MOG offered me a free trial to its subscription-based streaming music service, MOG All Access, which launched on Tuesday. The service costs five bucks a month, and gives you unlimited on-demand streams of more than six million songs from all four major labels and plenty of indies. The site is trying to differentiate itself from competitors like Rhapsody and Napster with high-quality streams--all songs are 320kbps MP3s--and some fairly sophisticated music discovery features, like playlists posted by musicians (David Byrne got the featured spot on the day of launch) and other fans with similar tastes to yours ("Moggers like me").
(Credit:
Screenshot)
I've been sampling the service for about an hour, and I do appreciate the sound quality (although better volume-leveling between songs would be nice) and recommendation services. And I'd like to thank the designers personally for the ability to add any song to the already-playing queue--a feature I love on Grooveshark and my Zune HD and that I always miss whenever I use one of my iPods. But there's one big problem: song selection.
Because MOG is licensing content directly from copyright owners, there are big gaps from artists who simply don't want to participate in online music. The usual suspects like AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, and the Beatles are mostly missing in action. There are also strange gaps elsewhere. For instance, half the songs on the Pixies' "Surfer Rosa" are unplayable. Compared with Grooveshark, which relies on user-posted content, MOG has too many holes. And of course, Grooveshark remains free (although a $3/month subscription gets you a version without advertisements).
Song selection could improve over time as MOG signs more licensing deals, but I found some other related glitches as well. For instance, '70s folk artist Roy Harper, whom I often use as a test case to see how well an online service does with relatively obscure old content, has almost no playable content, but does offer a nice list of albums with links to Amazon. The only problem: when you follow the Amazon link on unplayable songs, it takes you to the Amazon Music front door--most of his songs aren't available for download there, either.
In its demonstration video, MOG touts its online radio service as a unique feature. When you're playing a particular artist, a slider lets you control how much variety you want, from "play only songs by this artist" all the way up to "play mostly songs from similar artists." It could use some fine-tuning, however. When I started a queue with a Modest Mouse song, it used Modest Mouse as the basis for its selection. Fair enough, but when I added songs by Talking Heads and Public Image Limited, the radio algorithm didn't account for those artists. It simply switched my radio playlist completely when the new songs started playing, showing all Talking Heads songs, all PIL songs, and so on. Pandora and Slacker do a much better job of creating custom stations based on multiple artists. (Although, of course, those services don't let you play individual songs on demand.)
Finally, as I wrote last week, I still think MOG's lack of mobile support is a fatal flaw, but one that could be easily remedied: Apple's approved iPhone clients for subscription services Rhapsody and Spotify, so why not MOG?
All of these flaws can be fixed, although licensing content takes time and convincing. I'm a big fan of competition, though, and MOG takes many of the best features of a lot of other services, combines them in one place, and improves on some of them. For that, the company should be commended.
For the last year or so, it's become clear that the economics of ad-supported streaming music services are not good for their creators or investors. As CNET's Greg Sandoval reported last week, the acquisition of streaming service Imeem by MySpace Music for pennies on the dollar is the latest bad news for the sector, following the bankruptcies of SpiralFrog and Ruckus and the similar fire sale of iLike to MySpace.
Offering your music via Spotify might help you fill up your piggybank.
Who's left? In the U.S., we've still got LaLa, which has the blessing of the major labels and seems to be enjoying dramatically increased traffic (as measured by Alexa) thanks to its recent deal with Google, and Grooveshark, which has kept a low profile. Neither of these services is purely ad-supported--particularly LaLa, which hopes to charge customers for downloads and "permanent" streams once they surpass a quota of 50 free streams a month.
But the service most often cited as the future of online music is Spotify. It's only available in Europe right now, but it seems like everybody who tries it loves it, myself included. Spotify offers a premium service as well, which offers portability and higher-quality streams, but the free service offers unlimited ad-supported streams, and that's the service that has everybody so excited.
But there's one small problem with the Spotify-as-savior story: it doesn't pay artists very well. According to this story in a Swedish publication, as translated and explained by the TorrentFreak blog, Spotify delivered more than one million streams of Lady Gaga's hit single "Poker Face" over five months. From these streams, she reportedly earned about 1,150 Swedish kronor--about $167--from the Swedish agency responsible for paying royalties. That's not even enough to cover the cost of four tickets to her upcoming concert in San Francisco.
If this story's true, why would any artist agree to make songs available on Spotify? With these kinds of payouts, it looks like music business expert Donald Passman is right--advertising is never going to support an online music service.
Free, on-demand streaming music is a rising tide: since the start of 2009, I've covered relatively new services like Spotify and Just Hear It, and there are plenty of established players like MySpace Music, Imeem, and Grooveshark.
Listen to Michael Jackson's music on Michael Jackson's official Web site. What a novel idea!
(Credit: Sony Music, Michael Jackson)Instead of trying to stop the tide, Sony Music has wisely embraced it: starting today, the company will introduce streaming music players on the Web sites of its most popular artists, including popsters like Kelly Clarkson, John Legend, and Jacko himself. It makes perfect business sense: instead of letting some third party like Imeem sell advertisements against high-demand music, Sony can sell or display its own ads.
Of course, they couldn't make it too easy--finding the audio on Michael Jackson's site took a few clicks, including one that forced me to identify my country, and the songs were embedded in the Sony-specific MyPlay player, which is an interesting piece of technology but only lets you create playlists with songs from other artists with MyPlay players. More generally, I wonder if it's too late for these label-specific initiatives--I'm sure plenty of hardcore Britney fans have her Web site bookmarked, but most music listeners probably prefer to use services that let you compile lists from multiple artists on multiple labels.
Sony is also adding lyrics to these artists' sites, provided by the company's own Gracenote subsidiary. Excellent move. I can't believe it's taken this long, given the lack of decent lyrics sites out there. In fact, I still don't understand the reluctance to publish lyrics online--what are people going to steal? What money is the artist or copyright owner losing? Kudos for Sony for taking a baby step toward ending this silliness.
AUSTIN, Texas--At South by Southwest here, I had a short but interesting conversation Wednesday afternoon with Tim Quirk, the vice president of music programming for Rhapsody, wedged in around a set from Jersey punks Titus Andronicus (who had very tight and well-constructed songs with incredible energy and some interesting triple-guitar work, but I don't know if the singer's going to make it another three days).
Quirk, who's been with Rhapsody since before it was acquired by RealNetworks, suggested that streaming music on demand will change the mechanics of the music business because artists (and other stakeholders) won't be compensated based on how many people buy a song or a record, but rather on how many times people actually listen to it.
For labels, it won't make sense to sign cute, disposable artists, and prop them up with hired-gun songwriters and producers in hopes of selling a couple million units over a single summer. Rather, the real moneymakers will be bands whose fans absolutely can't live without their music, and who listen to songs over and over again, for years.
That requires finding artists who already have sizable fan bases and then cultivating them over the years. Terrestrial radio might become even less important--there's no reason to saturate the airwaves with a single song in hopes of selling as many copies as possible before the buzz moves to the next thing; instead, you'll want word to grow more organically, creating lifelong fans along the way.
Of course, this is all predicated on a big "if": somebody has to find a business model for streaming music that works for all parties involved. First, money has to change hands--whether it's through users paying a subscription (the Rhapsody model) or advertisers paying to reach those users (the model espoused by Spotify and others). Then the operators of these services will have to convince copyright holders to accept a level of payment that doesn't drive the operators out of business.
That level of payment may be lower than the percentage derived from CD sales today, which is a big stumbling block for labels to accept. But in the long run, streaming music will lead to greater music consumption overall. When you have no limits on the amount of music you can sample, you're more likely to become a music geek.
Quirk had some statistics to bolster this point: in traditional CD sales, nearly 50 percent of the revenue comes from the top 100 selling records. With Apple's iTunes, it's about 33 percent; lower prices translate to people willing to sample more music. With free peer-to-peer networks, it's less than 30 percent--again, it makes sense that users would sample more music when it's free.
With Rhapsody, it's even lower--less than 25 percent. I suggested that that's because Rhapsody self-selects for music geeks--who else would pay a subscription for unlimited music? But Quirk countered that his usage statistics suggest that Rhapsody turns people into music geeks. That is, once people realize that they can consume unlimited music for the same price, they begin exploring related songs and bands, checking out recommendations from friends that they never would have bothered with otherwise, and so on.
Follow Matt on Twitter.
