Sad news today as people awoke to the news that pop superstar Michael Jackson died from a cardiac arrest.
However, from watching and reading news articles throughout the day, I have come to the conclusion that many people simply overreact to this kind of news.
Television showed images of distraught fans who appeared to be inconsolable, but these aren't people who knew him personally. They are simply fans and I don't understand how anyone can get so upset over someone they don't know. Plus it's not as if his career was in full swing.
Of course I'd expect friends and family to be upset and I do feel for them, but those who are simply just fans really ought to pull themselves together.
This is nothing new though. Similar reactions were seen at the death of other stars such as Elvis, John Lennon and Princess Diana. I just think it's a shame that people react this way.
Interestingly, last.fm has published a graph showing the number of times Michael Jackson tracks were listened to on and hour-by-hour basis and there is an almost vertical spike as people learned the news.
However, from watching and reading news articles throughout the day, I have come to the conclusion that many people simply overreact to this kind of news.
Television showed images of distraught fans who appeared to be inconsolable, but these aren't people who knew him personally. They are simply fans and I don't understand how anyone can get so upset over someone they don't know. Plus it's not as if his career was in full swing.
Of course I'd expect friends and family to be upset and I do feel for them, but those who are simply just fans really ought to pull themselves together.
This is nothing new though. Similar reactions were seen at the death of other stars such as Elvis, John Lennon and Princess Diana. I just think it's a shame that people react this way.
Interestingly, last.fm has published a graph showing the number of times Michael Jackson tracks were listened to on and hour-by-hour basis and there is an almost vertical spike as people learned the news.
With the news that 7 million people in Britain have been illegally downloading files, I started thinking about what could be done to make purchasing digital media more attractive. Since the only media I download is music, that's where my ideas are focused although I'm sure some of these thoughts could be applied to films too.
Before going any further, I should clarify my position. I don't download music from illegal sources. Personally, I like to know that my music collection is 100% above board and legal. Call it being obsessive if you like, but if I had even one illegal file in my collection it would spoil the whole thing and bother me until I deleted it. The temptation however has been there. If I want just one song from an artist and I can't get it through my usual stores then the thought does cross my mind.
Availability
That leads to my first thought - availability of content. We all know that iTunes has the largest collection of digital music available on the net, but for whatever reason plenty of people cannot or will not use that store. That could be down to their choice of operating system, or perhaps they cannot play the AAC files on their choice of digital music player. These people have to choose stores such as 7Digital, Amazon, Play.com etc. which whilst having a good collection, do not stock everything. There are still artists who do not release their music as downloads, and others who will not permit single track downloads.
In my opinion, by not making a track or album available in a digital store, downloaders are encouraged to seek out alternative sources for downloading this music. Other than buying the CD they have no choice. People are getting used to being able to get digital media now. Not waiting for a CD to be delivered in 2 days time, but waiting for the download in 2-5 minutes time.
Audio Quality
A majority of stores are offering music downloads in the MP3 format - a lossy format. In addition, most stores are offering MP3s at less than the maximum bitrate.
Although most people would be pushed to tell the difference between an MP3 at 256kbps versus a CD, should the downloader wish to convert the MP3 to an alternative format, further audio quality will be lost.
Downloads need to start being offered in lossless formats (FLAC is my choice). Yes the downloads are bigger, but the quality is identical to a CD. That FLAC can be kept as a master in the sameway that I have my CDs as masters. MP3 files can be created from the lossless file. Then in years to come should the MP3 go out of fashion, a new file can be created with no further loss in quality.
Of course, many consumers would not be aware of how to make the lossless file compatible with their music players by converting it to MP3, so this should be an option. When downloading the music files, purchasers should have the choice between lossless and MP3.
Pricing and Business Models
A big deterrent to downloading music legally is price. With a new CD album costing say £8.99 online, why should anyone download an album for £7.99? Obviously there are cost implications at the store in terms of file storage and bandwidth, but the consumer will only consider that they are getting a non-physical product with no jewel case, disc or artwork. Many will know that the audio quality is inferior to a CD. Because of this, consumers (myself included) will resent paying approximately the same cost of a CD particularly when so many albums will end up on sale in a few months and available for £5.00.
Single track downloads should be no more than 60p each, with albums costing no more than £5.00. For an average album, this will still encourage album sales as the cost per track will be lower (35-50p each depending on the number of tracks in the album).
