By Adam Michael

New York, NY (November 18, 2008) - In the age of the Internet, it seems like more factoids and information are being crammed into increasingly smaller venues and permutations.  Everyone’s favorite ‘what are you doing right now in 10 words or less” site Twitter has now spawned a similar music review version called Musebin.  Musebin basically wants to become the twitter of music reviews sites.  The site’s format is really simple.  Anyone can upload an album review, but only in the form of a 140 characters or less single line, which is very similar to Twitter’s format.  People can then vote either yay or nay for each review, and the most popular reviews stay at the top of the site, and the shoddy ones fall to the bottom.  It’s a very simple structure that couldn’t be less confusing; its success will really be determined on how necessary / effective people find this style of reviews.

Musebin’s launch is also partially in response to the overly wordy music critique blogs that have become really predominant over the last few years, as shown in this quote from Musebin CEO Greg Galant:  “Blogs have kind of killed the editor.  It used to be that anything that was written would be edited by people who read [the style guide] Strunk & White…. Blogs came along with no limit, and anyone could write anything. I think music reviews — which were already kind of long-winded — maybe got a little bit worse. You’re going to talk about some experience that happened to you in high school, and this and that. [We want to] capture the essence of an album so someone knows whether or not they should listen to it.”

Its interesting that Galant sees Musebin as almost a retaliatory method to drawn out blog entries, but do you fix their long winded nature by concentrating them down to basically a sentence or two?  I definitely understand what he’s referring to; sites such as the infamous Pitchfork definitely have started a trend of almost Ivy League style reviews where you almost have to have a dictionary nearby just to get through the intro.  Sites like Pitchfork take it too far some times, but there’s definitely a middle ground between their dissertations and trying to explain what E-40’s new album accomplishes sonically in a single sentence.  The Internet repeatedly tries to cram massive amounts of information into a space that can barely fit whatever micro-servers Twitter runs their warehouse off of.

There must be something to the idea of Twitter though; they’re currently at a million users and counting, so it definitely has a unique functionality other programs lack, but do these unique ideas translate to music reviews?  Even if someone is having a conversation with you about a new album, it’s still hard to convey a full-fledged idea of how you feel in one sentence, and that’s just in a casual conversation.  To sit down and pick exactly 140 characters that perfectly sums up a record is actually a lot harder then casually writing about the different components.  It’s almost like speech writing where absolutely every last word has to hit a certain note, or transition seamlessly to the next concept.  Musebin definitely has potential to blow up, especially with the precedent set by Twitter, but it’ll be interesting to see to what extent people really need music reviews that can fit in the palm of their flash drive.

by Adam Michael

New York, NY (November 12, 2008) - Spotted this one at The Coolfer.  At the Musexpo Global A&R Forum in London on Oct. 29th, some of the biggest A&R’s in the industry had a chance to discuss what they thought was causing the recent fiscal downslide.  The main consensus was that they’re just not putting out quality albums.  Epic Records managing director Nick Raphael summed it up really simply: “We don’t make enough good records.”  Coming from a veteran of the industry, that’s a really strong statement, and it completely echoes the current climate everyone doesn’t want to admit is getting worse.

What was noteworthy about this Forum versus so many other discussions was that the A&R’s didn’t blame the current state of the industry on everyone else’s favorite scapegoat, Internet piracy.  The discussion really focused upon the current lack of suitable A&R’s that are commonly thrust into high level positions without the track record that merits it, as shown in this quote over at Billboardbiz.com from EMI UK and America president of A&R Nick Gatfield:  “There is a problem with the learning process within A&R departments,” he explained. “When I started, there was an element of making sure we were told about how to deliver bad news. There are a lot of younger A&R people who tripped on an act, are given a level of seniority and are expected to have a level of confidence to talk to artists.”

This is an interesting concept considering the music industry’s demise has almost solely been blamed on lost revenue from illegal downloads.  Insiders feel that so much emphasis has been put on making certain albums so massive that the smaller acts sometimes fall by the wayside, as evidenced in this quote from Gatfield: “It’s not just about record sales; we need to match ambitions with artist capabilities,” he said. “We want the capability to sell 10 million Coldplay albums while also being able to support smaller bands.”  That concept really is one of the hardest maneuvers to pull off, especially in the industry’s current state.  How does a label make an artist profitable when they’re only selling 100,000 records versus their label mates who are selling 10 million?

The smart record label is able to structure certain aspects of record deals so every artist can maintain whatever standard or fan allegiance they’ve become accustomed to.  That’s why so many majors are signing indie bands that have had a year or two to tour and have had time to build up a significant fanbase.  It only makes sense to let another company invest money in establishing an artist, but the profit margins from this type of indie act is significantly less then when a major label has the ability to break a new act into the mainstream.  With this of course comes a higher risk, though, where a new artist might not sell anything versus an indie band with a reliable, solidified audience.

It’s really similar to someone who invests in the stock market and has a diversified portfolio.  Why would you risk all your money in some fly-by-night startup when you can toss it into a safe mutual fund that might actually balance out the shaky launch of a brand new product?

Record companies keep becoming more like stable investment firms then the gold rush maverick principles that the industry was founded on.  By not breaking new artists, they’re doing themselves and the audience at large a disservice, even though it’s completely understandable in the current fiscal climate.  What is surprising to hear, though, is that the most vocal criticism for the industry is coming from the industry itself.

By Adam Michael

New York, NY (November 5, 2008) - Wow.  MTV really pulled it off this time.  On Tuesday the newest addition to their digital dominance came in the form of the new website MTV Music which is a portal that basically lets you watch any music video you can think of.  There’s currently over 16,000 videos on the site’s database and new videos are being updated daily.

The actual site itself is very simple; you can search for videos using their search engine, leave comments and ratings for your favorites, or you can choose to embed the video almost anywhere.  The actual layout and ease of use of the site is surprisingly straightforward compared to the often convoluted music sites that cram a thousand widgets into a 12 by 12 square.  One of the nicer attributes is that it’s a completely separate property from any of MTV’s other electronic entities, so there’s no confusion or other content to complicate things.  Another impressive concept is that the site barely has any advertising; just slight banners at the top of the page instead of those annoying scroll ads found on other MTV pages that always throw everything out of whack.

MTV can pull off a project of this magnitude because of their almost three decade intimate relationship with the music industry.  MTV legally has access to an unbelievable variety of content, and launching a site just for music videos harkens back to the original product their company was founded on, which, lately, has had almost no monetary benefit versus their devilishly-branded warehouse of reality shows.  This website is the perfect outlet for MTV to start making money off of videos again after such a long lapse in programming.  Even MTV2’s original inception was supposed to be for just music videos after the original MTV got too crowded, but that venue just turned into a second home for popular MTV reruns.

