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"

Family Machine - Skeletons And That

Somehow, unintentionally, I have found myself listening to (and commenting on) the output of bands from Oxford. ToLiesel, Message To Bears, Perfect Fiction: they all hail from the city of dreaming spires, which also just happens to be the place I was born. I've stepped from one to the other via links between them so it  was inevitable that they'd all be from the same area, and Oxford has an excellent musical history, so I could do a lot worse than focus my attentions there. Thus I have no qualms in mentioning Family Machine's acoustic/indie-pop.

It's been four years since their LP was released, "You Are Family Machine", but they have kept their audience interested since then by releasing the occasional single track. 'Sleep' was short but unwaveringly sublime. 'Quiet As A Mouse' kidnapped We Aeronaut's Anna Log for some sweet vocal work. And, on October 31st, they released a new free download: 'Skeletons And That'.

Although the lyrics do talk of ghosts, monsters, and skeletons, the link to Halloween ends there - this is not a song of thrills and horrors. No. This is a song of loss, growing up, and regret. Whilst certainly mournful, the vocal delivery is so beautifully sincere and the instruments so softly bridled, you can't help but think that there's an adjacent joy being expressed at the existence of memories. As the guitar strums the final chord, it is clear that Family Machine weren't trying to throw us head-first through three-and-a-half minutes of forced forlesing; rather, they were nudging us gently with an acceptance of loss and grief. Through subtlety this band have achieved more in a single acoustic song than some do on an entire album of angst-ridden blues.

http://soundcloud.com/thefamilymachine/

http://www.youarethefamilymachine.com/

"Love is like a violin. The music may stop now and then, but the strings remain forever." - June Masters Bacher

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 : Google's Responsibility? Pt. 2

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the British Phonographic Industry's demands of Google. They requested that the first page of results for a musician or song on the search engine should not include any websites that clearly offer illegal music downloads, regardless of whether such sites are the 'most popular' or not. Google's response at the time seemed fairly clear: they did not support piracy at all, but were not willing to make the changes asked as it undermined the search process (popular sites being ranked higher) and they were not responsible for the visiting habits of their users.

Yesterday, Google seemed to make a u-turn on that decision:

Financial Times: Google acts to reduce pirated content
Gizmodo: Google Lays The Smack Down on Torrent Sites...
Google Inside Search: An Update To Our Search Algorithms

Google plans to make changes to the search results depending on how many valid copyright removal notices they have received for particular sites. Specific pages that are in breach of copyright are already removed from results once Google receive a notice, but the new search algorithm will effect, as a whole, a website's position in their search results.

For example, in the past month, there have been requests to remove almost 4.5 million URLs. The biggest offending domain was filestube.com, which accounted for almost 300,000 of them (the BPI, incidentally, was the main reporting organisation). Based on this, it would be safe to assume that the next time you Google your favourite artist, filestube.com will be pushed way down the results in favour of more legitimate websites.

Although generally considered as a good move - particularly by those in the music, gaming, and film industries - there are still some questions and criticisms.

It is theoretically possible that some websites may be unfairly penalised. They may provide a hosting service for video, audio, etc. but have their own strict policies regarding the uploading of copyright-infringing materials. Whilst they may be going through their own battles removing links to illegal downloads from their own users, Google may also be flagging it as a problem-site, and thus lowering their position in the search results. As I touched on in my post about YouTube converters, Google'sYouTube website can often be found to be hosting content that infringes copyright laws. Unofficial uploads of various TV programmes, films, or music videos all cross the same boundaries that Google is trying to take a stance against. Will we see YouTube's position drop in search results? I suspect not...

A cynical surfer might also point out that Google itself is spreading further into media distribution through its TV services, app. store, etc. and so may just be trying to protect its own intellectually property, rather than becoming too worried about everybody else's. Furthermore, there is some worry that the search engine is starting to succumb to pressure from industry and/or government, and thus may no longer be the lauded homepage for quite so many people as a result.

By far the biggest question is whether this will actually play any significant role in reducing piracy. Sadly, I imagine that it probably won't. In the same way that methods of piracy have consistently kept up with changing technologies in digital rights management, it is fair to say that the pirates will quickly find an alternative way to share what they wish. Equally, those people looking for free and illegal downloads will discover new methods to do so.

Good luck Google. Like many, I do not encourage people to download music illegally. However, I also wish to search the web for whatever I want... no matter what it might be.

"Those who dance are considered insane by those who cannot hear the music" - George Carlin

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.

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