Another Player on the Celestial Jukebox? “Google Audio” Lurks.

TechGoogle-audio Crunch is reporting:

Google will soon launch a music service, we’ve heard from multiple sources, and the company has spent the last several weeks securing content for the launch of the service from the major music labels. One source has referred to the new service as Google Audio.

We’re still gathering details, but our understanding is the service will be very different to the Google China music download service that they launched in 2008. That service, which is only available in China, allows users to search for music and download it for free.


There’s a surprise. How about a “Google Reader” for Internet Music?

It’s A Start: 500k New Users Download Rhapsody for iPhone

Rhapsody Rhapsody’s iPhone app has been downloaded 500,000 time according to the company.  “Over 500K shrewd users have decided that unlimited access to practically any song, practically anywhere ain’t such a bad idea,” wrote Rhapsody’s Garrett Kamps on the company’s blog. Exactly how many are also paying $12.99 a month for a Rhapsody Unlimited subscription was not disclosed


I pulled an ad for the Rhapsody iPhone app out of the new issue of Rolling Stone over the weekend, and I plan to try it out. Rhapsody has struggled to find a viable business model, but it’s entirely possible that mobile availability could be the ingredient that pushes it to prosperity. People are slowly getting used to the idea that they don’t need to “own” what they want to listen to. They don’t “own” what they hear on the radio, this is like “radio on demand.”

Poor iPod, Your 15 Minutes of Fame Are Almost Over

The Browser is the iPod/Phone, UK Version:

While we're on the subject of bandwidth hogs, here's a new one, just launched in the UK.  Billed in some circles as stiff competition for Spotify, UK-based tech blog "Electric Pig" compares the two, beginning with:

1. Sky Songs is web-based
Spotify is a fantastic service, but it has one fatal flaw: you need to use the Spotify application to access its musical treasure trove. That means, for most people, they’re unable to use it at work. PCs and Macs that’re locked-down by corporate IT departments can’t tap into Spotify’s streaming sounds, but because Sky Songs works through any web browser, it’s always available… unless your miserly IT team block its URL.

Of course, if you work from home, that's not gonna be problem.  In any event, the SkySongs approach restates something that I've been stressing for a while now: that in the new paradigm, "the browser is the iPod."

No_ipod In fact, since I started using and my "Celestial Jukeox" configuration in my office at home, I have almost abandoned my old iPod.  I used to use to listen to instrumental music while I'm writing (I don't know about you, but I find it hard to listen to somebody else's lyrics while I'm trying to compose my own sentences…) But now I'm sending music from my browswer to the Aiport Express and the WiFi signal via Airfoil to my stereo, I've just about abandoned my iPod.

I still use the iPod function of my iPhone, but only in the car, and then I'm usually listening to podcasts.  When I want music, lately I'm using the mobile apps on the iPhone. 

Poor iPod, your fifteen minutes of fame are almost over.

Is the Celestial Jukebox the “Killer App” That Kills the Internet?

Gizmos Surely, by now, you've heard the expression "killer app."

Ordinarily it's used with a
positive connotation, referring to an application or function that drives a larger market. Like
spreadsheets and word processors were the 'killer apps' that drove the sale of PCs in the
80s; like desktop publishing and Photoshop were the 'killer apps' that
drove sales of the Mac in the 90s and 00s. Like… well, "apps" in general are the 'killer apps' that drive iPhone sales. 

But there's a "killer app" lurking in our mobile devices that could bring down the platform it's supposed to live on — the symbiont service that threatens to kill its host. And it's precisely what this site is dedicated to, the arrival of "the Celestial Jukebox."

To whit: The spreading popularity of "cloud-based" music  storage and delivery services like Pandora, Slacker,, Spotify, Rhapsody, etc. threatens to bring the essential delivery system those services and devices rely on — wireless broadband — to its knees in the foreseeable future.

Are you one of the rapidly expanding legions of people that use Pandora ?

