blue note launches spotify app

[JSngry]

So...radio used to exist to sell advertising, which sponsors gladly bought because people were listening to music. In turn, new music continued to be cranked out, because radio needed new product to keep people listening. The new music was able to continue to be cranked out because people bought enough product to sustain the business model.

Now...if I'm understanding all this modernity correctly...not that many people want to really buy/own anything anymore, and are willing to just listen to the radio and just kinda nib-nab a snack here or there in terms of buying, and even at that, they're ok with buying digital data stored on somebody else's servers.

So...radio now exists to sell advertising, which sponsors will now gladly(?) buy because people are listening to music. In turn, new music will continue to be cranked out because...radio needs new product? And...the new music will be able to continue to be cranked out because...people are willing to occasionally/essentially rent connection time to somebody else's server?

"what is this i don't even"

But that's ok, because there's enough shit already recorded that, if you're curious enough, you can hear "new" music on the radio for the rest of your life and not once hear it be played by somebody who is still living. And never have any of it clutter up your shelves!

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how civilization advances, by incentivizing people to explore more and spend less. Because, you know, progress don't need money, it only needs a lust for convenience.

Color me most impressed!

[David Ayers]

Maybe it's different where you are, but where I live there is simply no end of new music and new musicians. It is - honestly - absolutely endless. No-one could possibly keep up with it all. I don't yet see any shortage of new recorded music either, for people who find that more important - the opposite, a massive surfeit.

[JSngry]

Well then, a Golden Age Awaits. Most Certainly!

Let us gather our sobriety now, for it will be but no tong until we are flooded with the inebriation emanating from the sunamis of brilliant new musics just waiting to happen, each more stunning than the last, and each being fully abilified by we the audence only wanting to hear them at out leisure and at as minimal a cash outlay as possible.

Dare I say that we are on the cusp of the first full-blooded Renaissance of the new century? Dare I say it at all? Or do I set my stand on the corner that best allows me the most unblocked view of the parade verging on panic of what is sure to be the Rush To End All Rushes as one brilliant mind after another comes strutting down the road with his (or her!) latest gift to the airways, the one that everybody will want to hear MORE than once and some will want to get played to them from the Great Benevolent Server In Teh Sky..why, I suspect that a concession stand will be in order, and would turn a nifty profit in return.Hot dogs and lemonade = profit beyond even airplay!

Great new, provocative, controversial music that stirs debates amongst the masses, this music will flow like liquid of the wine, everybody will hear it, nobody will have to buy it, and everybody makes a good enough living to keep it a'-comin', for there is no end in site for this perpetual goodness.

I think I have just peed my pants in the delirium of the realization that such a future is her, HERE RIGHT NOW, and is is just a matter of days before Life Changes Forever For The Better. I can have all I want and never have to pay, and It will just KEEP ON A' CUMMIN', allup in my ears, and my legs, and on my monitors, it's just gonna be AWESOME LIKE GOD RUNNING MUSIC, that's what it's gonna be!

SELAH!

[David Ayers]

And I thought the internet was your friend.

[alocispepraluger102]

the trouble with the world today is that too many (of us) have microphones, keyboards, and guitars.

[JSngry]

And I thought the internet was your friend.

The internet is your friend. h yes it its. It's a good friend, perhaps the best friend.

But this cloud thing is going to rain on the parade.

Or more to the point, not rain at all....

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

And I thought the internet was your friend.

MG

[Shawn]

the trouble with the world today is that too many (of us) have microphones, keyboards, and guitars.

Who is "us" in this sentence? Aren't all musicians "us" at some point before they become "them"?

I have no problem with every other person in the world recording a demo and putting it online, it's freedom of expression, more power to them! I don't have to listen to most of it anyway, so it's not exactly hurting me or the world just because it's there. If some dude in a garage in Iowa decides his life has no purpose unless he records some songs...let him! if nobody ever listens to it that's really not the point.

