Google Play Music

Today, Google launched its music store to the UK through its service: Google Play - where Android users already download their apps, and acts as the equivalent to Apple's iTunes. Considering the dramatic rise of Google since 1998 and its recent foray into the world of smart phones, there was a certain inevitability that it would provide us with a music service. Remembering that Apple had lost favour by the start of the century, its resurgence and return to profitability can almost certainly be pinned down to the introduction of the iPod and establishment of iTunes. Apple's new life of success began with music, so perhaps it is surprising that Google has taken so long to start its assault in this area.

The US have had the music service for a year now, but today is Europe's first chance. Is Google doing anything different, or special, to encourage users away from iTunes and Amazon's MP3 service? Personally, the most interesting aspect is the new cloud feature which lets you to store up to 20,000 songs online, allowing you to stream them to a device wherever you are. Significantly, this is a free service. I believe Apple grants a very small number of files (250?) before it requires you to start paying a subscription, or certainly limits you to songs that have been bought through iTunes. Admittedly, it is very rare that I think to myself, "I wish I could access all my music right now" since I do have an mp3 player with significant storage space. But I can see how Google's cloud service could be useful to many, particularly with the higher number of files allowed for free.

For many I suppose, the key question is how they compare price-wise. And there's not an awful lot in it, although it depends on how you like to buy your music. For instance, here's a couple of recent albums and a couple of 'classic' albums:

Take Me Home: Yearbook Edition
by One Direction

iTunes: £10.99 or 0.99/track

Google: £7.99 or 0.79/track

18 Months

by Calvin Harris

iTunes: £7.99 or 0.99/track

Google: £7.99 or 0.79/track

Off The Wall: Special Edition

by Michael Jackson

iTunes: £6.99 or 0.99/track

Google: £4.99 or 0.99/track

Pet Sounds (mono/stereo edition)

by The Beach Boys

iTunes: £6.99 or 0.99/track

Google: £4.99 or £1.29/track

For the most part, things are fairly equal. Sometimes Google wins over iTunes, and sometimes iTunes comes out on top. Occasionally, Google throws up some per-track prices that are questionable yet counters this with a cheaper album price - and it does seem that, generally, Google is trying to encourage a full album purchase rather than single tracks. However, if you were restricted to just using one service for your device, I don't think there would be much to sway your vote either way. Google has kept itself in line with the competitors, knowing that a price war would only end up damaging everyone, but perhaps the cloud service might be a deciding vote for some people.

https://play.google.com/music/

"Music is the prayer the heart sings"

Habits : Finding new music

The radio still retains its position as being my main source of new music. Without it, I suspect my music collection would consist solely of a growing number of albums from the 1980s. No bad thing perhaps but, as I've mentioned previously, I start to get an itching urge to hear something new. So the radio, notably BBC Radio 1, tends to be where I go to for the new stuff.

BBC Radio 1

Except... I'm aware that it's not enough. As the critics will repeatedly say, Radio 1 isn't especially diverse in its genres. Or at least, to be fair to the station, it's main daytime shows are the narrower ones (specialist shows tend to occur late at night or early morning). And of course there's also the fact that you are likely to hear the same tracks played several times throughout the day, as if they are insisting that you like them. Despite these flaws, I still prefer Radio 1 over any other station. But it does mean that sometimes I still feel like I'm missing out on something else.

So where to after radio? How do I find new music? Well... until very recently, I've not been entirely sure.

PeopleSound CDs

Way back in the mists of time, when downloading music was becoming possible thanks to new broadband internet connection, I spent a lot of time on a website called PeopleSound. Now it appears that the site no longer exists, but I especially enjoyed it due to a search function which allowed me to type the name of a particular artist I liked, and it would then find people that were creating music in a similar style. Many of the bands and artists were unsigned or quietly releasing EPs, but the quality was generally pretty good. The website even created (monthly? I forget...) a handful of compilations CDs with their own recommendations. At a time when I felt like I was still struggling to catch up on the previous decade's music, finding and enjoying this brand new music filled me with glee.

