Curious, I went to the site and discovered that it is in beta and only available to people who have at least one Facebook friend already using the site. This was no problem for me, since Juli and I are Facebook friends. I went to the Engine 145 room, and found Juli, along with fellow 9513 alumni Karlie Justus and Brady Vercher spinning tunes.
The concept is pretty simple, people join a room which features a virtual set of turntables where up to five people at a time can DJ. Each DJ takes turns playing a song that he or she has queued up. The songs can come from Turntable's surprisingly expansive library, or can be uploaded from the user's computer. All those who are not currently spinning have to option to vote for the current song being either "Awesome" or "Lame". Each awesome vote earns the DJ a point, which unlocks different avatars and generally provides bragging rights within the website. If there are enough lame votes, the song is skipped. There's also a chat box that would make AOL circa 1999 proud. If I were to compare it to something music fans are already familiar with, it's kind of like Pandora, but with humans choosing the songs instead of an algorithm.
It didn't take long to see the best of what the site has to offer as I joined in on the action, with a few other former 9513ers and a couple writers for other country blogs also dropped in. Five completely unproductive hours of went down the tubes that afternoon.
The site currently has roughly 300,000 users, though it had to block users outside the U.S. due to licensing issues. And therein lies the biggest hurdle Turntable faces. The recording industry could potentially torpedo the site if it chooses to continue its draconian crusade against technology. However, recent agreements with BMI and ASCAP indicate the industry is willing to embrace the site. I see this as a good move, as Turntable has great potential in the area of music discovery.
One of the things that made that first time with my fellow country bloggers so excellent was that A) we all knew each other on at least some level, even if just superficially through the web, 2) we all shared similar taste in music and F) we all have a penchant for listening to little known artists outside the mainstream. Over the course of those hours, there were several times when someone would play a song I had never heard, but enjoyed. I was quick to add these songs to my iTunes wish list and eventually bought them. Those are music sales directly attributable to Turntable, and I highly doubt I'm the only person who will do that sort of thing.
Spotify, on the other hand, brings with it a different sort of intrigue. It's a music player that allows user's to listen to not only their personal music library (excluding any copy protected songs) and also stream a vast array of other music and share playlists with friends.
This could be a bit of a double-edged sword in terms of the business of music. I am the sort who typically chooses to download full albums, even in this age of a la carte music buying. Oftentimes I wind up liking most of the album, but there have been some times when I wished I had only bought a couple of the songs. Now, through the magic of Spotify I can listen to the full album for free, then decide whether I want to buy it, cherry pick songs or skip it altogether.
This could lead to fewer sales if users no longer see the need to buy music that they can stream for free -- though it can only be synched to an iPod if the user signs up for the paid version of the program. On the other hand, it could lead to a decrease in the industry's biggest pet peeve: pirating. What's the point in pirating a song or album that can be legally streamed for free on Spotify? Granted, it doesn't completely eliminate the incentive to pirate because of the inability to synch in the free version, but it still helps.
This could also be a boon for the artists in the same way that music pirates have always argued their activities have been. Artists make very little money off album sales. Fact. By the time the record company, the producer, the songwriters, the backup singers, the band and the artist split your $9.99, there's not a lot going to anybody. Except the poor, oppressed label, of course. Instead, the artists make most of their money by selling tickets to concerts and merchandise at concerts. If someone has to pay for music of an artist they know nothing about, they may never find out they actually like that music. On the other hand, if they can listen for free and find out they're fans of the artist, they may be inclined to go to concerts, buy merchandise and maybe pay for music in the future. As a result, the artist benefits.
Ultimately, the effect the two services have on the music industry will be determined by the users. I believe this is a major step in the process of power being taken away from the record labels and placed squarely in the hands of the fans. And that's a very good thing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment