Is the future of music... radio?

singemonkey

People adopt practises that make listening to music more convenient. Choosing what to play is inconvenient. Will services that generate tailored playlists be the big new thing?

https://medium.com/best-of-tech/fa7bc9a1caf7

janel_az

Sweet, glad you dug the article.

Funny enough, one thing I didn't mention in the whole text is that for my own personal listening purposes, I avoid algorithms that predict my taste! I'll dip my feet in the Pandora pool every so often, but I find it lacking; seems like the stations only ever play watered-down versions of what I really want to hear. I use Spotify only when I want to listen to something specific.

Otherwise - like 80%+ of the time - I use 8tracks, which consists of playlists curated by humans, searchable by artist and/or keyword. It's free and clean and fantastic for discovery.

I'd be really interested in hearing this forum's reactions to the idea of letting a super-duper algorithm do the choosing for them (as opposed to human DJs, or selecting your own music of course).

Bob-Dubery

Interesting that Spotify and Co have made such a dent in piracy, but it doesn't help the artist much as they get about 0.01% of sod all of Spotify's revenues. Sure, it's legal, but it's not helping the guys who make the music.

I like to be surprised when I listen to music. Which is why I dislike most radio shows - there's very little surprise because you know what's coming and in some cases you've heard it all before. Which is not the end of the world, but there used to be shows that offered surprises. An extreme case would be Richard Haslop's show which would offer you antique Mississippi blues one moment and Norwegian cattle calls the next (I'm not kidding, well I am but only a little). Chris Prior's show, back in the 80s, was a less extreme but more pleasant case because he had his finger on the pulse and you were always going to get something a bit left field and unexpected (I recall hearing a fantastic version of the Allman's "Whipping Post" one night - it turned out be Zappa).

So I'd like some kind of player service that
a) paid the artists an appropriate amount per track paid
b) had a "surprise me" function that would take me out of my comfort zone a bit

(A) is important, folks. Some artists are now pulling their catalogs from Spotify because they are upset by the financial side of it. That means there's music that we'll never get to on those services. It's also important because we want these guys to keep on recording music - and they won't do that unless they're at least putting a roof over their head.

AlanRatcliffe

Great article. Thanks!

It makes sense that most of us don't want to take the time to choose what to listen to (especially in busy times: at work at play, at rest even). In fact, the only times it doesn't make sense is when we want to listen to music or when we want piece and quiet.

It's the old push vs pull information thing. Selecting your own playlists is pulling the info you want and allowing someone/something to select them for you is the push info equivalent.

The problem (for me at least) is going to come in with the adoption of good old fashioned payola and bias to vested (and monied) interests. Allowing someone/something else to choose our music leaves the door open to the playlist algorithm being manipulated for someone's financial gain. It will happen (in fact, I'd lay money that it probably is already). Music companies will pay to ensure that their artists get pushed to more people than the competition. The online services will be in an ideal position to become "the new boss" themselves and push precisely who/what they want to - which will equate to who they make the most money from.

And yes Bob, musicians should see more money from these services, but they don't. ...and won't - they just don't have the power. In fact they have less power than ever, thanks to the fact that modern technology has made everyone a musician and ensured that there are ever more young and naive musicians, desperate to be heard.

Bob-Dubery

Alan Ratcliffe wrote The problem (for me at least) is going to come in with the adoption of good old fashioned payola and bias to vested (and monied) interests. Allowing someone/something else to choose our music leaves the door open to the playlist algorithm being manipulated for someone's financial gain. It will happen (in fact, I'd lay money that it probably is already). Music companies will pay to ensure that their artists get pushed to more people than the competition. The online services will be in an ideal position to become "the new boss" themselves and push precisely who/what they want to - which will equate to who they make the most money from.

Thanks, Alan. I thought of that too, then thought it might be a bit far-fetched. I was not alone! You're right, it'll be like Google selling search result rankings.

And yes Bob, musicians should see more money from these services, but they don't. ...and won't - they just don't have the power. In fact they have less power than ever, thanks to the fact that modern technology has made everyone a musician and ensured that there are ever more young and naive musicians, desperate to be heard.

The whole thing got thrown into the spotlight when Beyoncé got a check from Spotify for a couple of thousand dollars after a gazillion plays. Round about that time Dylan decided to pull the records that he had that control over - so that's the power that the established guys have, but they're the guys that need it the least.

singemonkey

For myself I like the idea of crowd-sourcing model of sorts - where human curated playlists, as you say, mean that you're getting the benefit of an intelligent, informed set of tracks but still full of surprises. You subscribe to playlist creators and stick to the ones that impressed you. Like FM except with no commercials and insipid, terminally uninformed dialogue.

As Bob says, artist compensation is a problem. While spotify and the like are plausibly helping to kill piracy, they'll probably do the same to itunes downloads too. This stuff really has to translate into meaningful income or many established bands will remove their tracks from circulation.

Interesting that you popped in to comment janel_az. I found your article through io9.com.

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote As Bob says, artist compensation is a problem. While spotify and the like are plausibly helping to kill piracy, they'll probably do the same to itunes downloads too. This stuff really has to translate into meaningful income or many established bands will remove their tracks from circulation.

If they can. It depends on who owns the recording. In cases where the record company paid for everything they will own the actual recordings even if somebody else owns the copyright on the compositions. A lot of guys don't control their old recordings - which is why the companies can put out re-issues padded with cuts that the artist never wanted released.

The record companies make money from Spotify. The artists usually do not.

I think the megastars are OK actually - they get big money from endorsement deals and private parties for gazillionaires. Mere mortals will have a harder time of it. They'll have to hit the road more and put ticket prices up. This is happening in the USA where anybody who can plausibly present themselves as a "legend" is hiking up ticket prices like crazy and offering special deals that guarantee you a vantage point with a view of the stage ?, a "meet and greet" after the show and such.

I don't blame them. A guy has to make a living. But something has to give.