If so, then consider this article in the Sunday NYTimes Magazines.  It's a great inside look at how Pandora really works, how it manages to deliver songs that are consistent with the song or artist you have chosen to launch a "channel."  Called "the music genome project," it's a fascinating — if costly,  labor intensive, and time consuming — effort.

Westergren But you might hear alarm bells ringing when you read this:

…thanks in part to the popularity of the Pandora iPhone app, its fortunes have lately improved. It has attracted 35 million listeners and claims about 65,000 new sign-ups a day (more than half from mobile-device users). About 75 companies are working Pandora into a variety of gizmos and gadgets and Web platforms.

That statement demonstrates the rapidly expanding potential for music delivered from "the cloud." But "65,000 new sign-ups a day" accounts for a LOT of wireless bandwidth.  And those 75 companies, they are all creating services and devices that will offer Pandora to still more customers, all them demanding still more bandwidth.

Which brings us to the dark lining in the silver cloud, the hard rain that could one day fall.  If these services keep expanding — if people become comfortable with "access" to over "ownership" of their digital libraries — we are going to need a LOT more bandwidth.  And probably a lot more after that. Indeed, the potential for utilizing broadband channels for music delivery grows exponentially now that mobile devices like iPhone are being used for just that purpose.

The potential severity of the issue — and the concurrent potential for all kinds of conflicts of interest — was highlighted in a recent blog post in the Wall Street Journal online that predicts "The Coming Mobile Meltdown," by Holman W. Jenkins Jr.:

Renocol_HolmanJenkins Consider: A single YouTube viewing consumes nearly 100 times as much
cellular bandwidth as a voice call. In Asia, some 200 million people
already watch video on their smartphones. No wonder Google (whose
YouTube unit serves up one billion videos a day) is an investor in a
new undersea fiber line connecting North America to the Far East.

More omens: Data collector AdMob reports that mobile Web page
requests grew 9% from July to August—a 180% annual growth rate. And
Motorola recently went public with worries that a handful of mobile
Slingbox users (a video streaming device) could wipe out cell service
in a whole neighborhood.

This is a mobile meltdown in the making. (italics added)

Of course, this being the Wall Street journal, the article then goes on
to use the prospect of restricted bandwidth as a justification for the big corporations that provide that bandwidth being liberated from the shackles
of the "net neutrality" controversy.   That's the sort of "socialist" canard with which the WSJ
(which, you'll recall, is now a sister company of Fox News, aka "Fixed
Noise") loves to take issue.  But that may be beside the point.

Jenkins identifies an even larger issue lurking behind the "net neutrality" issue:

…we persist in suspecting that the biggest political scrum
in the near future won't be over classic net neutrality at all—it will
be a battle over usage-based pricing, which is one of the few ways to
keep excessive demand in check (though key help will also come from
technologies that opportunistically dump wireless traffic back into the
fixed Net).

Boy, there's a super-sized can of worms.

Right now, I enjoy more or less 'net neutral' unlimited bandwidth use on both my laptop and mobile devices.  I can suck as much data off the Internet as I want on either platform.  I can listen to music all day provided by any one of a number of services.

Jenkins foresees the time when all this bandwidth demand will run up against limits; when that happens, the 'net neutrality' debate will be forced aside, and the ISPs will argue that they need to start charging heavy users (like me) for my torrential bit-flow in order to pay for the infrastructure that needs to be put in place to keep all those gigabits flowing.

Well, that's fine, I guess.  I don't really have a position one way or the other on Net neutrality and the revenue is going to have to come from somewhere to pay for all those cell towers. 

But it occurs to me that there is another issue that just got lost in that shifting debate: the fact that, by charging for "usage," the ISPs will, in effect, be charging for content.  If I listen to a lot of music over my "Celestial Jukebox" rig, and I am charged for that usage,  am I not in effect being indirectly charged for the use of that content?

