numeric code. Finally, you have to wait as the app downloads each song from the Web server and performs the necessary conversion--a process that takes about 15 or 20 seconds per song.

It's a pain, but the app is good enough that it's probably worth going through this process. You'll only have to do it once, and then you'll be set up for some pretty serious DJ'ing.

Star 6 is a fun beat-making iPhone and iPod Touch app from Agile Partners--makers of the incredibly useful Guitar Toolkit and Tab Toolkit for guitarists. First introduced last August, Star 6 offers five families of electronic drum beats in categories like Drum and Bass and Electro. You can also download many more free beats from the Star 6 Web site, or upload your own through your Web browser. (Your device has to be on the same wireless network as the computer you're uploading through.)

The six triangles at the top of the screen let you switch between beats. The six triangles below them let you control various tonal qualities by tilting your iPhone or iPod Touch toward and away from you.

Once you've picked a family of beats, you can switch among six individual beats, control the speed, and add wacked-out effects like delay and reverse by touching various icons on the screen. It also lets you manipulate tonal qualities such as pitch and gate by tilting the device backward and forward--it uses the iPhone's built-in accelerometer. (The "speed" setting controls the playback speed of the individual sample, not the beats per minute, or BPM, of the entire track.) You can create and name sessions to recall later, and all sessions are automatically saved in the state you left them.

It's a lot of fun to play with, and could be useful in certain professional situations: you could plug your device into an amp or a PA and use it as a simple drum machine, or to fill the gaps between songs in a live or DJ gig, or simply as an audio backdrop for a party.

Version 1.1. of the app, which became available last Friday in the iTunes App Store, adds a number of important usability improvements. First and foremost is something called "quantizing," which helps you switch between rhythms directly on the beat. Before, you had to hit the button at the exact right time, which could be pretty hard when playing a rave track at 170 BPM, otherwise you'd get an awkward transition. The BPM controller is now on the main screen, and has a new feature that lets you slide the rate quickly up and down. You can also have the BPM affect the pitch, in case you want your samples to sound like they've been inhaling helium as you increase the speed of the track.

It's currently available for an introductory price of $6.99, but will go up to $9.99 on January 18, 2010. So if you're interested, jump on it now. For what it's worth, I get a lot of iPhone apps to test out, and this is one of the few that I'll be keeping.

Amidio makes some heavy-duty musical apps for the iPhone and iPod Touch; I was particularly impressed with StarGuitar, which gives you a virtual guitar with a bunch of preset rhythms, letting songwriters create quick sketches of ideas when they're nowhere near a guitar.

I created a nice vocal loop from the new Beach House single, then dropped it into Pink Floyd's "Astronomy Domine." It took me about five minutes.

On Tuesday, Apple approved a new Amidio app, called TouchDJ, for the iPhone and iPod Touch, and it's both very impressive from a technical standpoint and a heck of a lot of fun. The iPhone can only play one audio track at a time, but TouchDJ essentially fools it into placing two MP3s side by side for simultaneous, real-time manipulation and playback. It's like a two-track digital DJ setup right on your iPhone.

You get a crossfader to control the balance between the two tracks, plus individual controls for each track's volume, pitch/speed (which aren't independent from one another, unfortunately), equalization (three bands), and effects (the built-in real-time effect sounds like a kind of flanger, and there are several lame samples of a low-pitched robot voice, but you can upload your own). Each track is represented by simple waveform images that use a different color for the bass, which helps you match beats more effectively. A tempobend effect, which lets you quickly bend the speed up or down on either track, also helps you get in sync.

The looping functions were most impressive--you can create a cue and loop mark at any point in either track, then return to the cue with the rewind button, move to the loop mark with the fast forward button, or create an endless loop between the two points. All of this is in real time. If you've got an audio splitter, you can even create a separate cue track for your headphones--for example, to set up a loop in your second track while the first one is playing, without exposing your experimentation to your audience--although this requires some serious processing power, and is recommended only for an iPhone 3GS.

There are a couple caveats.... Read the full post at CNET's CES 2010 blog

If you work in the music business, you probably already know the name Donald Passman. For the uninitiated, his book "All You Need to Know About the Music Business," which was first released in 1991 and comes out in a seventh edition today, is the book on how the music industry works. If you ever wanted to know how major and indie label deals are structured, the different types of royalties that musicians can earn and how they're calculated, what a personal manager does for a band, how much money artists make on tour, where your ticket fees go, or any of countless other nitty-gritty details, this is the book. Music industry people sometimes call it the bible, and they're not joking.

The seventh edition contains numerous updates since the last release in 2006, including the final resolution of the battle over Internet radio royalties, details of how royalties are calculated for iTunes and YouTube, and the latest developments in label deals. I had a chance to talk to Passman on the phone on Tuesday morning about the changes he sees in the music industry and where he thinks it's going.