I wrote about the latest version of Lala when it started beta-testing back in May. At the time, I dismissed it as a weird hybrid between all-you-can-eat subscription services like Rhapsody and free streams from the likes of Imeem. I didn't understand who'd pay 10 cents to stream a song an unlimited number of times when there are already plenty of free (mostly ad-supported) streaming sites out there.
So I was surprised to see reviews of that service Monday that used words like "spectacular" and "revolution." As it turns out, Lala has made a couple of small but crucial changes that could turn it from also-ran into the first indispensable online music service since Pandora.
The changes affect Lala's music locker service, which lets you store songs from your personal library "in the cloud" (that is, on Lala's Web servers) and then access them from any computer later.
Back in May, the locker service worked only with MP3 files, which meant that anybody with a large collection of CDs ripped from iTunes (which uses AAC by default) or a Windows Media-based player was essentially out of luck. No more--the Music Mover application now recognizes both AAC (.m4a) and WMA files as well as MP3s.
Lala's online player looks a lot like iTunes, but why mess with the industry standard?
(Credit: Lala)Second, the company has worked with the major labels to give users the right to access songs they already own without having to upload them. If Lala has the rights to a particular song, and it recognizes that you've got it in your library, it just lets you stream it for free. (Eight years ago, the labels sued the original MP3.com out of existence for doing exactly the same thing. How times have changed.)
That means you can get started quickly--so far, after about an hour of scanning, the Lala Music Mover has recognized 500 of the songs in my collection and added them to my locker without forcing me to upload them manually. (The final tally after running it overnight: 1,971 songs recognized and added, 1,474 that I'd need to upload manually. That's a ratio of just under 60% recognized.)
Finally, Lala is reportedly planning an iPhone application. That would mean iPhone access to your entire music library--goodbye capacity limits! I can't wait to download it.
One annoying bug: I couldn't resize the window for the Music Mover application, which meant I couldn't read some of the error messages songs that Lala couldn't upload. In particular, it rejected three songs because they were too large, but the error message was cut off before I could read the maximum size. Turns out, these songs were all over 50,000KB--huge epic songs, 25-plus minutes in length--so that seems like a pretty reasonable limit.
Once you're using the music locker, the other parts of the service begin to make much more sense. For example, if you're already streaming all your music via the Lala player--which looks a lot like iTunes in a browser --then buying perpetual rights to stream one more song for only 10 cents becomes a very reasonable idea. That's the whole dream of "cloud computing" in a nutshell--once Internet access becomes ubiquitous, the differences between online and offline blur until the distinction eventually becomes meaningless. There are also some interesting social networking and sharing features that could help users discover music on the site, such as a widget you can post on your Web page that lists four favorite songs.
A great idea, well executed. Nicely done, Lala.
Lala.com has a history of coming up with innovative ideas that don't quite conquer the world. The company is best known for its online used-CD trading service, which is an interesting idea but works well only if you have a large list of CDs available to trade.
Lala.com will let you stream any song once at no charge, and an unlimited number of times for $0.10 per song.
(Credit: Lala.com)It also offers a music "locker" service that allows you to upload your music then listen to it from any computer with an Internet connection...but it only works with MP3 files, so you're out of luck if you've been using (for example) iTunes to rip your CDs to AAC for the last four years. The site was also early to experiment with offering free streaming files, but has apparently shuttered that service because the numbers didn't work out.
Now the company's beta-testing another streaming service that lets you select any song to stream once. Then, if you want to stream it again, you can pay a one-time fee of $0.10 and get perpetual streaming rights to it.
Unfortunately, this pay-per-song streaming model occupies a weird space halfway between all-you-can-eat subscription services and the free streaming files available elsewhere. If I'm a hardcore music fan who likes to discover and listen to lots of new music online, I'll probably subscribe to a service like Rhapsody--one monthly payment gets me streaming access to all the music I want. But if I just want instant gratification--say, for example, I need to hear Iron Maiden's "Run to the Hills" right now--I can turn to Imeem, or Last.fm, or the Songerize site (which uses the Seeqpod search engine to discover music files all over the Web, then provides a simple embedded player).
So who would pay $0.10 for unlimited rights to stream a particular song? Probably people who are already using the Lala.com digital locker and want a cost-effective way to add new music to it without having to seek it out online or rip it from a CD and then upload it manually.
- prev
- 1
- next
