Why Google Music's New 'Scan And Match' Is Not Enough - hypebot

« Midem Announces Top Music Marketing Finalist | Main | Top 10 Musicians To Invite To Your Holiday Party »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dave

Spotify comes closest to this now, since it can import and sync your local files and combine them with Spotify tunes in playlists.

What it's missing is a feature that will scan your local collection and create a playlist of all your local songs that are NOT in Spotify. That way, you could then sync that playlist with your devices and have all your music, either in Spotify or on your device. This seems relatively simple, since Spotify already links your local files to the cloud files upon import.

Right now, there's no way to know which of your local files aren't in Spotify without checking one-by-one. Ideally, this match program would re-run periodically to account for new files in your collection and for songs added and removed from Spotify.

MOG, Rdio, and Rhapsody seem to want nothing to do with local files, so Spotify would do well to add this one basic feature and support "everything, everywhere, easily".

Jason

I'm busy uploading all my tracks into Google Music right now. I'm beginning to regret it - 6 hours in, it's only got 4400 of my 13,000 tracks uploaded. Clearly this scan and match thing isn't working. At least it's free.

What I really dream of is Google buying Spotify or Rhapsody or one of the other competitors, or maybe Dropbox or Amazon doing the same thing. Then we'd have our tracks, plus subscription services, all in one place. The only reason I can think of that this hasn't already happened is the typical backwards music industry reluctance to let us listen to our music the way we want to. But I think it's inevitable. Having people tote around massive collections on individual hard drives forever just seems so wasteful. I'd happily pay $10 or more a month for a combination subscription/cloud storage service.

Kallen Williams


@Jason: I hear what you're saying, I am working on a new system to solve this file sharing problem. Artists should be compensated for their music, and the community deserves to have full information and access at any time to their favourite albums and tracks at a fair price.

https://www.facebook.com/eLocusKinetics is an affordable subscription based service that can be free with community participation. As long as i can access music at any time, i really don't care if I 'own' it.

In my apartment I have a large vinyl record collection (thousands and thousands), a healthy CD collection, and terabytes of music. Ownership of music used to make sense, but it's a totally new mindset today that the industry simply does not understand. File-sharing is also way too easy, and leaves a lot of Indy artists in the cold. Sure, they get exposure, but their music loses its context as per the culture from which it came.

I also have a lot of music i have found, but know little or nothing about the artist. Personally, that bothers me, I like to find out more, and explore other work they have done, or check out similar artists. Since the local record store is pretty much a thing of the past, there are few guides out there to direct you in interesting directions.

Check out the project, spread the word and help out when we do our crowd-funding on IndieGogo later in the New Year (2013)

QiedFaqot

ilike music , introduce my name is qied i blogger walking just visit me return http://seonewbie.16mb.com/dijamin-seragam-kerja-kantor-murah-di-surewi/

Galica

Anybody know if Google's long-time-coming new data structure standard - Schema.org - might play into this at all? Seems plausible when looking at stuff like this: http://schema.org/MusicRecording

The comments to this entry are closed.




SEARCH HYPEBOT

Musician & Music Industry Resources