As time went by, and people started to realise just how lucrative the downloadable-music industry could be, PeopleSound - and other similar websites - started to become less about the new and/or unsigned acts that wanted to promote themselves, and more about existing acts that could buy up some feature space. And so I found myself moving away from such sites.

There are still sites out there that are doing something similar, and even offering more by allowing the artists to sell their music directly to the consumer. But whilst you can browse genres, or see who is currently the highest rated, I don't find it easy to find something that I enjoy. I could trawl through Bandcamp.com for hours and still not feel like I've discovered something golden.

YouTube

Until not very long ago, YouTube was definitely the next-best-thing to those old websites I enjoyed. The community aspect of it, the huge volume of videos, and the ease at which you could find something 'related' (and therefore, hopefully, equally enjoyable) to what you were listening to, made it an easy way to lose time to new music. Except, for some reason, YouTube recently changed the format of the music section and now, unless it is in their top-rated/top-viewed charts, it is very difficult to just discover something for yourself. No longer is it simple to just see what the latest upload in the 'music' section is. And for that reason, it frustrates me.

And so, despite the plethora of music-promoting/selling websites that continue to pop up, I've found myself actually going back to the old-fashioned way - albeit with a little Internet-quirk: individual recommendation. Except, it isn't just the case of having a friend with similar tastes say to me, "Hey! Have you heard of a band called...?".

No. This is how I've found new music recently:

• A band I already enjoy used Twitter to mention a group that they've just begun listening to.
• An artist I already like tweeted about how he enjoys the work of his newest label-mates
• A friend on Facebook is in a band of his own, and mentioned the other bands he is sharing a gig with.
• Facebook's ticker showed me that a friend was using Spotify to listen to an artist I hadn't heard before.

No doubt these methods aren't exactly new and I'm sure many people have been using Twitter (and similar sites) to find new music for quite some time now. But for me it's a new place, and new way, to explore.

www.pluginmusic.com

That's not to say that there isn't a place for music websites anymore. Far from it. I have plenty of time for individuals that blog about the music they personally enjoy, or for websites that are happy to diversify from what I can easily find every hour on Radio 1 (e.g. I still regularly return to Plug In Music, and have been doing so since it began in 2001). I will even risk some time by exploring the 'spolight acts' suggested by the big names in online music because there's still a chance I might find something I really like. But a recommendation from someone whose opinion I respect - whether via Twitter, Facebook, blog, face-to-face, self-run website, etc. - is far better for me than to just check the "most-listened-to" on iTunes.

"If your life had lyrics, would they be any good?" - Doug Coupland

Piracy : YouTube Converters

Previously, I mentioned Google being under-attack from the British Phonographic Industry for not being more proactive about how it lists websites that promote music piracy.

Today (although it has been murmuring away in the background for a couple of months) it hit the news that Google has been making its own stand against piracy. As owners of YouTube, Google has issued cease-and-desist orders to certain websites that provide tools for downloading the audio from YouTube videos; therefore making it possible for someone to easily get an mp3 just by finding the video somewhere on YouTube.

There is an abundance of websites that offer this kind of service. Some of them are riddled with advertising, thus providing the owners with a decent amount of revenue depending on their visitor counts. Many such sites make it very clear that their intention is to provide a way to get hold of music for free. Other sites are a lot simpler, cleaner, and more professional, and may provide other options for file retrieval and conversion. I've used one such site several times in the past. Admittedly, this has only been for converting my own files and not to download music (the audio quality on YouTube videos tends to be lower than I prefer), but I understand how useful such a tool can be. I also understand why YouTube sees them as a problem.