Q: Since the last edition of the book was published in 2006, what's the biggest change to the industry?
Donald Passman: 360 deals [in which record labels get a cut of the artist's revenue from touring, merchandise, and other sources apart from record sales] are a tectonic shift in the way record deals get done. There was a smattering of them three years ago, but now it's become the norm. Early deals with Madonna and other established artists were really banking deals, where everybody knew the artist's track record and they were making a bet on what the future would be. Deals with new artists are quite different. The labels are saying that they're the only ones really willing to spend money on a new artist's career, and they can no longer make money just in the record business, so they need a cut of this other income.

We're also starting to see some industry patterns in how royalties and payments are calculated for digital music. So far, none of the business models have made a lot of money. Even iTunes doesn't make a huge profit. But part of the problem three years ago was that if you started a streaming music service, you had no idea what you were paying. Now we're starting to see industry patterns.

Do you still think it's worth an artist's time to pay or find funding for a professionally recorded demo in a big studio? Or would you recommend that artists invest that time and money in buying a computer and other home recording gear and learning how to record themselves?
Passman: There's no one-size-fits-all answer. The software that's available now is better than what professional studios used to be like 10 years ago. You can create an extraordinarily good demo in your house. The key is to create a demo that sounds like a hit so they don't have to use their imagination to hear it. People will tell you they can hear a diamond in the rough; they can't.

Do you think the rise of do-it-yourself online services like CDBaby, Tunecore, and Sonicbids will lead to a new thriving "middle class" of musicians--folks that aren't signed to a label, but spend most of their time recording and touring and make a decent living doing it?
Passman: It's a reality today. If you're a niche-type artist and you don't mind staying in your niche, you can make a perfectly good middle-class living that way. If you're more mainstream, you can use those techniques to build buzz and attract a label. Nobody's yet had a major career without a label behind them. I'm certain that's going to change, but for bands that want to be truly international and mainstream, they still need a label.

In your book, you mention that you favor unlimited music-streaming--the "celestial jukebox"--as the most likely future business model to succeed. Do you think ad-supported free services (like Imeem or Grooveshark) will ever be viable?
Passman: I'm skeptical that ad-supported music services will work in a major way. People have had a hard time monetizing music to advertisers because the music is so diverse. Advertisers don't know what type of music they're going to be associated with, so it's hard for these services to get high enough CPMs [impression-based advertising rates]. YouTube's had the same problem: you don't know what kind of video's going to pop up next to your advertisement. Free services will probably be a model, but I don't think they'll be the model.

Why do you think subscription-based services (such as Rhapsody) haven't really taken off?
Passman: They're not convenient enough, they're not truly cross-platform. For me, the ultimate would be anytime-anywhere access to any music for one subscription. On my computer, in my car, on a connected device, whether it's an iPod or something else, on an airplane when I don't have an Internet connection. Not just tied to one or two devices. I'm personally a believer in subscription services. People don't think twice about paying for cable, and when you stop paying it goes away. But with music, there's a kneejerk reaction because we're used to owning it.

We hear a lot of doom and gloom about the death of the music industry. Are you still optimistic?
Passman: I'm optimistic in the longer term. Not for the next few years. I think it'll probably get a little worse, and then we'll bump along the bottom for a while. I don't think we've hit bottom, and that's because I see the trends that are happening now. CD sales are declining and will eventually disappear, and retailers are making it happen. They're cutting back the floor space they devote to CDs, which means less CD sales, which makes them cut back more.

But the digital opportunity is huge. We can sell music to people who've never gone into a record store, people who never listen to music because they stopped listening to the radio at a certain age will now have access. Unfortunately, we're not there, technically or legally. The more pain the industry feels, the easier the legal side gets. The better the technology gets, the closer we get to delivering an experience people want.

Wolfgang's Vault, which offers high-quality digital recordings of rock concerts, has been trickling out updates since I wrote about its new iPhone app last month. On Tuesday, the site will begin to offer a new optional membership model where $48 a year gets you $50 worth of merchandise, plus discounted downloads and other benefits.

Wolfgang's Vault offers free streams, and downloads that cost up to $12, of professionally recorded concerts, in various formats up to and including lossless FLAC files. The Vault got its start by buying the recorded archives from San Francisco concert promotion company Bill Graham Presents, and added to that with the King Biscuit Flower Hour, a live concert radio show popular in the 1970s and '80s. That means the vault is pretty heavy on music from the classic rock era. However, the same company also owns Daytrotter, which invites touring bands into a studio in Illinois to record a session, which adds nearly 800 sessions from modern, mostly independent acts to the archive.