Further attention should be given to online stores which operate a subscription model. The subscriber pays a certain amount per month which permits a limited number of downloads, which can be kept should the subscriber cease their subscription. This is the model that eMusic follows. As the number of downloads do not roll over each month, if a subscriber does not download the entitlement, then all the better for the store. Track costs should top out at 40p - cheaper than normal to encourage a subscription.
Downloadable Extras
As part of the cost of buying a CD, the purchaser gets not only the music but album artwork and liner notes. These should not cease just because there is no longer a physical product.
Downloaders should be given the choice to purchase album art in a high resolution PNG or JPG file and liner notes in a PDF file. The downloader can use these on the computer, or print out the artwork when burning an audio CD to create a nice product to go on the shelf.
Note that I don't expect these to be free. Downloading both files can add an extra £1.00 on to the cost of an album, netting stores, record companies and musicians extra income.
Before going any further, I should clarify my position. I don't download music from illegal sources. Personally, I like to know that my music collection is 100% above board and legal. Call it being obsessive if you like, but if I had even one illegal file in my collection it would spoil the whole thing and bother me until I deleted it. The temptation however has been there. If I want just one song from an artist and I can't get it through my usual stores then the thought does cross my mind.
Availability
That leads to my first thought - availability of content. We all know that iTunes has the largest collection of digital music available on the net, but for whatever reason plenty of people cannot or will not use that store. That could be down to their choice of operating system, or perhaps they cannot play the AAC files on their choice of digital music player. These people have to choose stores such as 7Digital, Amazon, Play.com etc. which whilst having a good collection, do not stock everything. There are still artists who do not release their music as downloads, and others who will not permit single track downloads.
In my opinion, by not making a track or album available in a digital store, downloaders are encouraged to seek out alternative sources for downloading this music. Other than buying the CD they have no choice. People are getting used to being able to get digital media now. Not waiting for a CD to be delivered in 2 days time, but waiting for the download in 2-5 minutes time.
Audio Quality
A majority of stores are offering music downloads in the MP3 format - a lossy format. In addition, most stores are offering MP3s at less than the maximum bitrate.
Although most people would be pushed to tell the difference between an MP3 at 256kbps versus a CD, should the downloader wish to convert the MP3 to an alternative format, further audio quality will be lost.
Downloads need to start being offered in lossless formats (FLAC is my choice). Yes the downloads are bigger, but the quality is identical to a CD. That FLAC can be kept as a master in the sameway that I have my CDs as masters. MP3 files can be created from the lossless file. Then in years to come should the MP3 go out of fashion, a new file can be created with no further loss in quality.
Of course, many consumers would not be aware of how to make the lossless file compatible with their music players by converting it to MP3, so this should be an option. When downloading the music files, purchasers should have the choice between lossless and MP3.
Pricing and Business Models
A big deterrent to downloading music legally is price. With a new CD album costing say £8.99 online, why should anyone download an album for £7.99? Obviously there are cost implications at the store in terms of file storage and bandwidth, but the consumer will only consider that they are getting a non-physical product with no jewel case, disc or artwork. Many will know that the audio quality is inferior to a CD. Because of this, consumers (myself included) will resent paying approximately the same cost of a CD particularly when so many albums will end up on sale in a few months and available for £5.00.
Single track downloads should be no more than 60p each, with albums costing no more than £5.00. For an average album, this will still encourage album sales as the cost per track will be lower (35-50p each depending on the number of tracks in the album).
Further attention should be given to online stores which operate a subscription model. The subscriber pays a certain amount per month which permits a limited number of downloads, which can be kept should the subscriber cease their subscription. This is the model that eMusic follows. As the number of downloads do not roll over each month, if a subscriber does not download the entitlement, then all the better for the store. Track costs should top out at 40p - cheaper than normal to encourage a subscription.
Downloadable Extras
As part of the cost of buying a CD, the purchaser gets not only the music but album artwork and liner notes. These should not cease just because there is no longer a physical product.
Downloaders should be given the choice to purchase album art in a high resolution PNG or JPG file and liner notes in a PDF file. The downloader can use these on the computer, or print out the artwork when burning an audio CD to create a nice product to go on the shelf.
Note that I don't expect these to be free. Downloading both files can add an extra £1.00 on to the cost of an album, netting stores, record companies and musicians extra income.
It occurs to me, nearly one week on, that I haven't written about this year's Eurovision Song Contest; held in Moscow.
Sadly, since it's been a few days I don't think I'll be able to comment on perhaps some of the more obscure acts of the contest. Saying that however, I don't recall it being an overly bizarre event.