Firstly, there's the obvious issue of copyright and piracy. Although backing down from the BPI's demands, Google does want to be seen as doing something to prevent this kind of 'theft'. The official YouTube channels of artists and music labels provide a location for the music to be streamed legally. They don't want you go sneaking in and taking the audio for yourself, and therefore not go out and spend money on the recording.

Secondly, and more cynically, if you grab the audio for the song you may be less likely to visit YouTube to listen to it. Therefore, Google's visiting figures could potentially drop, along with their advertising revenue.

Whether the second reason is as important to Google as the first, remains to be seen. But any attempts to maintain and support the integrity of a musician, both in terms of their ideas and their finances, should be seen as positive. However, as with the BPI's own demands earlier, is this the right way to go about it?

Legally, there's a certain amount of personal use of copyrighted material that is allowed. This is particularly the case within education. One site received one of the cease-and-desist letters from Google and did what they were asked, but expressed their sadness at having to do so, making reference to the use of the tool by teachers. Other websites approached by Google have been less submissive.

I think the biggest issue here with Google's approach is hypocrisy. Google Search is a tool that can potentially be used for finding pirated music, but isn't marketed as such and certainly doesn't suggest it is used in such a way. Should Google be held responsible for its malicious misuse by the public? No, I don't think so. Equally, tools that can potentially be used to illegally retrieve copyrighted material - should they be held responsible? Umm... maybe... I think the sites that are clearly marketing themselves for that very purpose are asking for trouble, but others with a more educational viewpoint have a better standing.

More hypocrisy lies in the fact that YouTube has a LOT of content online that does not comply with copyright regulations. It's often possible to find whole episodes of television programmes, or watch music videos, etc. that have not been posted online in an official capacity. In other words: Joe Bloggs rips his DVD and puts the videos online. There's a similar problem with people using music in their own personal videos. Google makes some attempt at preventing this, often removing music from videos if its software detects it, or taking down any videos that have copyright claims made against them. But ultimately, YouTube/Google could be accused of hosting copyrighted material and not just providing a tool to find it. It would make a lot more sense if they concentrated on trying to prevent that happening.

I fully support anti-piracy, and certainly would never wish for any material I might create or own to become freely available against my wishes. But I am not sure if this is the way for Google to approach it.

Plus, anybody with a little computing knowledge could just use some free audio software directly record the music from a YouTube video as it plays through the computer. The online services make it a little easier, sure, but I'm not sure they should be under such a direct attack.

"People haven't always been there for me, but music always has" - Taylor Swift

Piracy : Google's Responsibility?

Over this last week, the UK news has shifted some focus onto the debate between the British Phonographic Industry (now calling itself the British Recorded Music Industry, but still abbreviating itself to BPI) and Google. The BPI is pushing for Google to take a more active role in preventing music piracy by preventing websites which are known for illegal file-sharing from appearing as a top result in searches. The example being thrown about is that performing a Google search for "Adele mp3" will provide links to infringing websites before displaying the likes of iTunes or Amazon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18892655
http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/google-we-re-anti-piracy-just-like-you-guys/051050

Google already receives thousands of requests from copyright holders for the removal of links to sites that are providing illegal downloads, and has been upholding the majority of these. Theo Bertram, the UK Policy Manager for Google, has offered a reply-of-sorts to the BPI's demand, saying that Google is steadfastly anti-piracy but also pro-freedom of expression - and that the two are not mutually exclusive. Google instead suggests that the source of income that these offending websites have in advertising or payments for subscriptions should be removed, thereby making it financially difficult for the sites to exist. It does not feel liable nor responsible: the sites are indexed by Google, and shown as results based on popularity and relevance. Google isn't hosting the sites, nor is Google purposely promoting them.

My opinion (for what it's worth)?