Starting last week, the company began releasing hundreds of new recordings under a promotion called Cracking the Vault. It expects to add more than 1,000 new concerts over the next three months, including 150 shows by the Grateful Dead that have never been officially released. (Although, knowing the Dead, bootlegs probably exist.)

The new membership model allows true fans of the site to show their colors and become WVIPs. It's strictly optional--this isn't a new subscription service, but more of a fan club. An annual fee of $48 nets you $50 in merchandise (including posters, T-shirts, and other memorabilia) from the Vault Store, plus 10 percent off on all merchandise (you can take the 10 percent before you reach $50), 30 percent off on all downloads, unlimited streaming access from the iPhone app (non-members are limited to 10 hours a month), special offers, and exclusive download packages. Perhaps most interesting: if you're ever in San Francisco, you can arrange a tour of Wolfgang's Vault headquarters, which the company claims contains the world's largest collection of concert memorabilia.

Whenever the band Phish plays on Halloween, they pretend to be another famous rock band and do an entire album by that band. This year, they did one of my all-time favorite records, "Exile on Main Street" by the Rolling Stones. It's a double album, 18 songs worth of blues boogie, and I was very curious to hear whether they pulled it off.

Friday morning, a relative who knows of my fixation with that record sent me a link to the show, but the link--as is so often the case--wasn't working. Of course I could have purchased the entire set for 99 cents a song from the LivePhish.com site, but the samples on that site are only 30 seconds long, and I wanted to try it out before committing with a credit card. So I did a little hunting on my own. Lala didn't have it. Imeem didn't have it. I couldn't find it on a Google search.

I used Grooveshark's playlist feature to arrange the songs from Phish's cover of "Exile" in order.

So I turned to old reliable Grooveshark. Sure enough, a search on "Phish Ventilator Blues" (one of the song names from "Exile") turned up a hit. From that result, I saw that the name in the "Album" column included the date, 2009/10/31. I ran another search, "Phish 2009/10/31" and there it was, the entire show. I took all the songs from "Exile" and arranged them in order on my playlist, and soon I was enjoying the band's faithfulness to the original recording, down to the horn parts and backup gospel singers, mixed with some very extended jam sections. The bit between "Ventilator Blues" and "Just Want to See His Face" is miraculous.

One of my complaints about Phish is that they often sound too perfect and clean, especially the singing. But in this particular case, it was great because Phish obviously studied the lyrics very carefully, and I could finally understand whole lyrical sections ("there's fever in the forecast now") that I've never been able to figure out despite hundreds of listens. (Mick mumbles, and he's buried pretty deeply in the mix on the original.)

I have no idea whether the recording was posted with the permission of the band. Probably not. But the beauty of Grooveshark is that users post the content themselves, in a similar fashion to YouTube, so you're not reliant on content owners.

Correction 2:22 p.m. PDT, Nov. 13: This post mischaracterized how Grooveshark gets content. All content on Grooveshark is uploaded by users. Grooveshark says it complies with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and pays appropriate royalties for live and other types of recordings.

Tuesday's post on using Craigslist to buy secondhand concert tickets drew a response from a company called FanSnap, which uses live feeds to aggregate ticket listings from online marketplaces and broker sites (such as StubHub and TicketNetwork) and eBay auctions.

FanSnap would argue Craigslist is fine for price-sensitive fans who don't need to go to a particular show and who are willing to meet and negotiate with other individuals, pay cash where necessary, and run the risk of buying a fake ticket. (Although the only time I've ever seen a fake concert ticket was in 1989 on the streets of Manhattan, when I bought a very realistic counterfeit to a Jane's Addiction show at the Ritz.)

Fans who want a slightly more convenient buying experience might go with eBay, where they can use PayPal and rely on seller ratings, while fans who absolutely need a guaranteed ticket can go with a marketplace like StubHub, which offers a toll-free customer service line, money-back guarantee, and other benefits. FanSnap operates on an affiliate-oriented revenue model, so it gets a commission from sites on which sales are made.

FanSnap shows you where tickets are located in a seating chart of the venue.

I ran a search on FanSnap for Pixies tickets, and it found more than 70 listings for the sold-out show this Friday, compared with about 30 listings on Craigslist. (The Craigslist screenshot in Tuesday's post showed only listings that had been added on that day.) Prices were similar to Craigslist--lower in a few cases--and the site has some great design touches, like a seating chart of the venue that maps tickets to particular locations. Craigslist, of course, is purposely and resolutely lo-fi. I still think there's something refreshing about dealing with a real fan, face to face, but I can see reasons why others wouldn't want to.

Correction at 8:00 a.m. PDT, Nov. 12: This post mischaracterized how FanSnap aggregates ticket listings. The site uses live feeds from its sources, which allows ticket listings to be updated immediately as prices change.