What’s going to be interesting to see following the launch of this site is how it effects YouTube.  During its initial launch in 2006, YouTube said its goal was to host “every single music video ever created,” but a $1 billion dollar lawsuit from MTV’s corporate parent Viacom immediately quelled their announcement.  Even though that lawsuit hasn’t put much of a dent in the amount of music videos you can find on YouTube, it’s still legal gray area that in no way exists on MTV Music.  It just happened MTV had everything in place to set this site up with seemingly little to no effort; just translate their database to digital form, and they’re done.  YouTube will probably maintain its stance as the home to every video you’ve never conceived of, but MTV Music may become your new music video lounge chair.

MySpace Offers MTV Exec The MySpace Music CEO Job

MySpace has offered MTV Networks’ EVP Digital Music and Media Courtney Holt the top job at the newly launched MySpace Music, CNET reports. We’ve confirmed this through our own sources, and we believe Holt has all but accepted the position and is in the final stages of contract negotiation.

Revenue Crisis: Here Come The Pro Accounts

…In his Wired magazine cover story, “Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business,” Wired editor Chris Anderson wrote: “It’s now clear that practically everything Web technology touches starts down the path to gratis, at least as far as we consumers are concerned.”

Sorry Chris, but free is out again.

Thank economy-wary investors like Sequoia Capital, which terrified its portfolio of startups with a “RIP Good Times” earlier this month. Startups “need to become cash flow positive,” Sequoia declared. They must recognize the “need for profitability.” “Cash is king.”

Nokia Uses Integrated Campaign To Promote Comes With Music

Nokia is set to launch one of its largest marketing campaigns to date to signal its arrival as a content services provider with Comes With Music. The handset manufacturer, which has to date predominantly focused its advertising around its wide range of handsets, is now preparing to market its unlimited music download service. The integrated campaign, Playlist People, includes the tagline ‘Unlimited tracks. Yours to keep’ and features a series of famous song titles which combine to create…

by Adam Michael

New York, NY (October 30, 2008) - Along with the numerous new methods of listening to and finding out about music, a new range of programs / websites are out there who’s only function is to recommend music and become a “virtual tastemaker”.  While iTunes has had a positive response to their Genius software (it assesses your library and recommends new songs based on your listening history), the co-inventor of the MP3 has also started a website, too.  Mufin, as it’s been dubbed, uses a slightly more computer-based method to tell you exactly what you should be listening to.  Wired has the particulars.

Mufin works in two different ways.  The first allows you to search through their database of over 4 million songs for tracks that sound similar, based on what you’re searching for.  If they have a song you like, the site will recommend any and everything else that has similar components based on their algorithm.  The second way asks the user to download the Magix Mufin Music Finder application for $20 to help find “sound-alike” music, already on their own computer.  Mufin’s music algorithm analyzes songs based on over 40 different attributes, including percussion, style, speech, sound density, vocals, tempo, sound color, instruments, volume, dynamics and loudness.  The major difference between Mufin and iTunes’ Genius software, though, is that Genius uses some abstract cultural components to assess recommendations, similar to the way Amazon innovated this concept with their “if you bought this, you’ll probably also like this” music engine that was one of the first curatorial programs on the web.

So the real question is, does Mufin really work as well as it’s intended, and beyond that, are virtual curators even necessary?  Well, Mufin works, but just how well depends on your personal standards and taste in music.  In an article on Wired.com’s music blog “The Listening Post,” they tried out Mufin and got very strange results with a lot of songs that you wouldn’t necessarily associate together.  But you have to remember, that’s exactly what an algorithm does: it gives you a math answer for a non-math question.  The same way your GPS uses algorithms to give you directions, a GPS doesn’t necessarily give the BEST directions - just the shortest mathematical route.  That’s exactly how Mufin works.  In this instance, the program is working to give you directions to the best song or genre destination based on your past “travels”.

So Mufin might actually be working as intended, it’s just that computers aren’t great music critics.  On top of it, there’s no such thing as A.I. musical taste.  iTunes’ Genius software works to act as a tastemaker surrogate, where actual people are sitting down to assess song relationships  coupled with Apple’s algorithm software.  In Mufin’s case, though, the only thing you have to rely on is a computer algorithm, with absolutely no human element to help shape the results.  This is why “The Listening Post” got such odd results when they tested the beta version of Mufin.  Mufin’s algorithm doesn’t consider genre, style, trends, timeliness, billboard charts, and the infinite number of other components a person might consider before buying new music.  Computers don’t know you bought that southern rap album because you liked the single; they’re just going to assume you love southern rap, and keep recommending music that sounds similar.

How would you explain to a computer that you bought a song on a whim, or it was an isolated genre purchase?  Only people and their friends who are well aware of these small nuances could accurately gauge exactly what you should be listening to in the future.  And sometimes even the people who constantly turn us on to new music can get it wrong; sometimes music choices are so specific even we’re not sure why we buy certain things.

Mufin could be used as spoke on the wheel of tools that the Internet provides for discovering new music, but as your only venue for recommendations it would seem to fall way short.  Apple has a better idea by letting actual people scan through the results of their algorithm, marrying the best aspects of both.  Its going to be a long time before some cyborg DJ can run a radio station and actually understand the abstract nature of who listens to what and why, which a lot of humans are still confused about.

by Adam Michael

New York, NY (October 30, 2008) - With so many different options available to listen to music, you would think everyone had tossed their radio out the window.  But according to a recent study by Paragon Media Strategies, youths aged 14 - 24 said they are listening to more radio then they did a year or two ago.  Even though the results of this study seem surprising, those in the industry can understand the sharp increase from the same time a year ago.  The study’s author, Larry Johnson, feels that radio is doing a better job at relating to a young audience:  “Radio stations may be doing a better job at connecting with those people,” the study’s author Larry Johnson told The New York Times. “The music may also simply be more interesting. There tends to be a cycle.”

It’s possible that radio realized they had to step up their game to match the reliability and the multitude of options that comes with an iPod, and then put these new strategies into action.  Larry Johnson feels that a major facet of the increased radio listening is due to the fact that the iPod has already taken all the listeners its going to take, and right now its influence is on the decline:  “There doesn’t appear to be a whole lot more damage iPods can do to radio TSL [Time Spent Listening] now that iPod use and ownership has permeated our culture.”  iPods have been out for so long that their steady increase of market share couldn‘t possibly be sustained.  It seems that its finally come to the point where the initial glitz of iPods has waned a little bit, and teens & twenty-somethings are retreating back to the music format they grew up with.

To me, the results of this study are surprising.  If it was reporting that a different demographic had increased their radio listening, like 49 & over, then the results would seem very realistic.  It makes sense that someone’s grandma still listens to the radio, and probably never stopped, but the fact that her grandchildren listen to more radio now then they did a year ago seems strange in this digital, instant age.