Perhaps I have just established some kind of mental block, eliminating the poor and shameful acts from my consciousness but I do believe that the Eurovision Song Contest is becoming more serious. Nations are taking it more seriously - and so are we in the UK. Or at least we did this year.
I'm very pleased to be able to write that we did very well in this competition. Every time I have reviewed the event in the past, I have had to make reference to the poor performance of the UK entry. This time however; thanks to Jade's performance and Andrew Lloyd Webber on the piano; our nation ranked 5th out of 25 countries.
In order to eliminate some of the political voting that has marred the contest for so many years, this time jury voting was introduced which accounted for 50% of a countries score. The other 50% still being made up by the public telephone vote. On the face of it, one might consider that this is why we did well and indeed it did help. Looking at an unofficial source of results however, shows that with only the telephone vote, our song would still have scored 7th. Yes the jury vote has helped us, but not by such a significant margin as one might imagine.
To me though, this result really does prove that by putting in a lot of effort in using a talented singer, known song-writer and heavy European marketing; we can still do well.
Now the mission is to do the same again next year. On the back of a good result, can we entice performers that are well known in Europe to get involved? It is important to build on what went well this year, and improve our weaker points. Then maybe (but just maybe) we will be hosting the Eurovision Song Contest.
Sadly, since it's been a few days I don't think I'll be able to comment on perhaps some of the more obscure acts of the contest. Saying that however, I don't recall it being an overly bizarre event.
Perhaps I have just established some kind of mental block, eliminating the poor and shameful acts from my consciousness but I do believe that the Eurovision Song Contest is becoming more serious. Nations are taking it more seriously - and so are we in the UK. Or at least we did this year.
I'm very pleased to be able to write that we did very well in this competition. Every time I have reviewed the event in the past, I have had to make reference to the poor performance of the UK entry. This time however; thanks to Jade's performance and Andrew Lloyd Webber on the piano; our nation ranked 5th out of 25 countries.
In order to eliminate some of the political voting that has marred the contest for so many years, this time jury voting was introduced which accounted for 50% of a countries score. The other 50% still being made up by the public telephone vote. On the face of it, one might consider that this is why we did well and indeed it did help. Looking at an unofficial source of results however, shows that with only the telephone vote, our song would still have scored 7th. Yes the jury vote has helped us, but not by such a significant margin as one might imagine.
To me though, this result really does prove that by putting in a lot of effort in using a talented singer, known song-writer and heavy European marketing; we can still do well.
Now the mission is to do the same again next year. On the back of a good result, can we entice performers that are well known in Europe to get involved? It is important to build on what went well this year, and improve our weaker points. Then maybe (but just maybe) we will be hosting the Eurovision Song Contest.
The latest edition of the popular Linux distribution; Ubuntu was released on Thursday. Unfortunately if one wishes to use Amarok as their preferred music player the discovery that installing through Synaptic provides version 2 may come as a disappointment.
For me, I will not upgrade Amarok until the new edition supports an external MySQL database. I access my collection not only from my desktop computer, but also from a laptop in the living room (for playing music through the hi-fi). Having the collection stored within Amarok itself means that I would in effect have two different databases each maintaining their own statistics. Not good.
In addition to that, at present my website has a link to view my music library. This is compiled by accessing the external MySQL database that Amarok 1.4 is using. Therefore if I play a track, and the statistics are updated in Amarok; my website will show those exact same statistics. If I upgrade to Amarok 2 then this feature disappears.
I'm sure there are many that are in a similar situation to me for the reasons above and probably many others. So is the solution to just not upgrade Ubuntu from 8.10 to 9.04? No. There is another way.
A quick search on Google ('Amarok 1.4 Jaunty') reveals a blog which has detailed some very easy instructions for how replace Amarok 2 for Amarok 1.4. I've linked to the blog below, but for ease of reference I have expanded on those instructions here:
(Remember: to make life easy; you can highlight code, move to the terminal window, and then press the middle mouse button to paste and execute it.)
That's all there is to it. I've tested it and it works without fault! Huzzah!
For me, I will not upgrade Amarok until the new edition supports an external MySQL database. I access my collection not only from my desktop computer, but also from a laptop in the living room (for playing music through the hi-fi). Having the collection stored within Amarok itself means that I would in effect have two different databases each maintaining their own statistics. Not good.
In addition to that, at present my website has a link to view my music library. This is compiled by accessing the external MySQL database that Amarok 1.4 is using. Therefore if I play a track, and the statistics are updated in Amarok; my website will show those exact same statistics. If I upgrade to Amarok 2 then this feature disappears.
