"Even if Facebook is only moderately successful in executing its plan, it will have more power than any record label has ever wielded. It will control the equivalent or radio and record stores, as well as the label. Or in movie analogies, be the monopoly cinema chain, the box office and the promotion."
Part of me is amused by this, part of me not. FB won't automatically have access to back catalogues of music but it may mean going forward they increase control over the output of current and future music. It all depends on the deals they can put in place.
Anyway, thought you peeps would be interested in this. It makes things like UMG controlling Soundcloud very tiny in the great scheme of things.
Advertisements
------------------
IDMf: Outside of porn, best cunts on the internet.
I've always thought that the lack of a simple music platform on facebook suggested that they are working on something much more integrated because they see the power behind their platform if they do it correctly ..
it would be a refreshing change I guess because all facebook is now is automatically playing videos of memes and shit and now live videos everywhere of boring content (mostly)
people will probably hate it but you cannot stop technology
So I scanned quick through the article--I'm not quite sure what this would even look like? As long as there are other options I can't see myself using facebook as a music streaming app. Or is this really just about licensing?
As someone who hasn't logged into Facebook in years, it's troubling to think that I'd have to if I wanted to get into new music. But I'm also not into mainstream stuff and I'm well over the age demographic of the chart, so maybe none of this applies to me.
It is an interesting question. Content delivery is simple these days - streaming music is a done deal, it's the framework of licensing and vertical integration and capitalization that's the question. And there's things in play that don't mimic the moving pictures segment (where so much of the research and number crunching has been done), namely the fact that there's free places to easily listen to music (youtube), and there's a finite upper limit to storage and bandwidth, because audio has very definable limits to quality and thus won't have to deal with the expanding waistlines of ever more high def video.
It seems like there's three factors that would drive people to FB for music: they have content that isn't available elsewhere (see: Tidal), they have frameworks that make it attractive to people beyond the music - social groupings, discussions, etc, or they manage to hit that comfort level of "I'm on here anyway, why go elsewhere?"
All that assumes that FB can actually secure licensing and attract exclusive artists, as well as beat out youtube as the de facto place to quickly listen to a tune. They've certainly capitalized on their existing user base in the past so it'll be interesting to see if they can do it again. I have no doubt they can tank Spotify if they want, but they're going to have throw shitloads of cash at the problem of exclusivity and have the UGC fight with Youtube/Alphabet that they probably won't win, and then hope that Amazon or Walmart doesn't decide to drown them in money because they decide they want to be top music dog.
For me to want to use it it would have to be usable in some sense. Not go find an artist I already known or that has some mega marketing campaign but to actually enjoy some newer independant artist or label.
I'm not entirely familiar with bandcamp but I can only imagine there being a crap ton of pages and releases from people or labels I don't have much ability in finding.
I actually just see it as some "Suggested Music" BS multiplied, if pushed after. Similar to how my Spotify station turns a 180 and throws in something that isn't even related to what I was listening to, to begin with.
Luckily for us that don't FB much, there are still plenty of other options.
This has been the dream of many a company since the early days of the internet. Web portals was the term used back then and it saw the likes of Yahoo and AOL and MSN try and eventually fail to herd net citizens to their gated online communities. Facebook however has much more clout and an established (and seemingly captive) audience already there. Still there are some disadvantages fb has with this venture, for one the most successful online ventures (Google search, Youtube, and Facebook) all succeeded by offering relatively new services online or they did it simpler and better than others. To succeed here fb will need to be easier to use than Spotify, faster and with a larger database of music, that is no easy task.
the music bis
Amazon
Apple
Microsoft
Samsung
universities
the oil industry
the weapons business
the agricultural industry
grocery stores
hospitals
big pharma
Disney
Sony
AirB&B
Tinder
Tesla
Nasa
Spacex
Every government on the planet
& your ass because you handed it over to them like a fucking sucker.
thom got that a little wrong, though..didn't he? I mean, shouldn't that be "mouth" instead of "ass"? Just wondering like.it's good to know who will own which part of you in advance, don't you think?
Fb don't need to take over the music industry, they're in the business of selling audiences and/or attention. Audiences to sell they already have. As the noise keeps increasing, music has no other option but to buy attention. So Fb don't need to lift a finger, just allow the not-on-fb experiences to live in the feed. That, the 3rd parties are happy to do. But nobody forced us to live in/on fb.