A lot of studies come out that are funded by the very entities with vested interests in the findings, which is very possible in this situation.  There isn’t necessarily any evidence on the web to support this idea, but the results are slightly fishy, especially when you consider how scared terrestrial radio has gotten lately.  There are so many different options for listening to music in 2008, that terrestrial radio is pulling out all the stops to not be perceived as archaic or obsolete.

For instance… everyone loves HD radio, right?  If not, you’ve probably never heard about it, or you don’t know anyone who has it.  HD radio is the newest technology terrestrial radio is offering to compete with the likes of Sirius / XM and Pandora.  Supposedly, your fancy new HD radio makes your FM stations sound like CD quality, and your AM stations sound like your old FM stations.  Wow, you mean, I can listen to CD quality music in my car and at home?  It’s crazy, there’s also these things “CDs” out, and they kind of do the same thing, without all the interesting commercials for debt consolidation.  And beyond that, 90% of songs on the radio are probably on some hip-hop blog or at your local flea market bootleg kiosk.  You could probably buy any songs you liked off the radio for cheaper then an entirely new HD receiver would cost, and then you would own it forever, and on top of it, you can play it whenever you want.  When so many other options are out there, radio really has to make leaps and bounds before they can offer comparable options to the plethora of new music technology.

The radio does serve a purpose; you can toss it on at certain times, hear mixtape shows, pick up on some unreleased songs, but as a primary format for listeners, it’s definitely for the casual listener.  People that really care about music and spend a lot of time / energy listening probably would want to own CDs or MP3s and create their own collection or archive. That’s an interactive aspect that radio severely lacks.  At the same time, a lot of the young audience are casual listeners, so the results of this study might be somewhat accurate; but in general, you would assume that 14 - 24-year-olds are some of the most experimental listeners in how they find out about / listen to new music.

More then anything though, this study almost seems like wishful thinking from an industry that’s still hocking black & white TVs when everyone already has those fancy James Bond wristwatches.

[Editor's Note: Adam is not alone in his thinking here.  Check out more from Inside Music Media on this topic.  What you thought we made this shit up?].

By Adam Michael

New York, NY (October 27, 2008) - Lets just say the music industry is going through some “personal issues” right now.  Their old friend, the compact disc, hasn’t really been coming around like he used to.  It’s not that he doesn’t want to, it’s just that, well, he’s kind of being slowly replaced by his new, cooler, sleeker, and invisible cousin, the MP3.  What’s a fella to do?

Right now, the entire music industry is on the cusp of either entirely embracing this new technology or ending up with the dinosaurs of other defunct mediums (cough, cough, Beta, or maybe even, cassettes).  Never before has an entire industry literally had to reorganize its entire structure because of technological innovations.  Once the compressed cousin of the .WAV appeared in his tiny, easy to manage digital frame, nothing has been the same.  MP3s own the music industry right now; even the legal version commonly provided by iTunes is showing CDs up in almost every category.  But the real demon of this movement is the worldwide illegal music piracy that has caused an entire industry to rethink, well, basically everything.

The newest development in this very young field of digital media is the formation of the Arts+Lab coalition, a new advocacy group that wants to agree upon an online method of distribution for digital media that fairly compensates all involved parties.  A major aspect of their mission is to inform consumers of the numerous methods of obtaining media online that is safe, affordable, and legal.  The formation of this coalition comes as no surprise to anyone who’s been following the non-stop RIAA litigation, but what’s odd about the whole thing is how long its taken for these mega-conglomerates to band together and enforce some sort of cultural standard on musical piracy.  This quote from Arts+Lab co-chair Mike McCurry exemplifies exactly why the industry felt this coalition is necessary in the current technological climate:  “We want consumers to have exponentially greater opportunities to access creative content in a variety of formats, and with confidence that they are safe from viruses, hackers, malware, illegal file trafficking and other net pollution that puts them at risk.”

It’s surprising that the industry is basing the formation of this coalition on the concept of protecting the consumer from malicious viruses and other infectious software.  It’s like, wow, you mean these multi-billion dollar companies just want my Microsoft Vista to run super-fast and super-clean?  And if it means I start buying music again as a by-product of this innovation, then that’s great for everyone?  (insert laughter)  Almost anyone learning about Arts+Lab and what they’re trying to implement their programs could easily tell you these companies are scared, that they didn’t react quick enough in the first place, that the RIAA can’t possibly handle all this by themselves, and that now, after all this time, they’re trying to clean up this huge mess, which essentially, they allowed to proliferate in the first place.

Check it out: too many consumers were sick of paying $20 for 3 singles and 15 wack songs, and that they had to buy the record just to find out that were 15 wack songs.  The music industry was on its David vs. Goliath for decades, and the consumer had absolutely no method to retaliate.  That is, until CD duplication became cheap and easy enough that almost everyone could afford it.  The music industry used a lot of shady and unethical practices to enforce this strict monetary model, and the consumer was left with only one decision: buy the CD or buy nothing.  Sure, you could dub copies of any disc onto cassettes, and bootlegging has been around forever, but the advent of digital media was the first time it existed in such an instantaneous and worldwide scale.  The industry would love to go back to the carefree days of 1999 when Napster was simple and kids in dorm rooms were the only ones making mixes of their favorite songs.  Now, only 9 years later, everyone has at least a little part in the pirating of digital media.  Whether you’re scanning bit torrent sites for the album that doesn’t come out for 3 weeks or you’re in your friend’s car listening to a CD you just burned from MP3s that 10 of your friends want a copy of, everyone is at least slightly guilty in the dissolution of the music industry.  Which is exactly why the forming of Art+Labs makes so much sense.  It’s just, a.) why did it take so long, and b.) why do they have to beat around the bush and try to enforce these laws under the guise of protecting your average consumer?

If you’re somewhat educated on the most common Internet protocol, you know what to watch out for when it comes to viruses or malicious software, and the more experience you have, the easier it gets to filter out the Internet’s incessant nonsense.  Obviously, the music industry has to have a PR spin on the creation of Arts+Lab or everyone would go right into Big Brother mode, and assume these corporations are going to start monitoring Internet activity to the point that illegal file sharing really becomes a legal issue for the average downloader.

The biggest indicator of the formation of Arts+Lab is that the industry is scared (I mean really, REALLY, scared).  Scared enough that the federally-backed RIAA obviously isn’t enough to quell this massive quagmire.  They need to “market” the idea of not stealing, if that doesn’t sound absolutely absurd.  It seems that almost everyone, around the world, for whatever reason, doesn’t have a problem with stealing copyrighted property; for some reason, its not viewed as being morally wrong as the theft of a physical product.