In that scenario, shouldn't some of the revenue also go to the content providers who are the reason for the bandwidth use that would justify higher charges?

I am increasingly perplexed by the implications that virtually free (a dime-a-track comes pretty damn close, compared to $15 for a CD…) hold for the creators of all this nifty content that's pouring through my MacBook and iPhone these days.  I mean, when it gets to the point that recorded music has zero value — because it's all in the cloud, all the time, and accessible from anywhere — then how in the hell are my musician friends going to make a living?

So Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.  proposes that ISPs be freed to start charging for bandwidth usage.  Great.  But I wonder how Mr. Holman and his bosses at the W$J will feel about ISP revenue being shared with the millions of artists who create the content that creates the demand for new bandwidth — seeing as how so many of them are crunchy-granola eating, left-leaning, right-brained subversives?

Point is, if there is no provision made for the creators, there won't be any content, so there won't be any need for any more bandwidth, at which point we can go back to worrying about "net neutrality."

NPR Strikes Again, Sarah Siskind “Live” on the Celestial Jukebox

SarahToT OK, so if you've been following this blog at all, you know I'm something of a fan of Sarah Siskind, a Nashville based singer/songwriter who is starting now to break out nationally. She was a commanding presence in this falls's "Ten out of Tenn" tour (photo at right with Madi Diaz, Mikky Ekko and Andrew Belle).
Now she is featured on NPR's "World Cafe," talking about her career, her new CD "Say it Louder," and offering up some previously unreleased tracks:

October 13, 2009 from WXPNSarah Siskind began writing music at age 11. Born to a family of bluegrass musicians, she'd been exposed since birth to both contemporary music and the classics. Since releasing her first album at 14, Siskind has won several songwriting competitions, shared a stage with Doc Watson and Maya Angelou, and received a Grammy nomination for writing 2007's Alison Krauss song "Simple Love." In 2008, Siskind toured with the popular indie-rock band Bon Iver, which frequently covers her song "Lovin's for Fools" at shows.

Clickety click
to visit, listen to the interview and in-studio performances, and the "bonus" tracks.

Or click the "play" button here to listen to "Say It Louder" in its entirety courtesy 

Say It Louder – Sarah Siskind

Orphan Business Model Attracts More Prospective Parents

For a business model that supposedly has no future, there sure are a lot companies trying to jump on to the "Celestial Jukebox" bandwagon. Earlier this week I read that British TV company BSkyB is planning a subscription service called "SkySongs." Now comes another entrant, from the guys who brought you Kazaa.  The New York Times reports:

The idea of selling monthly subscriptions to a vast catalog of online music has met with only limited success. That isn’t stopping a new batch of entrepreneurs from trying to make it work, The New York Times’s Brad Stone writes.

The latest and perhaps most surprising entrants to the field are the European entrepreneurs Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis. In 2001, they created and financed Kazaa, one of the original peer-to-peer file-sharing services that hurt the music industry. The two have created and financed a secretive start-up called Rdio, with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I've lost count now, how many subscription services are now climbing on the Celestial Jukebox bandwagon. Let's see… Rhapsody and Napster are now the old kids on the block. There's my personal fave, There's the infinitely over-hyped Spotify, now I read about something called "Mog," there's the BSkyB service that is supposed to launch next week, and now Rdio, from the Kazaa guys.
For a model that so many people scoff at, the landscape is starting to get crowded. Hopefully I can get a decent count of the options before they start shaking each other out…

NPR Gets With The Program – Puts New “Swell Season” Release on the Celestial Jukebox

Swell Now even NPR is getting on the Celestial Jukebox bandwagon.  Their website is offering the newest release by "Once" stars The Swell Season (aka Glenn Hansard and Markita Irglova) available for listening "in its entirety" via streaming audio. 