I'm sure there are many that are in a similar situation to me for the reasons above and probably many others. So is the solution to just not upgrade Ubuntu from 8.10 to 9.04? No. There is another way.
A quick search on Google ('Amarok 1.4 Jaunty') reveals a blog which has detailed some very easy instructions for how replace Amarok 2 for Amarok 1.4. I've linked to the blog below, but for ease of reference I have expanded on those instructions here:
(Remember: to make life easy; you can highlight code, move to the terminal window, and then press the middle mouse button to paste and execute it.)
- Open a terminal window (Gnome: Applications > Accessories > Terminal)
- Enter the following code:
sudo nano /etc/apt/sources.list.d/amarok.list
- Add the following text to the newly created text file:
deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/bogdanb/ppa/ubuntu jaunty main deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/bogdanb/ppa/ubuntu jaunty main
- Press CTRL+X to close the text file (DO NOT close the terminal window). When asked to save changes, press Y.
- Enter this code into the terminal (as one line):
sudo apt-key adv --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com / 0x1d7e9dd033e89ba781e32a24b9f1c432ae74ae63
- Update the repository with the new sources, remove the existing copy of Amarok (if it's installed) and install 1.4:
sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get remove amarok && sudo apt-get install amarok14
That's all there is to it. I've tested it and it works without fault! Huzzah!
The future of DRM protected music is increasingly in doubt. Not only have independent music specialists such as eMusic been offering MP3 downloads for a significant time, mainstream music is beginning to become available in the universal format through stores such as 7Digital, Amazon (which launched in the UK earlier this month) and Tesco Digital.
What makes things better though is when a big artist appears to come out in favour of MP3 downloads. In this case it's Sir Paul McCartney who, using the band name "The Fireman", has released an album online not only through digital retailers in the MP3 format but through his own website and it's the latter where one can really see how digital music sales should really be.
The MP3 format is not the only digital format available. For those who can make use of it, FLAC is also available at no extra charge and with the MP3 files included too. For the benefit of Apple users, they can download the album in Apple Lossless and again the MP3 files are part of the package. But not only does one obtain the music, but the album cover is included as a JPG image and the insert as a PDF document meaning not one aspect of owning the physical copy is lost in this digital purchase (except for having a physical product).
The benefit of offering lossless audio should be pretty obvious. The quality will be identical to that of a purchased CD even if it is burnt to a CD-R as CD Audio, and later re-ripped back to FLAC. There is no degredation and the impression I get from comments made on internet message boards is that quality is a big reason putting people off delving into downloads.
I'd love to see FLAC being taken up as an option by retailers. Download speeds are fast, and storage space is cheap so end users shouldn't suffer from the larger file sizes. Understandably, the retailers themselves may be doubtful. Afterall, 4 million songs in FLAC format could cause storage problems compared to MP3 and the bandwidth bill for the retailer could take a hit. My solution is to simply offer FLAC as a choice alongside MP3 and to charge a small amount extra for the privilege for a larger, better quality file.
What makes things better though is when a big artist appears to come out in favour of MP3 downloads. In this case it's Sir Paul McCartney who, using the band name "The Fireman", has released an album online not only through digital retailers in the MP3 format but through his own website and it's the latter where one can really see how digital music sales should really be.
The MP3 format is not the only digital format available. For those who can make use of it, FLAC is also available at no extra charge and with the MP3 files included too. For the benefit of Apple users, they can download the album in Apple Lossless and again the MP3 files are part of the package. But not only does one obtain the music, but the album cover is included as a JPG image and the insert as a PDF document meaning not one aspect of owning the physical copy is lost in this digital purchase (except for having a physical product).
The benefit of offering lossless audio should be pretty obvious. The quality will be identical to that of a purchased CD even if it is burnt to a CD-R as CD Audio, and later re-ripped back to FLAC. There is no degredation and the impression I get from comments made on internet message boards is that quality is a big reason putting people off delving into downloads.
I'd love to see FLAC being taken up as an option by retailers. Download speeds are fast, and storage space is cheap so end users shouldn't suffer from the larger file sizes. Understandably, the retailers themselves may be doubtful. Afterall, 4 million songs in FLAC format could cause storage problems compared to MP3 and the bandwidth bill for the retailer could take a hit. My solution is to simply offer FLAC as a choice alongside MP3 and to charge a small amount extra for the privilege for a larger, better quality file.