The industry is making at least small strides in bringing structure to the gray area of exactly what is the monetary benefit of this new technology.  The major record labels, music publishers, and online web casters recently reached an agreement after months of deliberation on royalty payments for interactive streaming and limited release digital downloads.  The agreement settled on an industry standard of a mechanical royalty of 10.5% of revenue, with minimum payments in certain scenarios.  A major aspect of the agreement was that non-interactive, audio streaming-only sites would not have to pay any royalties to the copyright holders.  What this agreement did was create a legal definition for whether or not a website will have pay for the use of streaming content, which includes mp3s, radio stations, or basically any non-downloadable digital media.

The realm of streaming media is just one area the music industry is getting a hold on as far as how to integrate their old structure to fully utilize the worldwide audience digital media provides, but are they moving fast enough to keep with diligent hackers and an audience that can preview entire albums before they buy them?  Additionally, are they equipped to deal with the consumer who only wants the same 3 singles because the rest is rubbish?

At the end of the day, the Arts+Lab coaltion is just another PR move from an industry that’s become a shell of its former self.  They’re trying to utilize absolutely everything they can muster to put out a fire that, by now, is just a few scant glowing embers.  They’re trying to reconstitute ashes into a shiny new widget someone else invented, and then on top of it, charging you to use that widget.  All of this is completely understandable; as in every single legitimized fully structured industry, they have a product they produce, they sell the product, collect the profit, and then hopefully move on to new and better products with an escalating margin.  It just happens that technology’s rapid expansion could not possibly be stopped, and that these advancements specifically came into contact with the music industry’s primary fiscal model, and they’ve just gotten to the point where they’re about to break the glass on the fire extinguisher…

by Elizabeth Adams

New York, NY (October 26, 2008) - As if we needed anything to further amp up those Facebook Music rumors, adding more fuel to the fire comes news that iLike, a major contender for the rumored Facebook Music, has partnered with TuneCore in order to offer monetary compensation to independent artists.

Indie artists that submit their music through TuneCore now have the opportunity to have it played and distributed through iLike, which means exposure on major social networks like Facebook, Bebo and Hi5, and more opportunities for earning royalties.  A major advantage of TuneCore is that the artists retain 100% of the money they earn through the site, which attracts both indie and major label artists alike.

This was the next necessary move to further establish iLike’s lead over other music apps in the race to for inclusion on Facebook Music, should it happen.  Opening up iLike’s accessibility to better-serve indie artists means that the app is now one of very few that can accommodate the needs of the indie and mainstream markets, and will have rates and contracts ready to go for nearly any possible artist situation.  Plus, by partnering with an established distribution service like TuneCore, they’ve eliminated a presumed hurdle Facebook Music would have to deal with.

All in all, if the other apps still want to remain in the race for alleged music partner for the alleged Facebook Music, they are going to have to step their game up seriously.

Another huge development for artists, especially indie artists with a limited production budget, is the launch of IndabaVox, a new service that allows musicians to “call into” recording sessions using VoIP technology.  People can call in using their mobile phones or landlines, enter a PIN, and begin laying down their tracks as part of an already established recording session with another artist.  It’s basically instant gratification when it comes to recording over long distances, which will mean less time to wait to finish production on a song, and more opportunities for collaborations between artists that may have not gotten a chance to work together otherwise.  JamNow has already established a leg-up on a service like IndabaVox with a computer-based link-up and studio, so it will be interesting to see what happens moving forward with both.

In theory, using these new services, an Indie artist can put together a brand new collaboration within a day, and have it uploaded through TuneCore/iLike by the next.  Artists will be able to not only track fan demand, but respond to demand faster and more effectively, which means more money and more satisfied listeners.

By Adam Michael

New York, NY (October 23, 2008) - LaLa, the three-year-old music startup, has decided to relaunch itself again as a service that tries to merge the best features of iTunes and Rhapsody into a single package.  They fit perfectly into the grey area between a subscription service and something that gives you ownership of your music like what iTunes has accomplished so successfully.

As a free service, LaLa will exist as a virtual jukebox for all of your mp3 files.  You can log onto their website, and upload your entire collection, which you can then stream back from any computer or Wi-Fi connection.  LaLa will automatically pull songs from their own database that matches your catalog, or if they don’t have the song, they’ll pull it from your collection.  The subscription component comes in when you start listening to songs from their vast database.  You can stream any song once for free, and then after that, its 10 cents for unlimited stream times.  To actually purchase an mp3, it’s 89 cents each, and you can also apply the 10-cent streaming fee, if it’s a song you decide you want to purchase in the future.

LaLa is an interesting composite of some of the most successful digital music sites.  It seems like they’re trying to include something that’ll appeal to everyone no matter where they fit into the digital music spectrum.  If you don’t want the headaches that sometimes come with subscription services, then you can just use them as a virtual mp3 portal to enjoy music anywhere there’s an Internet connection.  If you want to pay as little as possible, and still bulk up your music collection, then the 10-cent per stream plan would definitely fit into your budget.  No matter what you’re looking for LaLa seems to have it, and on top if it, they’ve signed on all four major labels, and over 170,000 independent labels and distributors.

With interest like that from basically every record label in existence, LaLa seems like a force to be reckoned with.  What’s really going to make or break this shaky startup is the ease of use of its interface coupled with an impressive song selection; if they can truly accomplish both of these goals, iTunes and Rhapsody just may have some competition.

One aspect of LaLa though that is a tad scary is their welcoming arms concerning the free upload of your entire mp3 catalogue.  A major aspect of the touted service is your ability to upload your entire library to their iTunes-esque database that can then be enjoyed from absolutely any Internet connection.  The issue that arises, though, is whether LaLa exists in the future as a grey area for copyright infringement, and also, will the major labels use it as an outlet to inspect and survey exactly what’s on your computer?  LaLa could be used as false security, where you think they’re basically “virtually” holding your music for you, but instead, the major labels could be looking over LaLa’s shoulder inspecting each and every mp3 you own to make sure they’re legally complicit.  I’m sure there’s programs out there that can derive the origin of your mp3, whether it was ripped from a retail CD, or it just floated off an anonymous server somewhere.

Whether or not LaLa is going to be used for these practices is still up in the air, but just their role as virtual mp3 portal coupled with their partnership with the majors is definitely a slightly worrisome predicament.  Even though it seems convenient, is it really necessary to have a virtual copy of every song you’ve ever owned floating around in cyberspace.  How many times are you somewhere with an Internet connection but without your mp3s?  Most people either simultaneously have both, or like everyone else, they have an mp3 player, so they’re entire collection is already portable.

LaLa sounds great in theory, but it definitely has a Big Brother tinge that makes it at least slightly ominous.