I don't think Google should be held accountable nor responsible. For a start, keeping a track of all the illegal music-sharing websites and removing them must be a mammoth task. A task that will never end since the websites will just move, become mirrored, or find some other smart way around it. And other sites will also start up. Google is doing a pretty good job of keeping up with the requests for removal, but it's endless. As for adjusting the position of a website in search results... I think that could be the beginning of something dangerous. Is it up to Google (or another organisation/corporation) to dictate what should and shouldn't be a) indexed, b) searchable and c) listed highly (even if the click-through ratio for that site happens to be particularly high)?

Again: Google doesn't provide the content, it doesn't host the content, it doesn't associate with it. Google's search tool is just that: a tool. And although using similes is a lazy, flawed, and incredibly easy way to draw comparisons, I'm gonna' do it anyway...

The Internet is like an unbelievably huge city with billions of locations in the forms of websites, trillions of roads between those sites, and massive diversity between locations. Like any city, there are "bad" areas and "good" areas; places the public shy away from, and places that people flock to; locations with a reputation for wrong-doing, and those with metaphorical halos hanging above them. How do you find ANYTHING in a city like that? You need a map. The map provides you with the location of everything, as long as you know what you are looking for, and then off you go if you want to.

Google is your map. It doesn't tell you to go to the disreputable locations. It tells you where they are. Should our town maps cover up the areas where criminal activity is likely to take place, just so we find it harder to get there?

If I'm going to go really ridiculous with the similes, I could say: "A hammer is a tool. It is not the fault of the tool's manufacturer if someone buys one and then beats someone else around the head with it". But then things start to edge towards discussions about knife crime, or gun ownership, and really that's a little too far...

Google DOES have a certain amount of responsibility towards safe and sensible usage of the Internet, but I do not feel that they should be called up to begin a censorship programme at another organisation's demands. Equally, Google is not the only search engine on the Internet. It's own popularity should not make it a sole target. The BPI should be approaching ALL search engines and, *ahem*, "decision engines" that can be used to reach offending websites if it actually feels they are the root of the problem.

I admit it's a difficult issue, and a difficult battle. Back in the day, Napster was shut down because it provided the tools for people to illegally share music - even though it didn't host the files itself. However, it's intentions for infringement were substantially clearer. But where on earth do you draw the line, if you draw it at all?

I stand by Google's position, and I also feel it is unfair that they should become a target for blame due to the size of the company and its financial success. It is individuals that are pirating and sharing music. The public attitude towards music, it's value, and an artist's worth needs to be changed before anything major will ever happen. Piracy has often been seen as a victimless crime... a non-criminal crime, as such. Until this attitude changes, it's going to be a losing battle.

Incidentally, there's such a ridiculous amount of legal free music available on the Internet, that scouring sites for an illegal download of that latest Rihanna hit almost seems a little silly. Just because it's being freely distributed without any copyright infringement, doesn't mean it's rubbish. I mean, seriously, it's possible to spend your hard earned money on some serious dross, so why not go low-risk and discover something guilt-free too.

Radio 1 - The Chris Moyles Show

A few posts back, I mentioned my preferred choice of radio station: BBC Radio 1. It's the second most popular radio station in the UK, behind BBC Radio 2, and its daytime shows are very much geared towards chart-based music. It broadens its appeal significantly with the evening and late-night shows, covering various genres and niches, but certainly the 7am - 7pm slots are focused very much on 'popular music'.

And, really, that's to my taste. There's a lot of people that dislike Radio 1 because of this tendency to play the more "commercial" songs (although it definitely does do a good job of highlighting some lesser-known artists and giving them a huge audience boost) and, if your taste is a little less mainstream and a little more alternative, then you may well find it easy to complain about its playlist. However, whilst my musical taste isn't confined to "the hits of today", I am happy to stand up and say that, yes, I like what they play. Or most of it, anyway.

Up until about six or seven years ago, I mainly listened to local radio stations. At that time it was SGR Colchester, which is now part of the Heart network. They played chart music, but also threw in various songs from the last thirty years or so. But, although I knew it is necessary for a commercial radio station to have them, the advertising drove me crazy. A friend/colleague then declared that I should really be listening to Radio 1. He moved the frequency, put it on, and that's what I'd listen to each afternoon at work. As a result I found myself getting back into music a little more, having become rather restricted in what I was listening to.