Go to to Listen To The Entire Album

Moody and frequently spare, Strict Joy gives Hansard and
Irglova room to breathe and seethe, particularly in sad, brooding
ballads such as "Low Rising," "Paper Cup" and "Back Broke." But, as on
any Hansard-related project, the gloom is offset by a generous helping
of big-hearted emotionalism. In "Feeling the Pull," he and Irglova pine
for a world beyond the boundaries that surround them; even when he's
feeling paranoid in "The Verb," they couch his worries in rich
harmonies that grow increasingly warm and sweet. As on the Once
soundtrack, Irglova gets a few opportunities to seize the spotlight
("Fantasy Man," "I Have Loved You Wrong"), but she's most often
utilized for her ability to add subtle shading, in the form of her
piano work and gentle backing vocals.

Sonos S5 – The Celestial Jukebox As It Sould Be: In A Box

Sonos, a company that has pioneered easy access to digital audio around the house, has announced a new system that makes it even easier to deliver streaming audio from "the cloud" (or your hard drive, if you insist) to any room in your house.  And you can run the whole thing from an app on your iPhone.

The feature sets look pretty rich and well thought out.  The content comes from a nearly infinite number of Internet radio stations, including Pandora and  It also provides access to on-demand subscription services like Napster and Rhapsody (no yet, but I'm on it…).  Or if you must, you can listen to the stuff you've got stored in your own iTunes collection. 

And as the narrator in this video says, this device further eliminates the need to "own" the music you want to hear: "Even if I don't own the music I want to listen to, I can just click and play."

This gizmo looks to me like an important development in the evolution of our celestialjukebox.  And given that it's controlled by an iPhone, how long will it be before it's voice activated? 

When that happens, then you really will be able to walk into the room and say (as I've been saying or ten-plus years now), "Beatles.  Abbey Road.  Loud."

Except for one minor detail:  the Beatles still don't offer ANY of their catalog through ANY digital delivery channel.  Not iTunes, Rhapsody, Lala, or Pandora.  

What did Klosterman say?  "The Beatles – a band so obscure that their music doesn't even appear on iTunes.

Them I've got in my iTunes library. 

Open Letter to Bob Lefsetz: Enough About Spotify Already; is Here NOW.

Lefsetz Bob, it took me a few days to give your "Spotify Guys" post the attention it deserves.  I hope the reply is still pertinent.

I don't disagree with anything you say about Spotify.  If you can get it, I guess, the service is great; it sounds like the founders have their hearts and minds in all the right places, and they are riding the tip of the spear that will ultimately bring down the "product" based music "industry" that was in place in the century-plus between "Mary Had a Little Lamb" and Napster. 

But they are not alone on that quest.  

Spotify may be great, but in the United States — the country that produces most of the music that the world wants to hear– Spotify is not generally available.  As you say, "…other than a handful of the connected, no one in America has Spotify, few even know what it is!"

So where is the love for  There's a service that is also riding the tip of the spear, altering behavior patterns and expanding the universe for creators and listeners alike.  But nobody ever talks about, it's Spotify-this and Spotify-that even though you can't get it in this country and Lala is shifting the paradigm RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

To wit:

On Oct 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Bob Lefsetz wrote:

Daniel was focused on the rental issue. Needing to make purchase available too. I think that's bullshit. You can't listen to the hoi polloi. In America we rented movies on videotape, bought them on DVD and are now renting them again via Netflix and Redbox. Who says America is anti-rental? It's all about the user experience. And the Spotify user experience is so good, that you don't need to own once you've got it.

As you well know, Bob, that's the crux of the issue.  This "I want to own my music" mentality is doomed. 

What most people who "consume" recorded music don't get is that they never really "own" the music.  All you ever own is a limited license to listen to the music — in whatever format it has been delivered.  Until about 12 or 13 years ago the music was always delivered as a product — cylinder, vinyl disk, plastic wafer — which carried with it the presumption of "ownership" that the possession of products implies.  All that started to change when MP3s started flying around the Internet, and Napster drove the stake home.