New York, NY (October 22, 2008) - A friend sent me this one today, spotted over at CNN.com.  They’re talking about Project 10^100, an innovative idea Google came up with to generate “world-changing” ideas that would benefit mankind and help ease global concerns like providing food and shelter, building communities, improving health, granting more access to education, sustaining the global ecosystem and promoting clean energy.  They will whittle down the nearly 150,000 ideas to 100, open them to public voting to get a Top 20 and announce up to five winners that could potentially be up for funding.  Funding is up to $10 million.  Check:

…”We’re thrilled by the large array of enthusiastic responses to Project 10^100. That number has exceeded our expectations,” said Bethany Poole, a product marketing manager at Google.

“We’re also very impressed by the variety and ingenuity of the submissions across all categories, ranging from health to energy, education and the environment,” she said.

Google launched the ambitious project September 24 to help celebrate its 10th birthday. In announcing Project 10^100 (pronounced “10 to the 100th”), the Internet giant said to hoped to solicit and bankroll fresh ideas it believes will have broad and beneficial effects on people’s lives.

By Elizabeth Adams

New York, NY (October 20, 2008) - There are a ton of new products and services launching of late allowing beginner-level video producers to reach the masses with their work.  One of the most exciting developments comes from Qik, which should have the folks over at Kyte shaking in their virtual boots.  While Kyte is a hugely popular streaming video site, the options for people to mobile stream live video content are limited to the iPhone, the iTouch, and certain Nokia camera phones.  Qik, however, is well on their way to a solution for this problem with their new software, usable on phones from both Nokia and Sony Ericsson.  The initial launch covers about a dozen phones, and Qik promises to offer support for more models in the very near future.  The phones they are most interested in opening up the service to are considered mass-market; so for folks without a smartphone or a phone with a million and one bells and whistles, that means you could potentially stream video!  For independent artists (or just your attention-seeking friends), that would allow them to easily share their thoughts or music with a huge audience in real time.  Qik definitely has your best interests at heart here!

Now, if you’re more about creating huge, elaborate video projects, Vimeo has a new service that may solve a problem you’ve probably encountered: uploading and streaming your files without reducing the quality of the video.  Vimeo Plus, which launched last week at a subscription cost of $59.95 per year, provides 300 times the space of regular Vimeo, enabling video producers to upload HD content online and share it with the masses the way it was meant to be seen.  Users can also restrict the embedding function on Vimeo Plus, meaning their content won’t be embeddable on websites where they don’t want it to be seen.  The new service also sports an unlimited groups feature, allowing users to create albums and channels within their account to better sort and categorize their work as well as their viewing audience.

But once you’ve created and uploaded your new videos, how do you go about sharing them on multiple sites and social networks all at once?  The answer comes from Graspr.  Where MultiSubmit left off, Graspr has launched the gCard, a new widget which not only allows you to stream video content on just about any page or social network you can imagine, but also includes a virtual business card of sorts, complete with contact information and bio of the author of the video.  Future videos published using the gCard format by the same author will automatically contain the same contact information, which means you don’t have to constantly re-enter the same information over and over again to make sure the people that like your stuff have a way to contact you about it.  Plus, it is a simple guarantee that no matter how someone is coming across your videos, whether it’s through MySpace, Blogger, or another website entirely, they will still all have access to the same contact information, video quality, and content.

Qik, Vimeo and Graspr have just made creating videos, streaming them, and presenting them in a universal format an easy option for just about any user.  This next wave of services should put YouTube, Kyte, and the other current superstar online video sites on notice.

By Adam Michael

New York, NY (October 16, 2008) - In the latest attempt at suppressing worldwide piracy of intellectual copyrights, President Bush signed into law on Monday (October 13th) that calls for stricter penalties in fighting music and movie piracy.  The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP) Act will involve more comprehensive copyright enforcement, the appointment of a yet to be announced “Piracy Czar”, and the creation of an intellectual property policy that can be applied across all aspects of the federal government.  The government is hoping that by passing this bill into law it’ll send a stern warning to anyone even considering taking even a small part in piracy.  The PRO IP Act was thoroughly supported by the RIAA, the MPAA, and basically every major record label and Hollywood studio.  Although all of these entities already had a through enforcement regiment in place, they feel like they can only benefit from a federally backed version of the loosely based enforcement model they were relying on.

According to the government, they want to use this alliance to go after the major criminals committing mass piracy, instead of teenagers simply downloading single songs.  Along with the passing of this act comes some more severe penalties for parties found guilty of copyright infringement.  Very similar to the way a drug dealer is dealt with, those found guilty can face forfeiture of property.  If the government feels that your bootleg DVD kiosk paid for your new Benz, they can now simply take any property that is even slightly linked to funds accrued from your piracy assets.  This quote from an article on p2p.net sums up the complicated issues that arise from these new initiatives:

…”Although some may feel that forfeiture is an appropriate response to serious large scale drug dealing, those same draconian measures can now apply to copyright infringement cases. It can cause more stress and difficulty in defending cases when defendants have to prove in a separate court action, that the materials seized were not used for the actions claimed. Wikipedia indicates that 3 years, and $10,000 is the typical cost of fighting such cases. Public Knowledge opposes these forfeiture measures, with spokesman Art Brodsky saying: “Let’s suppose that there’s one computer in the house, and one person uses it for downloads and one for homework. The whole computer goes.”

Wow.  That really puts a new spin on trying to save a few dollars by downloading that new album instead of buying it.  Who wants to save $10 just to spend $10,000 trying to prove they weren’t trying to save $10 in the first place?  The other interesting point is that they can easily remove any electronics associated with piracy from your home.  Just because a computer was used for piracy doesn’t mean it’s a piracy computer.  We’re not talking about stacks of CD duplicators; probably just half-obsolete desktops that barely have a graphic interface.

The government is specifically stating that they don’t plan on going after simple downloaders, but if that were really true, why would they even pass this act in the first place?  According to the Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. spends $250 billion to fight piracy, annually, and for some reason, that’s not enough, monetarily or from an enforcement point of view.  It seems that money could be better spent figuring out the origins of this problem in the first place instead going after these trickle down after-thoughts.  This quote from the same p2p.net article really hones in on this concept:

“The person filling this Copyright Czar role will, presumably, be in a similar position to that of the Drugs Czar, and will listen mainly to lobbyists and ’safe’ peer pressure. Just as in the case of narcotics, symptoms will be dealt with, and not causes. Targeting causes means targeting contributors, while targeting symptoms just means targeting voters, and there are millions of them.”

That’s exactly it.  The MPAA and RIAA have been going after those who aren’t tech savvy enough to not get caught.  You’ve heard about tons of examples like 80-year-old grandmothers downloading some song from when she was a teenager off Limewire and she didn’t even comprehend that she was “stealing”.  People aren’t getting caught downloading mixtapes off of torrent sites or leaked singles from hip hop blogs; it’s always the one-off cases that usually arise from really innocent circumstances.