About five years ago, I started having the odd day where I would have to start work a lot earlier. I'd be out in a delivery van from around five or six in the morning and, even with someone sitting beside me, conversation is difficult when my mind is still focusing on how much it wants to be back in bed. Therefore the radio filled in the early-morning silences. And it was Radio 1's breakfast show that did the job: The Chris Moyles Show.

For the past eight and a half years, Chris Moyles and his team have been doing the breakfast show (from 6:30/6:55am - 10am). I have only listened for the last five years or so, and only on those days where I'm actually awake at that time in the morning with access to radio. So perhaps three out of five weekdays I'm a listener. But it is by far my favourite radio show, and far surpasses any of the other morning shows available. The show, and Chris Moyles himself, have certainly had plenty of criticism and controversy over the years; the majority of which is unfounded. And even I'm happy to admit that, from time to time, there are moments in the show that are a bit "laddish" and not especially to my taste.

But... on the whole, I love the show. The zoo format works particularly well as each team member is very individual, and it genuinely gives the impression of a group of friends just sitting around having a chat and a laugh. And, as a listener, I somehow feel very much part of this.

Ironically, considering both the *cough* purpose *cough* of this blog and Radio 1's supposed commitment to music, The Chris Moyles Show plays substantially fewer songs that any of the other shows. Fortunately, the chats and interviews that make up most of the show are enjoyable, usually funny, and enjoyable to listen to overall.

During last Wednesday's show (the 11th of July 2012), Chris Moyles announced his plans to 'wrap-up' the show, bringing it to a close in September. The reasons, although not given during the announcement, seem to be varied. Although still the second most-popular breakfast show (again, Radio 2 has the top spot, with Chris Evans), the listening figures have been dropping a little - although this is generally the case throughout radio. Also, Chris has been doing a lot more work outside of Radio 1, including television and an upcoming stint on stage as King Herod in Jesus Chris Superstar. Perhaps more significantly, Radio 1 is desperately trying to attract its desired 15-25 demographic. The average age of a listener at the moment is 32. Chris Moyles is 38. Other shifts in programming recently have suggested an attempt to bring the age of the average listener down, and ending Moyles' reign on the breakfast show similarly falls in line.

Personally, as a 29 year old, I think the obsession with the required demographic is foolish. Just for starters, I don't believe that those in their late teens even have much of a desire to listen to radio anymore. Music is consumed in so many different ways now, and traditional radio is probably not the key port-of-call for the lower end of the age-group that Radio 1 seems desperate to attract.

But ho hum... that's not really what I've chosen to write about.

It is disappointing that in a couple of month's time The Chris Moyles Show, with all of its sarcastic self-inflation and playful dramatics, will be no more. It genuinely has been the highlight of many mornings over the past few years, and it will be strange to no longer hear it. The new breakfast DJ, Nick Grimshaw, will no doubt do an excellent job (I do like his evening shows whenever I catch them), but somehow I can't see myself listening quite as intently. With any luck, Chris Moyles will remain working in radio in some form or other; preferably with a show elsewhere on Radio 1, and hopefully still with his team. Or perhaps he'll come back to fill in when Nick is away, who knows?

I shall miss The Chris Moyles Show.


"Any good music must be an innovation." - Les Baxter

Habits : Rediscovery

In a previous post, I mentioned how I tend to alter between listening to the radio and listening to my iPod, because I start to get anxious about either neglecting a collection of music I already own (and much of which I might not have heard of), or about missing out on something new. One thing that both options can offer me though, is rediscovery.