When you purchased LPs or CDs, all you've ever really "owned" is the right to listen on demand.  And now the ability to listen on demand is shifting from your turntable, your CD player, your hard drive… to the cloud and browser. You don't need your own library or collection.  It is all being stored for you.  And the emphasis in that sentence is on the word 'all.'  It is ALL being stored for you. 

But you don't have to wait until maybe the end of this year or maybe the beginning of next year or whenever the stars align to get Spotify. is already delivering what Spotify promises.

Lala's catalog is about as deep as iTunes.  There are some holes in it, for sure.  And their existing business model is going to need some tweaking, no doubt.  But the way it works now, you can listen to anything in their 6- or 7- million track catalog in its entirety the first time for FREE.  Only when you want to hear it AGAIN do you have to pay for anything.  And then it's only a DIME a TRACK!  A whole CD for the cost of single iTunes download! 

Yes, what you are buying for that dime — or a buck for the whole CD — is the "web album" — access through your browser (and yes, you can "buy" 89c MP3 downloads if you insist in constraining your budget that way…).

I would ultimately prefer a nominal, flat-rate subscription service (I'll take the lifetime subscription, thank you very much, even though I'm almost 60…).  But one thing at a time.  What Lala offers now is a demonstration of the value of infinite "access" over  "ownership" that is necessarily limited to shelf space, hard-drive space, or budget.

Think of it this way:  next time you're in a Starbucks, and you see one of those little "free download" cards at the counter… take it home with you.  And log on to  And then, instead of downloading a single track for free, you can listen to the entire album for free.  Then you can really decide if this is somebody who's music you want to add to the soundtrack of your life.

You've also referenced Spotify's intention to incorporate "social networking" into its service. is already doing that, too.  You can find listeners with similar taste and easily post your finds to Facebook or Twitter.  I've been doing it for a few months now.  And I cannot tell you how much new music I'm finding as a consequence.

And, like Spotify, Lala has an iPhone app in beta, but that's all I can say about that…

So, Bob, why aren't you telling your readers to get on this service now?  Why are you telling them to wait for Spotify?  It's unbecoming of such an advocate as you to say "I'm connected, you can't have this…" when something so similar is so readily available NOW.

I'm surprised at how much of a shill I'm sounding like here.  I don't work for the company.  Hell, I can't even get them to return my e-mails.  But I'm going on about it here for good reason.  You, Bob Lefsetz, more than anybody I've encountered or read in the past year, grasp the import of the paradigm shift from ownership to access, from downloads to streaming.  But you continue to emphasize a service that is by and large not yet available in this country.

I'm not knocking Spotify, I'm sure it's great, but only if you can get it. But why not direct at least SOME attention to a service that is available now. So that your readers can begin to appreciate the possibilities that access affords over ownership.  So that they can begin — as you have — to disabuse themselves of this antiquated notion that they need to "own" the music that they listen to.

Music doesn't live in the player, whether it's disk hard drive.  It exists in the ear, and ultimately in the heart.  How it gets there is truly irrelevant.
What I hope your readers will learn — and join the vanguard of — is the idea that when they abandon the illusion of "ownership" what they get in exchange is access to the entire universe of recorded music. 

But that is only one side of the issue that now confronts us. Sooner rather than later, we need to  engage the discussion about what all this easy access for the listeners means for the creators.  What does it mean for recording artists  when I can listen to everything I want for some nominal amount?  How will these people support themselves when the value of a $15 CD is effectively reduced to pennies?   I can't go to all
their shows.  We need to start having that conversation now, too.

Whatever the economic consequences, that infinitely valuable trade-off is not available to the readers who wait patiently for Spotify.  It IS available now, they just have to log onto and open an account.  If you do, please look for user "driver49" and friend me up. 



P.S. Is it true you are in Nashville this week at the conference?  Can I buy you lunch?  Or at least sneak me into your panel so I can hear what you've got to say….??