I think more than anything, the PRO IP Act will serve more as an ominous threat for everyone to keep in the back of his or her head; something along the lines of how you only think about getting pulled over when you see a cop or someone else getting pulled over.  If you don’t have the idea that the government is monitoring your illegal downloads, then you’re probably never going to stop or have qualms about it.  So it completely makes sense why this bill got easily passed, but A, is it going to be able to accomplish anything that the RIAA / MPAA haven’t been able to, and B, is just the threat alone enough to stop causal pirates?

If $250 billion a year can’t solve a problem that’s only existed for the last ten years, then it makes sense that they’re not focusing on the right issues.  As stated in the p2p.net article, they’re only going after the end result of the problem, not the top of the hierarchy where it originated.  If they would only assess the origin / reasons why mass piracy is so epidemic, then they could potentially suppress the “virus”; your doctor doesn’t give you cold medicine for a fever, or you can’t put a band aid on a broken femur.  The entertainment industry loves using the Emergency Room for every paper cut that emerges.

As far as the PRO IP being an effective enough threat for the common downloader, it’ll be a matter of time before we see the results of the new “piracy brigade”.  Can’t you just picture someone’s grandpa getting ushered into the street by riot cops for hooking up his phonograph to an iPod so he can Bose-dock some 78 and listen to it in his breakfast nook?  A lot of people envision a futuristic military state, but not for downloading “White Christmas” onto a flash-drive necklace.  It’s a scary scenario that just may become all too realistic…

By Adam Michael

New York, NY (October 15, 2008) - I don’t think there’s a single cultural force that has changed an entire industry like piracy has affected the music business.  In a matter of basically ten years, the entire structure and it’s fiscal models have been forever altered due to the rapid speed of technological advancements, and everyone’s favorite new scapegoat, Internet piracy.  Although piracy is heralded as the harbinger for the industry’s imminent demise, there are some industry insiders that feel this blanket statement is a little too harsh, and that these new concepts need reexamining if we’re actually going to get back on track to the old model.  In an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “In Defense of Piracy”, Lawrence Lessig examines the complex issue of piracy in the current cultural climate, and why he thinks it needs to be reinterpreted for these complicated new issues.

A major tenet of what Lessig is proposing is that the only way to solve the piracy problem is to legally reinterpret what it exactly means.  Large companies use valuable resources to fight frivolous copyright cases, but these case rarely ever amount to any significant changes in the law.  Lessig uses the example of Stephanie Lenz, who videotaped her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” and then uploaded the results to YouTube.  Four months later, Universal Music Group sent a letter to YouTube asking them to remove the video, a request to which they complied.  Lenz still couldn’t understand why her specific video was in question, and she took her fight all the way to the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation).  The foundation’s lawyers thought they had a reasonable case and filed a “counter-notice” to YouTube, arguing that no copyright was violated simply by using Prince’s music in the background of a homemade video.  Universal’s lawyers still insist that sharing this home video is copyright infringement, and that Ms. Lenz is still potentially liable to be fined up to $150,000 for uploading the 29-second clip.

This is a perfect example of an area where the legal definition really needs to be altered to match the ever-changing cultural climate.  The actual Prince song in question was playing in the background of the video, and was barely audible in the quality in was presented.  The song itself was almost an afterthought; this mother wanted an easy way to share her toddler’s videos, and you can’t email large video files, so by default, YouTube was the easiest outlet.  It’s understandable why Universal has to thwart any attempt at copyright infringement, but aren’t their resources better utilized by going after the origin of the piracy, instead the final place it’s tricking down too?  They’re using extensive law resources so some housewife will stop posting home videos of her toddler dancing to Prince, and on top of that, the song is barely recognizable.  Internet piracy has taken on so many different forms, the major labels end up having an all or none approach; they figure we have to go after any little infraction or people will get the idea that piracy is a culturally acceptable activity, which is an understandable stance, especially in this day and age.  The main idea though, is that there has to be some middle ground where these companies can go after the massive proponents of Internet piracy, like single individuals leaking albums, instead of the furthest reaches of the trickle down, where the impact is practically nil.

Lessig proposes a deregulation for the amateur remix; that any parent who’s putting pics of their kids online with some song behind it can’t be held responsible for copyright infringement.  He feels that if you post a slideshow or video like this on YouTube, that the musical artist should at least be partially compensated, but this would only be true if the person who posted the video is also compensating from the post, which is a fair and ethical way of approaching the problem.  Maybe YouTube could arrange some sort of licensing deal with artists from fan created videos posted on their website.   As with everything else, this is another wide expanse of grey area that has to have a solidified legal solution, and that’s what Lessig really hammers home in this article.

These old laws and definitions of copyrights really don’t apply to the new climate.  Sure, you can broadly apply them to new, digital media, and still enforce the laws that exist, but the real question is, are these old laws capable of solving the new piracy problem, or are they just making due with what currently exists to make everyone look proactive, while in reality, piracy is expanding and growing at an unheard of rate?

That’s another question in this complicated new era of digital “martial” law, though, too:  is it possible the majors know they can’t really do anything significant about piracy, so they’re just trying to do what they can as far as how the law is defined, even if that doesn’t quell the problem?  For the last ten years, all you hear about are college students get mass-subpoenaed, or someone’s grandma getting sued for downloading some song she grew up with, but at the same time, piracy only keeps getting easier, bigger, and harder to control.  There’s almost an inverse relationship that exists where the more the majors fight these “battles”, the more piracy seems to expand.  So, are they not going after the right enemy, or are their tools simply obsolete and don’t apply to the new “war”, as Lessig puts it?  You don’t show up with a knife to a gunfight, or go to Iraq with some archaic musket.  The same can be said for Universal: they won’t up physical CD sales by using their lawyers to go after housewives who couldn’t even spell bit torrent if they were inside of Cisco’s catacombs.  It’s not that Lessig is for or against piracy, he just realizes piracy is an unintentional result in an industry that’s still trying to pick itself up by the bootstraps before the shoe cobbler even gets the crocodile home… where are those Mauri’s at man?!?!!?

By Adam Michael

EMI To Launch Own Digital Store

One of the four major labels, EMI, is launching their own online music portal.  Digital Music News revealed in this article that it should be live by Christmas.  It will be an all encompassing site where fans can download tracks and videos, or find out information about their favorite EMI artists.  EMI is trying to position the site as a “learning lab” where users can find out about new artists, music or other media from the EMI archives.  Another aspect they’re touting is a plan to gather data on fans, which they can use to tailor future talent and services to best match the needs of a changing marketplace.

