

Googling a musician and their song brings up a new track listing UI - artursapek
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&tbo=d&q=yuck+georgia&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgy4HsxCXfq6-QbpZbnlhuRJXiIKRkYWJhYWRsZagb2lxZrJjUUlmcUlIfnB-Xvpx9TXzon2WemrHyX1d73X13t41Bu8BCFEY_EoAAAA&extab=1 

======
dudus
Seems like there is also a special view for albums

<http://goo.gl/uSOxj>

------
inkaudio
This is fine, but where’s the lyrics ? I’ll argue people want to see lyrics
display inline when they do a lyric search. I understand licensing will be an
issue with the major labels but Google could take a bottom’s up approach.
Before Myspace collapse, it was on top of the social network world. Developing
software on the web for indie musicians helped Myspace get to the top. Soon
majority of independent musicians and their fans were using myspace. When
Myspace become a popular place for discovering music the major labels all did
deals with Myspace. If Google made effective cross promotion/sales tools with
lyrics search for indies, I believe the majors will follow

------
tnuc
Searching for author, movies, television shows, music etc. brings up an
interface that is scraping the data on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia could/should have done this a long time ago, trying to do anything
like this on Wikipedia would take at least 1000 lines of discussion on one of
the many talk pages.

Does Google have less politics than Wikipedia?

~~~
rm999
Why should Wikipedia have done this? Wikipedia is conservative because their
job isn't to do much more than be a solid encyclopedia. What's great is they
keep their data open so people can do what they want with it.

------
feniv
This looks great, but why have a special UI style for this when they already
have a useful sidebar display when searching for movie directors or other
famous people? : <http://goo.gl/JGMQ6>

------
jiggy2011
Interesting. I'm amazed that anybody buys music at all anymore when it's
possible to just use google as your jukebox.

Type in a song name and get back a youtube result with the complete song
pretty much every time.

~~~
blisse
You buy music to show support if you can't make it to a concert.

You buy music because Youtube usually has horrible sound quality.

You buy music because you want to listen to your music on your iPod or
preferred MP3 player.

You buy music because you want to hear your music as it's released, and not
wait for someone to upload it on Youtube in 3 days.

You buy music because you have obscure songs that don't exist on Youtube.

You buy music because you'd rather have local files in case you have no
Internet.

You buy music because you have a superior alternative to Youtube, as in
playlist management, Replay Gain, and more.

~~~
jiggy2011
I'm not an audiophile, but is there a significant difference in quality
between an MP3 file and a 720P youtube video?

Streaming 256kps would seem fairly trivial on even a mobile connection these
days.

I know I can use spotify on my phone over 3G at 192kps.

It would also just seem to be a question of "when" before somebody releases a
really good music player application that just uses youtube as a backend.

~~~
ZoFreX
No, but many, many YouTube videos that are songs (either music videos or
slideshow + song) have been re-uploaded and/or re-encoded many times, so often
they don't have a high quality option, or if they do you're watching a 360p
re-encoded in 720p. If you've ever listened to a song on YouTube that sounded
like it was being played underwater, that's what happened to it!

------
mark_l_watson
That is pretty cool. I very much also like the other info-box style summaries
that they provide. For me there is high value in sometimes not having to
navigate off of the first search results page.

~~~
tripzilch
Indeed, I have been enjoying DuckDuckGo's zero-click results for over a year
now :)

------
anigbrowl
Doesn't work for me - I was able to bring up your selection but my searches
don't work, even if I substitute them into the (absurdly long) URL.

~~~
icebraining
If you search for e.g. "Pink Floyd" it shows the sidebar, with a tracklist. If
you then click on a song on the tracklist, it'll display the same UI as the
linked one.

On the other hand, it's listing _The Great Gig in the Sky_ as being part of
the Brain Damage album, which as far as I know doesn't even exist.

~~~
jrabone
It doesn't, they mean Dark Side of the Moon. It's not exactly Floyd's most
obscure album...

One thing I learned at Amazon, data quality is a huge problem for any media
information. It wouldn't surprise me if this specific instance was just a
missing field somewhere which you could use to "fingerprint" the data source
(or more correctly, one of the data sources, because aggregation is the next
huge problem in media data). Often these data sources are in truly awful
formats as well, with special problems when it comes to eg. Unicode names.

The popular stuff gets fixed quickly, everything else gets to rot until
someone with the right mindset and interest goes and fixes it. The bet with a
lot of sites that take corrections is on whether there are enough people who
care to make a difference.

------
harryf
Not working on mobile. Google still seems works on the basis of "mobile
second" when it comes to search.

~~~
statictype
Which is probably the correct decision.

------
hardik988
That's weird. It only works when I click on the submitted URL, but not when I
search for it myself.

------
clicks
Slightly off-topic, but since the 'UI' is in the topic, I'll bite:

Why did Google need to re-invent the scrollbar (
<http://i.imgur.com/ztm93.png> ), _without_ the two squares (sorry, don't know
what they're called) on the opposite sides, which you can click without having
to move the mouse up/down;left/right?

What is wrong with traditional scrollbars that Google felt the need to get
away from it?

~~~
Lagged2Death
I think they're just called "arrow buttons."

Unfortunately some influential sites and UI designers have lately been trying
to improve on the standard scrollbar [1], often in an attempt to make them
work better for very small screens and/or touchscreen devices. IMHO, their
changes have mostly been steps backwards as far as traditional mousing is
concerned. The scrollbar is old and highly evolved. It's not immediately
obvious that it can be improved. I suspect it will be with us until we
eliminate scrolling itself.

In Firefox and Opera, the arrow buttons are showing up fine for me. How are
you viewing this?

[1]]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/11/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/11/computer_scrollbars_why_is_apple_eradicating_a_linchpin_of_user_interface_design_.html)

~~~
rm999
>In Firefox and Opera, the arrow buttons are showing up fine for me. How are
you viewing this?

I see it in chrome, not firefox.

------
aviraldg
Also works for authors.