[JSngry]

Look, I get that the world is overpopulated and that a lot of people don't want to make babies any more, but, really, if you're essentially leasing this music instead of actually owning it, if you pay for it to have it at your leisure, just keep in mind that the presence of the items that please you at your leisure is not under your control at all. One day, you wake up and the cloud is not there. On a good day, it's a technological glitch, on a bad day, it's The New World Order deciding that THIS is what you WILL hear from here on out, but either way, you've paid this money, and then what do have to show for it when the other guy doesn't have it for you? Memories and a reamed ass, that's what you'll have.

Product and packaging and clutter and yadayada yeah, we all need to "simplify", but use your heads - you should always own your own data and should always be able to access it on your terms. If you don't you're a sucker.

That, and there really is no way that a business model built on minimal investment by the user and minimal return to the artist is going to sustainably stimulate new musics. It takes money for people to live, it takes money to buy equipment, it takes money to get a project (or even, GASP, a real live working band!!!) underway (and even more money to keep it going), and it sure as hell takes money to actually create "product". This combination of "well, I don't really BUY stuff anymore but I sure to like to EXPLORE" and a format that pays crumbs, where the hell is the money coming from out of THAT, huh?

Oh, right, just look for the money elsewhere. Where, exactly? Government? Fuck that. "Arts agencies" Fuck that too. Kickstarter, etc. Yeah, there's GOLD in them that hills. NOT!

No, people need to keep buying stuff. Some kind of stuff. Not "rent", buy. Go ahead and don't be afraid to own something for yourself. I guarandamntee you, if you don't own it, somebody else will, and they'll be more than happy to let you use it on therms that do them all the favors, long-term.

Look, I get "simplify". I jut spend a week reorganizing most of my collection, so yeah, I know I got too much "stuff". But that can be remedied by culling and converting. Under no circumstances would I consider just getting rid of it all in any form and keeping it all on some "cloud". No way. I might end up with several multi-TB HDs, but ain't nothing ending up on no damn cloud.

Edited September 28, 2012 by JSngry

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I downloaded an album from Amazon UK a few days ago and got an ad from them today for their 'Cloud'.

It didn't tell me what a cloud was, but I know it's a prelude to rain.

But it did tell me that I could import 250,000 of my own songs (purchased from iTunes or ripped from my own CDs) for a subscription of £21.99 a year!!!! Why would I want to do that? The ad didn't say.

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

I downloaded an album from Amazon UK a few days ago and got an ad from them today for their 'Cloud'.

It didn't tell me what a cloud was, but I know it's a prelude to rain.

But it did tell me that I could import 250,000 of my own songs (purchased from iTunes or ripped from my own CDs) for a subscription of £21.99 a year!!!! Why would I want to do that? The ad didn't say.

MG

That only started last week.

The reasoning behind it is that you have your music collection on the cloud (remember, most people don't have the enormous collection we saddos squirrel away) and can then access it anywhere. I tried it out last night - everything I've bought from Amazon is there and it played the one album I tried from my iPhone flawlessly.

Places like Spotify are unlikely to ever have the range of music you collect. So storing your less well-known albums on the cloud means that you can play them when you are in Wales or in Paris. Or in the rest home you've alluded to in the past, without having to clutter up the single shelf you are given.

Only time will tell how reliable or secure this is. Given my dreadful experiences with wireless at work I'm a bit sceptical. Wrong sort of storm and 'Pharaoh's Dance' cuts out half way.

I'm sure it will work eventually but am a bit uncertain now.

As someone who walks round with between 3 and 6 iPods in his pockets, I can see the appeal of cloud storage.

Edited September 28, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

I can see the appeal of cloud storage as a backup, yes, but as only one form of backup and never as the sole means of storage.

[danasgoodstuff]

Look, I get that the world is overpopulated and that a lot of people don't want to make babies any more, but, really, if you're essentially leasing this music instead of actually owning it, if you pay for it to have it at your leisure, just keep in mind that the presence of the items that please you at your leisure is not under your control at all. One day, you wake up and the cloud is not there. On a good day, it's a technological glitch, on a bad day, it's The New World Order deciding that THIS is what you WILL hear from here on out, but either way, you've paid this money, and then what do have to show for it when the other guy doesn't have it for you? Memories and a reamed ass, that's what you'll have.