The main criticism that has come out against this site and other similar launches is that the average music consumer has no idea which artist is on which artist.  If they want to buy a track by Rihanna, they probably want other artists that sound similar, not necessarily other artists on Rihanna’s label that sound like Rihanna, which does create a problem for a label that obviously, can only offer content from their own artists.  EMI is presumably trying to bypass the whole iTunes predicament and keep all the profits for themselves, but its very possible that cutting out iTunes to only focus on in-house talent may just backfire.

The Internet seems to be going in the direction where the most successful sites have everything housed under a single venue, so EMI’s specific rejection of that model will prove to be quite a gamble.  Will they really make more money being the sole outlet for their content versus the money they’re losing allowing Itunes to take a portion of every sale?  Do you want to go to Walmart for thumbtacks, or are you going to go to the 300 different thumbtack stores on every other corner looking for a certain shade of burgundy…right?   For more, get over to ArsTechnica here.

Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak Predicts Death of The iPod

In an interview on Wednesday with the English newspaper Telegraph, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak revealed his predictions for the future of Apple’s most popular gadget, the iPod.  In this quote, you get an idea of his opinion on the iPod future:

“The iPod has sort of lived a long life at number one,” he says. “Things like that, if you look back to transistor radios and Walkmans, they kind of die out after a while.  It’s kind of like everyone has got one or two or three. You get to a point when they are on display everywhere, they get real cheap and they are not selling as much.”

Wow.  You can almost hear Steve Job’s wringing his former executive’s neck (the same guy is also responsible for co-inventing Apple’s first PC with Jobs in 1976).  What he says is true though; the bigger they are, the more common they become… eventually it leads to at least a partial plateau in interest.  He also doesn’t like how stringent Apple has become with accepting outside applications for the iPhone.  He compares it to Google’s Android operating system, which is entirely open source and allows for any innovations designers can imagine.  It is funny that the same company who prides themselves on being an industry leader in new concepts and ideas is trying to quell the very innovations that allowed them to become such a tech powerhouse in the first place.  Maybe Woz’s brain is just the right spark they need to stay ahead of their conniving competition, but the way he thinks is probably too “open source” for what Jobs has in mind, and he’d probably make his synapses sign some sort of non disclosure agreement, which I’m sure there’s an application for in the works.

New iPhone App Allows Users To Create Music - On The Fly

Brian Eno, one of the most innovative musicians and producers of all time, has recently co-developed a new application for the iPhone that lets users create music on the fly by utilizing the phone’s touch screen capabilities.

The application, called Bloom, runs in two different modes: “Listen,” which plays an interactive generative composition, and “Create,” in which you create each note that plays in real time.  Generative music is created by algorithms that dictate the progression from one note to the next, but the other mode lets the user control every variable that usually go into writing a song.  Each time you touch the screen a circle “blooms”, which causes a note to play.  The higher you touch on the screen, the higher the note is, and if you keep touching the same spot, the same note will appear, which means you’re not just triggering preloaded sequences, but actually composing in real time.  The settings menu gives you a wide range of variables to play with including generating new patterns, freezing a previous pattern you’ve made, choosing lengths of patterns, and nine different moods that let affect how the music is generated.

The one aspect that’s a little shoddy is you can’t save anything you’ve made, but that’s also not really the point of something that’s almost a musical brain-teaser to fill up lulls in your commute.  It’s something that’s probably really fun for on-the-go or just messing around with some music ideas, but like a lot of iPhone apps, its something that serves its function by taking you away from things you’re supposed to be doing; like scanning YouTube looking for your co-worker’s video blog about how their dog just got a new outfit, or how their outfit just got a new dog, or something along those lines…

Insound Giving Free Compilations To Spark Future Sales

Insound, one of the most popular online indie music stores, has recently started a new promotion they hope will materialize in increased sales and traffic.  With every purchase of an mp3 album, or simply by clicking for free, you can download a new sampler from the site every month.

Insound is rolling out this promotion for a handful of different reasons: it helps to promote artists on the site and future purchases of their other albums, it seeks to separate Insound from other music portals offering similar content, and it allows specific promotion of some of the site’s sponsorship partners.  And another upside, the sampler’s aren’t full of some chintzy, cut-rate bands you’ve never heard of; there’s huge indie acts, mixed with some known up & comers on their first offering.  On top of that, it’s completely free each month from a special section of the site, unless you purchase an mp3 album, which it’ll then come bundled with.

Insound is smart in knowing that one of the only ways for the vast variety of music sites to stick out is to become a better, more knowledgeable tastemaker then your competition, and to offer content the other’s just don’t have.  Pitchfork Media is almost a tastemaker’s tastemaker site, but you can’t buy music there or legally get a concise bundle of the month’s hottest tracks.  Insound has accomplished the tricky concept of offering multiple forms of musical content while still maintaining quality control the educated music consumer is looking for.

Lil Jon Inks Multi-Faceted Deal With Universal

World-renowned facilitator of crunk, Lil Jon has signed an impressive deal with Universal Republic Records that will end up becoming the new home for all of his new material.  Lil Jon’s former label, TVT Records, went bankrupt and was then purchased by The Orchard in June, who then released Jon from the remainder of his TVT contract which left him in limbo for the past few months.  This new deal with Universal encompasses everything Jon’s been doing with his career up until this point.  Beyond releasing his new album “Crunk Rock” in early 2009, Universal gave Jon the position of in-house producer and A&R consultant for their diverse roster of artists.  Lil Jon will also get his own imprint through Universal, but as of right now, its yet to be determined if he’ll bring over his BME label, which is home to artists Lil Scrappy, Crime Mob, and E-40.

This quote from Universal Republic Records President and CEO Monte Lipman sums up why they wanted Jon to jump on board:  “Lil Jon is a larger than life figure who casts a giant shadow over every facet of the entertainment business…his name is synonymous with brand-building and we want him plugged into multiple Universal Republic platforms for maximum results. I view him as our Urban Music Czar!”  Could there really be a title more fitting for someone who can make an entire club breakout into riot mode with a simple flick of an 808 pad?  Universal has very little risk with a brand that’s been as fully established as Jon’s has, not to mention the millions of dollars TVT has already spent launching Lil Jon into the popular culture stratosphere.

If they do a little tweaking, he could become the next musician everyone and their grandma knows about, like the next Snoop Dogg… but with his own vineyard.

