That said, Spotify could certainly do much more in this area (a lot of their energies have been focused on getting the US launch, it seems).
See spotylist.com, discovery through non-friends playlists beats algorithms as you can understand why songs are grouped together and get a feel for a persons music tastes.
But thanks for the link I'll re-consider the rating.
So I guess it comes down to whether you're trying to discover in the sense of finding new artists, or just finding new music to listen to in the moment.
You'll discover music on Turntable, but for the same amount of time spent on an algorithmic radio station you'll probably discover more.
When I'm in a well-DJ'ed Turntable room, the "radio" feels so much more natural. Songs flow. People are constantly editing their queues to best the song before it and I find myself rarely having to vote on a song. Its already better than Pandora, IMO. It also beats BMAT which has amazing algorithmic recommendations (based on waveform analysis and musical feature decomposition).
The only issue I see right now is that if your tastes are outside of Electronica and Indie, theres not much else for you at the moment.
If so then Grooveshark definitely deserves a higher rating than Spotify for radio. Recommendations can be improved but not being able to skip a track is a big design flaw (for me, I can see how some want a set-it-and-forget-it radio).
- If you mute your speakers via OS X while an advertisement is playing, it pauses the ad until you unmute your speakers.
- If you turn down your speaker volume via OS X too much while an advertisement is playing, the same behavior occurs until you turn the volume back up. This appears to be relative to the volume you were just listening to music at.
Quick fix around this; use headphones. Just take them off to ignore an ad. Or if you have a separate sound system, mute that. Annoying if you have a laptop though. This behavior doesn't occur when music is playing.
That's it FTFY.
Free version is quite unlistenable these days though. I'm a spoiled Swede though. I started using the service years ago when it was still based on the Spotify employees pirated music collection (with occasional release group names in the metadata).
The 5 plays doesn't appear to renew at the end of the month like the number of hours, and it just means that my playlists have more and more holes in them (as often has happened when artists suddenly change their minds over streaming). Spotify tried to explain that most of their users only use their service to discover new music – maybe I'm too hipster for them, but the new and interesting music I want to listen to isn't generally in their catalogue, and last.fm's discovery features are much better.
When they provided everyone free access for unlimited plays (with ads, granted), most of my friends used it and updated their playlists — which I would subscribe to and we'd drop music on to each other's user icons and share interesting music. Now, even if I were to re-upgrade to premium (which I probably won't, especially when in the UK we appear to be getting a raw deal in cost), it's like a ghost town.
While I agree that last.fm is pretty great, there's a reason it was not included in this list.
Am I missing something here? I've got 30 plays on my trial account and after that it asks me to pay for subscription.
The reason we don't do the smart playlists is that we just take a snapshot (the lists aren't kept in sync) and the very nature of smart playlists is that they are dynamic.
Same problem on the Android app I just discovered yesterday, all my local playlists are made with a third party app called Playlist Builder, and both PowerAMP and Google Music can use them, but apparently not Spotify. I only have Premium, but it seems Premium is intended to enable local music and playlists just not sharing and streaming...
Find a new reggae artist, rate his songs, and boom, next time I'm listening to good reggae, his songs pop up (but just the good ones).
Spotify makes all of my ratings and all my playlists useless. And it is therefore not very useful to me :/
Awesome comparison, Chris. This should be the go to page used to respond to any question about these services.
If you really did a good job of making sure the music that was uploaded wasn't copyrighted, you wouldn't have a business because nobody would be looking for that music. The period between illegal mainstream content going up, and that content coming down, is just long enough for Grooveshark to have a competitive cost advantage over companies who properly license their material from day one.
If the tactics aren't at least "questionable", then why has Universal declared "legal jihad" on Grooveshark?
P.S. My band's music is on your site. I didn't put it there and neither did anybody else with proper authority to do so.
My point is that we genuinely do our best to help artists. We're good people. If you want your band's presence taken down, you're entitled to have that done for you. You can also leave your music up so millions of users can discover it and find out more about who you are. We have tens of thousands of individual artists managing their own music and we get tons of fan mail from artists who say that our platform has not only decreased piracy but has actually encouraged fans to buy more of their music and see their shows.
The fact still remains that Grooveshark as it is wouldn't exist if not for the many years it's had to benefit from free use of mainstream content. That's not what DMCA was created for. It was created to protect people who mostly have UGC and occasionally have their terms violated. If Grooveshark was one of those companies, they would look more like Unsigned.com right now.
The music industry's legal system is complex. We all know that. Other companies are navigating that complexity in much more difficult ways, being much more honest to the spirit of the law. Grooveshark takes advantage of the laws and operates a service that has only one foot in legality. Of course it would be easy to build a business that way and then get the praises of those companies you forge relationships with _after_ your audience and platform is already valuable. But there is more to be said for a company that takes the hard road and does the same. I think Pandora has had a miserable time of it, but at least they did it right.