Product and packaging and clutter and yadayada yeah, we all need to "simplify", but use your heads - you should always own your own data and should always be able to access it on your terms. If you don't you're a sucker.

That, and there really is no way that a business model built on minimal investment by the user and minimal return to the artist is going to sustainably stimulate new musics. It takes money for people to live, it takes money to buy equipment, it takes money to get a project (or even, GASP, a real live working band!!!) underway (and even more money to keep it going), and it sure as hell takes money to actually create "product". This combination of "well, I don't really BUY stuff anymore but I sure to like to EXPLORE" and a format that pays crumbs, where the hell is the money coming from out of THAT, huh?

Oh, right, just look for the money elsewhere. Where, exactly? Government? Fuck that. "Arts agencies" Fuck that too. Kickstarter, etc. Yeah, there's GOLD in them that hills. NOT!

No, people need to keep buying stuff. Some kind of stuff. Not "rent", buy. Go ahead and don't be afraid to own something for yourself. I guarandamntee you, if you don't own it, somebody else will, and they'll be more than happy to let you use it on therms that do them all the favors, long-term.

Look, I get "simplify". I jut spend a week reorganizing most of my collection, so yeah, I know I got too much "stuff". But that can be remedied by culling and converting. Under no circumstances would I consider just getting rid of it all in any form and keeping it all on some "cloud". No way. I might end up with several multi-TB HDs, but ain't nothing ending up on no damn cloud.

http://manybooks.net/titles/forstereother07machine_stops.html E>M> Forster, The Machine Stops

Edited September 28, 2012 by danasgoodstuff

[A Lark Ascending]

I can see the appeal of cloud storage as a backup, yes, but as only one form of backup and never as the sole means of storage.

I feel the same. But I suspect we might soon be shown to be trapped in the last paradigm!

The 'Spotify' model renders even the cloud unnecessary to those engaging with music for the first time. If you can guarantee 'The Shape of Jazz to Come' is there when you want it on such a site, why bother with owning a copy?

You and I will probably never be comfortable with that. But as we are gradually edged aside...

(I'm not referring to issues of payment etc which are aired elsewhere - just what is technically possible and will therefore be attractive to an audience unfamiliar with the way we grew up exploring music).

Edited September 28, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

If you can guarantee 'The Shape of Jazz to Come' is there when you want it on such a site, why bother with owning a copy?

Because the only way I can truly guarantee that is to own the site myself, or to at least have heavy-duty administrative powers over it.

So the question then becomes, "how much do I really want/need to own, and how much can I live without owning, just having access to, either in memory on on some kind of a jukebox somewhere?" That's a question worth asking and answering.

But the question "why own anything at all?"...I mean, c'mon...what kind of muddleheaded breatharian-esque question is that?

[JSngry]

Also, consider that not only are we being presented with a new "distribution model" (with which I have no real problems at all, the internet is definitely my friend), but also a new "ownership" model - what do you pay for, and what do you ultimately have to show for it. This is mainstream product and distribution we're talking about, remember, not some uber-cyber-collector's underground playground.

Believe me - unless and until Jesus come back to reign over the earth for 1000 Perfect Years (or something similar), things will be owned, and there will always be games - some legit, some trickstery - played to get those who own to transfer their ownership. Anybody who thinks that they can just not own anything and always depend of having all their needs met by paying for services is a damn fool.

Music has been devalued in society at large, I think we can agree on that. It's now viewed as another disposable convenience. Well, ok, a lot of it is. But when we get to the point where people for whom music does have some real personal value, some intrinsic meaning, finding it no big deal to just let other people own it and they just drop in for a cup of coffee and some tunes, and hey, see ya' later, travellin' light, doncha know., love that music, glad you have it...well ok, next time, and all that, well, sorry, that's just weak. That's just expecting to be served.

But here's the kicker - people who actually have servants have the leverage of actually owning the shit that the servants serve. This "new ownership model" is about us expecting to be served without owning anything as leverage. So really, who is serving whom, and who is the real owner and who is the real servant? Who has the ultimate hand and who can at any time end up getting the back of it - and have no hand to use in return?

