STREAMING NEWS

apple

“If Apple wants to make a dent, it can by its sheer heft. It can simply throw gazillions of dollars at the problem/opportunity. There is nothing else like it,” he says.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the leading digital retailer would try their hand on music subscriptions. According to USA Today, apple will be competing with a similar business scheme/marketing to Spotify. They better come up with something that blows our mind! Then again, if they do have something awesome waiting for us, chances are it is for apple specific devices I would guess. This will be interesting, because in my opinion (at least in terms of new music), everybody is selling the same thing; so what more can they offer? I don’t know. I guess I should have realized this earlier when they stopped offering DRM free upgrades. I got to tell you, apple REALLY pissed me off with that. they were on my shit list for quite a while. Some of you die hard apple users may not understand where I am coming from. Apple makes outstanding products, I’m not saying they’re bad; however, I refuse to allow a company take me hostage against my will with their product. I lost a LOT of money when they took that DRM free option away, and I was forced to circumvent the issue by extracting my music through other means; otherwise, I would have been shit out of luck. iTunes has been on my shit list for a long time for that reason.  Apple is said to announce this big news sometime next week at a conference. If you’d like to read the rest of this article, and watch a short video, click here.

-VintageNewscast.com

spotify

Streaming music services like Pandora, Rhapsody and Spotify are largely credited with helping steer the music industry away from the piracy path. The current model is sustainable (and legal) but for the largest music group of them all, it’s still not generating enough revenue.

Last month, Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge voiced his concerns regarding the freemium business model that’s popular among the top streaming providers. The executive said ad-funded on-demand is not going to sustain the entire ecosystem including creators and investors.

Now it looks like they’re going to try and do something about it.

A recent report from the Financial Times claims Universal Music Group is using ongoing contract negotiations to try and strong arm Spotify into enforcing additional restrictions on its free listening service. The idea is that limiting access would convince more free users to sign up for the $9.99 per month premium service which would in turn put more money in the hands of labels.

I’m not sure how I feel about this new article. It seems as though the recording industry is always trying to find reasons to cry about not making any money.  You’re not going to make the same amount of money you did 20 years ago! First of all, the economy is different today; second, the internet has forced the industry to create a business model that everyone can afford; thirdly, artists are now competing with lesser known talents on the same platforms! The music industry has finally gotten to a point were illegal music sharing has cut down significantly because of sites like Spotify, yet the recording industry is still bitching? The recording industry had better be careful, otherwise we’ll start seeing a surge in illegal album sharing again. If you want to read the rest of this article, click here.

oo

As many of you had probably noticed already, since my blog’s inception it has gone through numerous transformations. Some of it was due to new creative directions; and other changes were made to make things easier for me. It was  long journey trying to figure out what I felt worked for me. By now, I hope my blog fans can finally see and understand what I’m trying to accomplish with my blog. I also do hope you’re enjoying the new format and the diverse content I have shared, and I hope my visitors continue to enjoy the culture and assortment of genres shared in the future. If you are new to my blog, and if you haven’t already, please click on about to get the general idea of the goal I have for my site.

As far as my youtube channel. There are a lot of issues that exist with youtube, that make it difficult for youtubers to freely create content without dealing with a whole bunch of crap. Some of it is youtube’s consistent unpredictable and unapologetic changes to it’s site; others times it’s the tons and tons of copyright red tape that youtubers have to go through to keep our channel legal. In the end, I decided that movie reviews for even semi classic movies was more trouble than what it is worth. People may not realize, the successful movie reviewers often times have staff helping them in the background (editors, writers, producers, etc). It’s quite difficult when you’re the sole youtuber doing everything, then have to fill out tons of copyright forms, it gets annoying.  I’ve carefully researched other youtubers, and sadly, if you’re not a gamer reviewing games, or reviewing the latest new movies (which would pull in 6 digits worth of subscribers each and every single month), there just isn’t a whole lot of views for classic movie reviews older than 1980s (this is for most channels other than my own).

However, I have noticed that there are many views for full public domain movies. I have a funny feeling that this has a lot to do with youtube integrating more and more with television technologies. People can now watch public domain movies, as well as newly purchased movies on just about any TV with youtube capabilities. Having said this, I will now use my youtube channel to post full public domain movies. I will not include these videos on my iTunes channel, to prevent my host from being taxed as a result of high volumes of bandwidth. Thank you for following me, and if you have any friends that love the classics, don’t forget to tell about my blog!