By Adam Michael

New York, NY (October 9, 2008) - On the Internet, a few short years can easily equate to decades in another industry.  The tech world moves so fast that new categories and concepts arise over night and then are immediately replaced or modified just as quickly as they were conceived.  Before MySpace, the term “social-networking” applied to Sociology courses or big wigs looking for new ways to schmooze clients.  In 2008, though, a social networking site is almost considered passé.  The dialog goes something like: “Oh, is that all your site does?” - and then you’ll probably get swept up with the other hundreds of startups that just couldn’t cut it.  So if any new websites are looking to stick around, they need to enhance what other sites are doing, and offer new features that one-up the industry standards.  Or better yet, just take the model of the most successful sites/companies in the business, and start your own mega-Voltron shape shifting amalgam.  And that’s what LP33 is hoping to accomplish.  They’re billing themselves as the missing link between MySpace and MTV, and if they can accomplish they’re lofty proclamations, they’re destined to become an Internet powerhouse.

Just like MySpace, LP33 allows any artist to create their own profile and upload content, but that’s where the similarities end.  LP33 acts as venue and tastemaker, where the site filters through all of its uploaded content and promotes the material they feel has the most potential.  Besides becoming a network for unsigned artists, they’re also currently recruiting what they refer to as “big artists,” or artists with a significant following that for one reason or another have fallen though the cracks of the majors.  An artist that maybe did 400,000 copies instead of 2 million might not be economically viable for a major, but that’s the exact artist LP33 is looking for.  There’s still money to be made investing in these “larger” indie artists, but with the massive budgets major labels put into the entire recording/promotion process, sometimes not breaking a million isn’t even breaking even.  LP33 hopes to become the perfect setting for that middle of the road artist.

LP33 plans to create revenue by taking 30% of sales from artist’s storefronts, running video ads (never more than one 15-second ad in a 15-minute period), and the potential of licensing deals with the artists it’s promoting on the site.  Besides creating opportunities for unsigned bands, LP33 hopes to attract people to the site through their innovative use of some standard Internet media applications.  Users can go to the site and scroll through music videos to watch by genre or artist, or they can setup a list of music videos to watch and just let play for hours, which is supposed to be where the MTV aspect comes in.

LP33 is an interesting idea that seems to combine the best aspects of some of the most popular sites on the web, and the founder Andrew Bentley brought up a really good point in what his site is attempting to establish: “Pretty much all the music and video businesses that have started up — take the new MySpace Music or any of them — effectively, they’re like a yellow pages, a place where content is held. If you know what you’re looking for, it’s great. But if you’re trying to browse, it’s very, very difficult… The problem out there is that the Internet has created this amazing paradox: it’s made more artists available than ever before, but it’s made good artists harder to find, because it’s a very cluttered market.”

That statement really gets at the heart of why something like MySpace is successful in certain areas, but really falls short in others.  MySpace has basically become an online database for musicians in every stage of their career, from the ones in their basements who just finished a track last night, to bands that have sold 50 million records worldwide and almost don’t even need the extra promotion of a site like MySpace; but that’s exactly it, a database is only as functional as the results you can garner from it.  If MySpace has millions of bands, but the way in which you learn about these bands is inferior to their mass availability, then the idea of an all-encompassing database really can’t reap the results it was intended for.  It’s cool that LP33 understands this problem and wants to act as a curator, of sorts, for the overwhelming amount of musical content online, but A, that’s a huge undertaking to base a business model on, and B, who’s to say this rookie upstart has the skills and taste necessary to discern what’s the next big thing across every single genre?

If you go on their site right now, they already have a lot of artists to launch their site with, but very few have any real buzz or at least have created an Internet presence.  They did say they were in discussions to bring on “big” indie bands, presumably that have sold a lot of records, but those names won’t be announced till later this year, so until then, its really up in the air as far the supposed quality their site is presumed to be “filtering”.  It seems like the only way this site is really going to take off is by either discovering an unknown artist that ends up breaking into the mainstream, or, by acquiring licensing rights to a band that a major already invested in and ended up releasing because they didn’t pan out.  Is that really something you want your fiscal model based on though; the sloppy seconds that some other major couldn’t figure out how to make money off of?

LP33 is trying to fill a void on the Internet that may not even exist.  The old paradigm of MTV as the music video behemoth seems almost obsolete when you can just flip on YouTube and watch almost any video that has ever existed, and a lot that were probably never on MTV in the first place.  LP33 needs to ensure they have content that people are looking for because, no matter how good they are at being a filter for the other “Yellow Pages” style sites, if they don’t have stuff people want to see, the filter is useless.

Success in this venture will be based on LP33’s ability to offer content people want and they can’t find anywhere else; everyone already has at least one music nerd friend that gives them burns of whatever’s popping for the week, so how many filters do you really need?

New York, NY (October 6, 2008) – Wasn’t really a big fan of the song when it first came out, but the video gives it a significant jolt of life. Still sounds like Jazzy Phe corned Lonnie in the lab and was like, ‘Here, rap like this!’  Good to see Common’s career come full circle, tho. Son can act, his music has remained (relatively) consistent as he’s brought it to a larger stage, he’s giving back to certain causes… Would it be fair to say he’s seeing more success than Mos Def? Discuss.

By Elizabeth Adams

New York, NY (October 4, 2008) - Paper tickets are so 2007, y’all.  Tickets@Phone, new technology from tickets.com, is allowing Oklahoma event-goers to download their purchased tickets directly to their mobile phones, complete with scannable bar codes.  When they enter the BOK Center Arena in Tulsa for the event, all they’ll have to do is show security their mobile phone.  Security will then be able to scan the bar code directly from the phone and allow them into the event.

In addition to concerts, the BOK Center Arena will also be hosting major sporting events featuring, among others, their arena football team Tulsa Talons and the Central Hockey League’s Tulsa Oilers.  Tickets.com has also been behind innovations in the ticketing industry like Access Control, which allows venues to track event attendance in real-time as well as track multi-day event ticket and pass usage.

So what does this mean for event-goers beyond Oklahoma?  Well, if this new venture proves to be successful in Tulsa and expands its reach to venues nationwide, scalping tickets outside a show may soon be a thing of the past.  The individualized bar codes on each ticket will definitely minimize the sales of fake tickets, but the practice of scanning codes over your phone might also prove difficult for patrons of legitimate ticket brokers and online ticket swap sites.  No word on what phones or mobile providers the service is or is not compatible with, or what happens if, say, your phone battery dies.  Or your phone is stolen.

In other tech news, just when you thought the iPod couldn’t get any more interactive, here come Notescasts, cached versions of webpages downloadable to your iPod.  You can access Notescasts on just about any current iPod, including the Nano or Classic.  The information on the pages won’t update in real time, but they are interactive multi-page files that include multimedia and pictures.

TimeStream Software, which developed Notescasts, claims that each file can contain up to a thousand different pages of information, more than enough for most businesses to include product information, images, directions, or pricelists if necessary.  The pages can also include video and audio, a valuable feature for artists looking for a new means of promotion.  We should probably expect to see Notescasts included with EPKs or embedded as extra content on CDs in the very ne