These are not complicated questions.

[CJ Shearn]

I checked the app out, I think it's pretty nice and serves as a decent educational tool for those who are starting out with Robert Glasper or those with just the typical handful of discs. The app isn't aimed at people like us but it would be nice to have pictures of the original vinyl, pressing history from Liberty/UA/Capitol, how to spot original pressings etc. Discs I don't have from using the app will have to be purchased used eventually and, I hope they use the app to digitally get OOP stuff back out there.

[A Lark Ascending]

Also, consider that not only are we being presented with a new "distribution model" (with which I have no real problems at all, the internet is definitely my friend), but also a new "ownership" model - what do you pay for, and what do you ultimately have to show for it. This is mainstream product and distribution we're talking about, remember, not some uber-cyber-collector's underground playground.

Believe me - unless and until Jesus come back to reign over the earth for 1000 Perfect Years (or something similar), things will be owned, and there will always be games - some legit, some trickstery - played to get those who own to transfer their ownership. Anybody who thinks that they can just not own anything and always depend of having all their needs met by paying for services is a damn fool.

Music has been devalued in society at large, I think we can agree on that. It's now viewed as another disposable convenience. Well, ok, a lot of it is. But when we get to the point where people for whom music does have some real personal value, some intrinsic meaning, finding it no big deal to just let other people own it and they just drop in for a cup of coffee and some tunes, and hey, see ya' later, travellin' light, doncha know., love that music, glad you have it...well ok, next time, and all that, well, sorry, that's just weak. That's just expecting to be served.

But here's the kicker - people who actually have servants have the leverage of actually owning the shit that the servants serve. This "new ownership model" is about us expecting to be served without owning anything as leverage. So really, who is serving whom, and who is the real owner and who is the real servant? Who has the ultimate hand and who can at any time end up getting the back of it - and have no hand to use in return?

These are not complicated questions.

I don't disagree. The economics of how this new world works quite escape me. Give or take a few 'internet is your friend' downloads of OOP albums from the net and a tiny number of things copied from friends, I've always expected to pay for my music. Having so much available for a small subscription is strange.

And I agree that the value of music can be devalued. Equally the sheer enjoyment can be diminished when so much can be obtained so easily. Somehow being able to go to website of musician X, download all their albums at once plus a dozen live recordings isn't quite the same as eagerly awaiting that rare release which when it appears changes your perception of the performer; or slowly digging into the catalogue of a musician like Miles when and where the music can be afforded or where it is available (in the classical world, my experience was of building up an interest in a composer record by record over a lengthy period of time, gradually getting to know that sound world; now you can do it in one go via a 65 CD box (or digital equivalent). Something tells me the experience isn't quite the same).

But these new ways of distributing music are there and I doubt if those just emerging into the world of listening will ever worry that they are missing anything. Like I never worried that I missed the intense listening experience you got with a Beethoven symphony when you were really focussed because you only listened for 3 minutes before you turned the 78 over.

[David Ayers]

Some decades ago, the Musicians Union in the UK ran a 'keep music live' campaign. The theory was that recorded music was destroying live performance - people could get music more easily and so there was less need to go out to hear actual musicians play in actual venues - consequently musicians got fewer gigs, especially the lesser ones with no real recording presence.

In other words, recording is the convenience - for both musicians and experiencers. So it is recording and not streaming which makes for convenience. The need to own was a function of the technology. Now of course it is not necessary, though the market itself will discover how much demand for ownership there actually is.

Ownership is neither here nor there - you don't 'own' what you hear at a gig, you don't own a library book, and you don't own the internet though you probably access it all the time. You don't own a sunset either and what this tells you is that ownership need not be important.

[A Lark Ascending]

Ownership is neither here nor there - you don't 'own' what you hear at a gig, you don't own a library book, and you don't own the internet though you probably access it all the time. You don't own a sunset either and what this tells you is that ownership need not be important.

No human has invested labour and time into creating the sunset.

Though there are places where you can see particularly spectacular sunsets. And many of those are owned. And they'll make you pay for the privilege of watching it there.