Generally, if I'm listening to the radio during the day, then I am listening to BBC's Radio 1. In terms of musical variety, the daytime shows admittedly don't offer very much; focusing primarily on what is currently considered to be a chart hit, or is expected to be successful. I am not bothered by this at all because I do enjoy a lot of accessible, mainstream music. However, some of the evening and late-night shows are less to my taste. If I happen to be driving at night, listening to the radio, and Radio 1 isn't providing me with something I like, then I'll usually switch to one of two local radio stations.

Both stations play a broader mix of music. Not so much in terms of genre, but in age. Although peppered with advertising between songs (and this is the main reason I don't generally listen to it), local radio can provide me with music from the last four or five decades.

Occasionally... very occasionally... I'll be listening to the radio and a song will begin to play that I haven't heard for a very long time. A forgotten song. And not just any forgotten song, but a song that I my have once loved. Pretty quickly I will spot that the introduction is familiar, and then I'll turn up the volume and suddenly find myself rediscovering the tune again.

For me, it can be quite a profound feeling. It's like finding a letter from long ago and, as you read through it, you begin to remember parts of it even though the details had left your memory. It's like getting a whole wave of nostalgia rush past... no specifics, no great moments from time picked out. Just a few minutes where the memory of the song is reignited again. I love that feeling.

It doesn't exclusively happen when I'm listening to radio either. If I scroll through the music I own in iTunes, there's plenty in there that I haven't yet listened to. They may be songs on a compilation album, or I may have just forgotten that I even own them at all. Regardless, shuffling through them can sometimes bring up one of those little gems.

Usually, once I've rediscovered a song, it'll then be played incessantly for some time (repeat is my friend, remember?). Then I guess time will pass. My love-affair with the song will burn out. Perhaps, a year or two later, it'll suddenly pop up once again, and we'll rekindle our affections.

All this means is that I'm pretty much feeling pulled between three musical options:

1. Stick with my familiar and comfortable musical partners, and remain content with what they give me.
2. Go out looking for a hot new fling: some new song that I've yet to hear, but can soon embrace.
3. Suddenly come across an old-flame - that song I once loved - and continue where I left off.

I flick through all of these options week by week. The only conclusion I can come to is that I must be some kind of manwhore for music, but also very lucky in that option #1 always takes me back.

DISCLAIMER: My musical habits do not mirror my relationship habits :)

"Music washes away from the soul, the dust of everyday life" - Berthold Auerbach

Habits : Repeat

The 'most played' list in iTunes (and probably most other music management software) sometimes return obvious results, sometimes interesting results, and sometimes embarrassing results. Personally, sometimes the most fascinating thing is how quickly a song can make its way to the top within a very small space of time. If I only had a few tracks on the computer then this would be relatively normal; songs would regularly rise to the top of the chart as there wouldn't be much competition. However, in my music library there's plenty of competition, and every so often a song might be sitting way down at the bottom of the list with very few plays (if any) and then, a day or two later, up in the high echelons amongst the more obvious favourites.

It's not a glitch or a software quirk. It's my habit of suddenly forming a very strong bond with a track and then listening to it over, and over, and over (and over), and over again.

So I guess I binge on it. I over-indulge on the song that I've discovered, and I make it fill my life for as a long as I can. Of course, I eventually move on to something else - whether it is another single song to obsess over, or a switch to the radio - but I wouldn't say it is because I have grown sick of the track, nor even just a little tired of it. It just becomes... unnecessary? For a little while, at least. Chances are that I won't play it again for a good while: I go cold turkey and suddenly completely stop listening it. But there's no withdrawal symptoms, no longing and despair. I just move on.

I think part of the appeal for me - part of the reason I let myself become saturated by a single song - is my effort learn each part of it. The songs I obsess over tend to be ones that I am able to sing along to, and learning all the lyrics is just a single part of my relationships with them. By the time my song-fling comes to an end, I am probably able to 'sing' the drums, or the guitar riffs, or the saxophone solo. I will probably 'play' the piano part along the top of my steering wheel as I drive along listening to it. I'll try and join in on the harmonies, the "ooh"s and "aah"s, all the backing vocals. I will live that song until I feel as though, if I could clone myself, a group of me would be able to recreate it. Not with instruments, necessarily, just with the voice. Nor do I mean that we would do it particularly well. It's just that I get to a point where I consider I know all elements of the song.