I didn't say you've had it easy. I said you built your company on the backs of artists' content without paying them. So, each employee went a few months without pay. Most of the artists playing on Grooveshark went (and are still going) much longer.
This isn't to excuse Grooveshark (honestly, not a user, so I have no horse in this race), but attracting the ire of the RIAA/MPAA in and of itself doesn't mean much except that you've gotten some big dogs pissed off at you.
The simple fact is, they should know what content they have licenses for, and what content they don't. Maintaining a list of the top 1,000,000 bands in the world and not letting anybody upload tracks with metadata that included those bands and song names in it would not be that difficult. The data is there, because otherwise users could not search for those band names and find what they're looking for.
Simply put, if Grooveshark did everything they could to fight copyrighted material being added to their site, they wouldn't have a business. Maybe now that they have some licenses and an audience they could survive, but they would have never gotten to where they were without significant illegal content being uploaded and accessed by their users.
I addressed this in my other comment, but as it turns out, this aspect of the problem is incredibly difficult. Metadata can be wrong and we can't always depend on it. So we use waveform analysis. But thats difficult too due to the indexing and storage requirements and the accuracy of the algorithm performing the search. Also this list is not finite. It changes constantly and parties are always bickering over rights to content and that takes time to sort out. We actually have a team of people who handle takedown requests, and we have another team of people who put in the necessary restrictions to keep content from getting played or uploaded.
Within 5 minutes I can go find music on Grooveshark that is there illegally. It ought to be pretty easy for you to do the same queries and prevent that from happening. Would you prevent legal music? Yes. What is more important - that some cover band be allowed to post their music, or that Primus be allowed to retain their rights? Particularly when you consider that nobody is coming to Grooveshark to hear covers of Primus.
I'm not saying that operating legally in the music industry is easy - far from it. But on the spectrum of trying to, unprofitable Pandora is on one side, and Grooveshark is waving hello in the far distance.
Also, what's waveform analysis?
I remember Napster attempting to create a system to block subsequent "sharing" of known copyrighted works.
It's true the music player itself is inferior to Spotify, and the quality of search results is not as good. But it's free, I'm fairly certain it has more songs than Spotify, it's accessible from any computer, and it has other features like radio (which from personal experience is slightly better than Spotify's in term of recommendation quality).
it's not difficult to jailbreak your phone. go to jailbreakme.com, and you're done.
- Universal is suing specifically for a few bands not covered under the DMCA. We actually do a better job of filtering those bands than Youtube. Source: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/uploads/fb/32/fb32701d5d705b...
- Licensing for a single artist can be owned by multiple labels for different albums. This licensing also varies based on country as well. To say we can simply check for an artist name in an upload isn't true when you are talking about the breadth of possible content. Plus, if we filter uploaded content inaccurately we could be liable from both sides of the coin (those wanting the content on, and those not wanting it on).
- Grooveshark has licensed EMI's content since Oct 2009. Merlin was licensed on Aug 2010. We are actively trying to get more licensing deals setup. (Also, some past deals have involved paying licensing for past streams as well.)
- The DMCA's safe harbor clause was enacted to help encourage technological innovation. Uploads to Grooveshark are similar to uploads to youtube. If you feel otherwise you are gravely mistaken. Creating and sharing music as an artist should be simple and we believe indie artists are as important as signed artists - in fact, we're trying to work with indie artists to make them money and get them tour gigs.
Out of 18,384 tracks it matched 3,142. Considering my tastes are pretty mainstream and my files have very clean tags, it's hardly impressive.
The higher quality MP3s in the premium version is a nice touch too.
"The lack of a radio feature for the time being is a factor of licensing agreements with the rights holders but it will eventually be available." http://getsatisfaction.com/spotify/topics/radio_mode_missing...
To add me, go to spotify:user:parbo or http://open.spotify.com/user/parbo and click the "Add Pär" button.
All of them should lose a point for having not having an integrated music locker to fill in the holes where they don't have licenses to certain tracks.
Comparatively these limits don't exist on Amazon Cloud Player where I can have much more music the my phones memory and after syncing it to their servers I don't have to sync it with each device I have.
tl;dr I closed the app and haven't listened to any music with it.
Also, just to clarify a few things: it's not based on Flash. It's written in C++. It uses Ogg Vorbis. The user interface closely resembles iTunes so if you're familiar with that (many people are) Spotify shouldn't be too confusing.
This is simply not true. I am an exclusive Rdio user and despite the opinions of the author, their management system does not render it useless as an exclusive music player.
Of course this has been my experience. I reason it's possible for someone to be completely satisfied by Rdio's catalog but for most people there will be missing music.
Though discovery should not get high ratings in 2011 as there are so much that could be done using social and Music-DNA to discover music - so giving any of these services more than 8 is just a joke.
0/10 means you cannot discover any music, which is almost impossible to achieve. 4/10 means yes it's possible to discover music but the features are not very optimized for it or they dont perform as well as other services.
Discovery isn't weighted very heavily in the overall rating since there are plenty of other places to discover music from.