You may not own what you hear at a gig; but the place you went to hear it is owned as is the equipment used. In most cases you pay for those. The library book is owned by the library who agreed to lend it to you; you paid for it out of your council tax and in other roundabout ways.

I can see what Jim and others are getting at - how do you motivate musicians to make music, especially fringe music, if one of their key ways of being recompensed is vanishing before their eyes? It may be that the emphasis shifts to live performance with recordings becoming the calling card. I suspect that might balance things for some musicians but not be enough for others.

But in the end these changes are happening. Leaving aside the economics, it's disrupting the way that most of us have traditionally absorbed music. Above all, what you might call the 'distinctive album fetish'. New listeners probably won't miss it. But I know I find it quite unsettling (whilst at the same time loving the new technology for its ability to let me catch up more easily with the 'albums' produced in the old model).

Edited September 29, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[sonnyhill]

LINK

Trying it right now. This is actually a really cool idea and well-executed. The opportunity to browse through the catalog chronologically, while showing all those old album covers, is something I really like. It's not perfect - much of the more obscure OOP material still hasn't been uploaded by EMI itself, so there are gaps and missing tracks (the John Hardee/Ike Quebec sides include only two cuts that were issued by some PD label). But huge props to whoever came up with a way to map all the albums to what's in the Spotify database.

I don't know how much money this is going to make them but this is the kind of thing that makes me at least want to spend money on the CDs.

Thanks Big Wheel. This was a project I lead. As longtime Blue Note addict and a digital nerd I took the opportunity to try to build the most engaging experience possible. Definitely a lot of gaps and I'm working w/ the EMI team that handles the feed into Spotify w/ regard to clearances and updates to the discography. I'm going to keep working to make this better and better.

Comments are always welcome so please send them my way.

Not sure if you saw the Rolling Stone and LA Times articles but so far, the reviews have been positive. Thanks for giving it a spin.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/blogs/gear-up/blue-note-records-spotify-app-streamlines-jazz-discovery-20120912

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-blue-note-jazz-spotify-app-20120912,0,689551.story

bluesForBartok, was there any reason why Blue Note did not host the project on its own site? I, for one, would feel more comfortable if the label did not farm the hosting of the project out to a third-party. Also, downloads of otherwise unavailable recordings could have been offered on the Blue Note site.

Although, I like the fact that I can access recordings that are otherwise unavailable or hard to find through Spotify, I, like a previous poster, feel that it is in the same vein as Napster. There are commercials, but from what I understand, the artists are getting paid very little although newly released albums are made available, in full, for streaming.

Also, do the Blue Note artists/estates have any say or control with respect to whether their work is made available through Spotify? If I grew up and new and catalog recordings were fully available for free on the internet (sanctioned by the record company), I would not purchase them. I would listen to them on Spotify for free.

Edited September 29, 2012 by sonnyhill

[CJ Shearn]

Yes, it would be nice to know if the estates have a say in what gets put there. I checked out the links to the Kenny Drew Trio recordings for example and the cover to the Fresh Sound reissue popped up, so, it seems they are not using the official sources for some obscure titles, like "Profile" by Duke Pearson. I wonder if there are plans to include long OOP recordings including those from the 80's and 90's. The app is not as cool as being able to grab "Blue Lights" off my shelf, but it is nice.

[David Ayers]

I don't suppose many estates have a say over rights that were signed away by the original performer. You guys are barking up the wrong tree.

As for the question of compensation and the making of new recordings, supply and demand will take care of that. Not everyone who can tootle on a clarinet (or a shawm) is Benny Goodman.

[sidewinder]

I'm already tired of condom commercials interrupting my jazz listening.

It's like going to the bathroom at a club!

What a shame though that you have to join Facebook. I'll pass, unfortunately.

[David Ayers]

I'm already tired of condom commercials interrupting my jazz listening.

It's like going to the bathroom at a club!

What a shame though that you have to join Facebook. I'll pass, unfortunately.

You don't. We covered that. Scroll down the signup screen and it lets you register with an email address.