Perhaps that's why I stop and move on. Maybe, when I have learned everything I can from a track, I decide it is time to move on. There's nothing more it can give me.

That certainly makes some sense. And some theories I've read about repetitive listening also suggest this. But I do find that, given enough time, I will go back to that song again at some point. I will embrace it once again. Perhaps not so obsessively or frequently, but I'll let it back into my life once more.

I'm clearly not the only person to do this. But I find it interesting that there's a lot of people that definitely do not do it. They cannot stand to hear a song played over, and over. To them it is either incredibly boring, or even irritating. I can understand their viewpoint (and maybe if I hated the song that was being played in such a manner, I'd be on their side) but it just isn't me. An ex-girlfriend of mine was very much anti-repeat. Once a day was enough when it came to hearing a piece of music. If I played it twice, there'd almost certainly be a comment along the lines of, "Didn't you listen to this earlier?". Three times would generate some sarcastic comment like, "Is the CD stuck?". Any further plays and I'd probably be her bad books for the rest of the day.

Really, from that evidence alone, I should have known it was never going to work :)

I am now with a girlfriend who understands my need to use the repeat function. She does the same, and it doesn't bother me at all. Sure... I might roll my eyes when, twenty minutes into a car journey, I've heard just one song but several times. But secretly I am enjoying it, and the eye-rolling is more for show than anything.

Chances are, after writing about it a couple of days ago and therefore repeatedly listening to it again, Annie Lennox's No More "I Love You's" is going to be in my Top 10 most-played list fairly soon.

"Love is a friendship set to music" - Joseph Campbell

Habits : Radio vs iPod

Although there are certainly many downsides, I am fortunate enough to have a job where I can listen to music fairly freely. I have access to a stereo for the majority of the day, whether I am driving or in the warehouse, and I am definitely happy about this. When a big delivery arrives and I will be spending at least a couple of hours wandering back and forth carrying sacks, it is a lot more bearable when I can have some music playing. In fact, almost any task - no matter how mundane - can be improved with a little bit of music. The only decision really is whether I listen to my iPod, or put the radio on.

There is plenty of music on my iPod that I haven't even listened to yet, and obviously a whole bunch that I love and play very often. So there's certainly a great deal to choose from. All those familiar favourites, all those classics, all those songs I own but have yet to hear. Great! So I choose my iPod and shuffle my way through the random selections, or cycle through my 'Most Played'. And that'll be my choice for the next few days.

But...

As a week passes, a nagging thought begins to irritate me. All this time I've been listening to my iPod, I have completely neglected the radio which, in turn, means that I am missing out on any newly released music. There could be some fantastic new songs that, due to my abandonment of the airwaves, I am completely unaware of. I'm losing out! What if there's something truly astonishing that has only just been created, something which I will connect with, and adore, and obsess over? If I continue to prefer my iPod, I might miss it and perhaps never learn of it.

And so, in a mild panic, I'll switch to radio. And, phew, I can begin to take in all the new stuff. And that's how things will remain for a few weeks.

Until...

What about the older music that my preferred radio station is unlikely to play? All those tracks I have already bought and paid for, yet haven't really discovered yet? What about those songs that I know I will enjoy?

And so the cycle continues.

The battle between new stuff and old stuff is constant, and I only wish I had the self-control and organisational skills to say to myself, "Right. I'm going to listen to my iPod on THESE days, or at THESE times. And the radio at the other times. Therefore I get a good mix of the two, and all is well."

But no. Instead I start a long-term relationship with one, then suddenly abandon it to flirt with the other.

"I love my own music" - Alicia Keys