-VintageNewscast.com

2012-10-26-musicstreaming-624x420-1351279641Music has changed so much since the first phonograph was invented. iCloud and streaming services has permanently changed music forever. In fact, not only has music changed, but how we get our movies too! We’ve gotten to the point that, as soon as bandwidth becomes faster (actually we have the ability, but the ISPs don’t allow it), movie theaters just may be a thing of the past (especially as good HDTV brands have become extremely affordable now).  These days you can build a little mini theater right in your home, and don’t have to worry about someone else uncontrolled kids; or have to worry about someone’s big hair disrupting your view of the movie. I dream of the day, that we no longer have to worry about the high priced popcorn and snacks at the counter; dealing with rude employees;  and saving money on travel. Even if I had to pay a little more for a movie, I recon it will still be cheaper than a trip to the theater. LOL I feel very sorry for people who still procrastinate learning technology; These are the very same people who would pay high prices for Pay-per-view.

However, as much as I love this new technologies and the new way we receive our entertainment, I realize we’ve also lost a lot as well. As a collector, things like “limited edition memorabilia” will practically be extinct. But even more importantly, because we are now in the age of “licensing to hear a song (or movie),” and more and more companies like Rhapsody have gone solely subscription, if a license has expired on an old song, you no longer have an option to purchase that hulu-netflix-plus1song. The only thing you can do really is write a request for that song or album again, or hunt for it on the internet, and hope you find it. This can actually create another huge problem. We all know the music industry is a bunch of greedy wolves, all the CD’s for popular classic artists will all magically become “imports.” The word “import” will allow the music label to charge you 50x more the CD’s value. A good example is Donna Summer. I’ve seen a couple of her CD’s that said “import” on it, however when you look at the text on the packaging, it will say NY, NY.; for this they are allowed to change an insane price. Not only that, when Donna died, one of her albums called “Another Place In time (1989),” could not be found anywhere on the streaming services (not even iTunes had it at the time). The CD was insanely priced; and it wasn’t until the news of her death died off, the album was made available for streaming and iTunes. We can’t blame the artists for this! You want to support your artists, but the music industry is fucked up towards the fans.

I’m pretty sure there will become a time when streaming services will be the only way we receive our entertainment, and it will literally put piracy to a full halt. Using torrents will one day be seen as primitive and nonsensical. I never had a problem purchasing my music and movies, so long as it is of good quality, the price is reasonable, and extras such as, sound/pdf/movie clips, etc.

I got to be honest though, in terms of movies, there is so much CRAP on television that cable companies should be ashamed of themselves changing the money they do for these dumb as reality TV shows. Honestly, it’s probably better to just get basic cable, and you’ll come out cheaper with both HULU and Netflix together; and choose what ever movie you want, when you want it, and how much you want it. Lets just hope the streaming services will stay affordable; Otherwise people will be recording movies off their TV using their cellphones… LOL

 

© VintageNewscast.com

 

Yesterday I found a real nice classic oldies album on Rhapsody that had all my favorite songs on it. However, only Volume 3 was available. So I decided to browse my favorite site (amazon) to see if they had the rest of the Volumes; but unfortunately they only have Vol. 3 as well. Then I decided to browse Google Play, and unfortunately they only had Vol. 3 too. However, I happen to notice there was a HUGE price difference between the two. Amazon is selling the same album for $8.99, and Google Play is selling the same album for $5.99! Holy cow! Now, I understand how the music industry works (especially when it comes to streaming); no one company is going to have every music known to man in their library; it’s just a fact. However, I should not expect to see about a 50% markup on another competitor’s site which is also digital. I can understand if it was a physical CD, because now there is more value because it’s an original; not only that, it could be worth exponentially more if it turns out to be a collector’s item. Now, having said this, that doesn’t mean that I still don’t think Google sucks ass, because it still does as a streaming service. But by all means, there is no reason not to get the sale from Google (especially since it is DRM free), it’s all about who’s cheaper for the same music! On the real, we need to have a more even and standardized prices for full albums (especially the classics). Unfortunately, the music industry is so powerful that nobody can regulate them. Lesson for this class is, we have to “window shop” around for music digitally in the same way we “window shop” for good deals on clothes, food, etc. Hope this helps newbies.

 

Screenshot_2015-02-17-14-56-22

 

Screenshot_2015-02-17-15-20-27

Split-Logo

Interesting article on Rhapsody’s blog. I was just complaining that it didn’t appear that Rhapsody was doing enough promotion. Well, unbeknown to me, they actually were. Rhapsody is working on promoting their music stream services under the brand name Napster, internationally. I thought this was interesting, I didn’t realized they kept the name “Napster” after they bought out the company. Napster got such a bad rap after the music industry literally tore it a new a-hole in the 90’s (I think it was). Anyway, according to this article they are making plenty of deals, and it looks like they are blowing up in Latin America and Europe. Check out the article here. BTW, Rhapsody music library has reached a little over 34+ million songs! That’s 32 more million classic possibilities! Take THAT Crapify!