Pandora...

[kartoon42]

no folks im not talking about Avatar, the internet radio station.  Im just curious as to how that thing works, and how can we get the breakfast on there. i think it would be great marketing if a breakfast song could be part of a playlist for someone who searched for phish or moe. which probably happens a lot.

Thoughts, opinions, smart ass remarks?

ok upon further review, the breakfast is on there, but just 1 album. and when you make a breakfast playlist, you dont even hear the breakfast.

so how can we remedy the situation

[krispy]

when you make a breakfast playlist, you dont even hear the breakfast.

so how can we remedy the situation

that is just how pandora works.  You can not request  an artist, that is how they avoid royalties.  If you make a Phish playlist you may wait half a dozen songs before you hear any phish.  Same thing with TB.  As for requesting other albums there is an avenue for this specifically.  

Q: How do I suggest music if it\'s not already on Pandora?

When you try to add a song or artist to one of your stations, or try to create a station from a song or artist, and Pandora doesn\'t recognize it, please let us know!

Send your music suggestions to:
suggest-music@pandora.com

NOTE: If you have a band (or personally know a band), please do not write in with a suggestion. Instead, please submit your music to Pandora as an Indie Submission. If you know a band, you can share this option with them.

We love to hear what music is on your mind, and we prioritize listener requests when acquiring new music to add to the Music Genome. We also review \'failed searches\' to potentially add to our acquisitions list.

[Vassillios]

Check out Lala

http://www.lala.com

where much of the breakfasts music is. This is the avenue where they should be trying to go, since I believe they can make money off of it, in the future at least.

[GLuft3]

Lala.com is pretty cool.  I don\'t understand their business model, but if the band can benefit, then so much the better.

[Vassillios]

Lala.com is pretty cool.  I don\'t understand their business model, but if the band can benefit, then so much the better.

Yeah I was confused too, but it really seems like the future of internet music.

You can only stream a song once all the way through. After that, you only get a 30 second clip, and you have to pay I think $.10 per song which is added to your "wallet". Your wallet builds up over time, which is eventually added to your credit card bill. You can also download songs for $.89 or so.

I think streaming music is definitely the way of the future for musicians and the industry as a whole, because it forces consumers to pay for the music instead of having the ability to download almost any album you want for free somewhere on the internet. I read an article in Rolling Stone about this, where former Yahoo! Music general manager Ian Rogers quoted, "Once iPods can play streams, I don\'t have a use for a download anymore."

I\'m curious to hear other musician\'s opinions on this. Jim Cobb? Bdfree? Peaches? tmn8r, suquia, chrislikesbass, thatguy? Leith and Yoda you gotta have something.

[siflandollie]

I find the whole music "industry" thing quite an interesting thing.  Up until around 1910 or so the music business was based entirely upon performance, there was no "record" to sell, and thus no record "industry".  

If you ask me things are coming around full circle, there is no longer a physical product for the industry to push, which has been hurting anybody who is still trying to hold onto that business model.  The focus has swung back towards live performance and not record sales (as much).  This is due largely to people downloading music illegally.  Which pisses off the industry people.  The thing that grinds my gears about it is that the record companies are expecting the consumers to pay the same for a compressed MP3 as they would for an actual record.  It\'s kind of like downloading a picture of the Mona Lisa, and I sure as shit ain\'t paying for that.

The new business model is not even that new.  You can not make money trying to sell a record anymore period.  The real money is now found in licensing for films/ads etc.  Or ad based-revenue on download sites.  

A business model like lala.com falls someplace inbetween, somewhat of a compromise between the old sales and new illegal downloads.  Will it work?  maybe, but I kind of doubt it.  It\'s hard to charge somebody money for something they can get for free.

But, while the artists may be getting hurt in the short run, the people who are really losing money/jobs are the industry people.  And well, fuck \'em.  The bottom line is the $$ not the :disco:  and Live music will never die.  And that\'s why bands that focus on the live aspect last longer than those trying to sell records with the backing of a large record company, if you don\'t sell your product you get dropped, and these days nobody is buying.  But really it is a tough climate for anybody involved in Music today, the whole business and way people listen to music is changing right in front of us, and noone is entirely sure where it is going next.

[freddiewaht]

on my phone,i prefer groovefish over pandora any day of the week..

[Vassillios]

I find the whole music "industry" thing quite an interesting thing.  Up until around 1910 or so the music business was based entirely upon performance, there was no "record" to sell, and thus no record "industry".  

If you ask me things are coming around full circle, there is no longer a physical product for the industry to push, which has been hurting anybody who is still trying to hold onto that business model.  The focus has swung back towards live performance and not record sales (as much).  This is due largely to people downloading music illegally.  Which pisses off the industry people.  The thing that grinds my gears about it is that the record companies are expecting the consumers to pay the same for a compressed MP3 as they would for an actual record.  It\'s kind of like downloading a picture of the Mona Lisa, and I sure as shit ain\'t paying for that.

The new business model is not even that new.  You can not make money trying to sell a record anymore period.  The real money is now found in licensing for films/ads etc.  Or ad based-revenue on download sites.  

A business model like lala.com falls someplace inbetween, somewhat of a compromise between the old sales and new illegal downloads.  Will it work?  maybe, but I kind of doubt it.  It\'s hard to charge somebody money for something they can get for free.

But, while the artists may be getting hurt in the short run, the people who are really losing money/jobs are the industry people.  And well, fuck \'em.  The bottom line is the $$ not the :disco:  and Live music will never die.  And that\'s why bands that focus on the live aspect last longer than those trying to sell records with the backing of a large record company, if you don\'t sell your product you get dropped, and these days nobody is buying.  But really it is a tough climate for anybody involved in Music today, the whole business and way people listen to music is changing right in front of us, and noone is entirely sure where it is going next.

Well said, though ticket sales were also down last year. Of course this is due to the economic climate and will most likely only result in the short run, but it\'s true that live performances are where bands are going to be making their money in the future.

People are still going to want to listen to music in their homes, cars, ipods, etc. so there is still a demand for it, thus there is a way to capitalize on it. It\'s just a matter of finding the right thing, and I think streaming music is the best way. If you only make your music available for streams, nobody can download it for free.

[cannontrip]

If you only make your music available for streams, nobody can download it for free.

not necessarily, any stream *can* be captured, saved, & converted.  It just takes more work & knowhow to overcome the obstacles.  I think the way to go is with the flow of the people (consumers).  For example, post all live shows on a dedicated website for ad revenue.  Files can still be hosted on LMA and linked thru profitable site with tasteful advertising.  GD radio.net is funded by ad revenue (and donations), they ask listeners to click an ad or two on their page to help generate revenue; something most b\'fast fans wouldn\'t mind doing (if the $ are going straight to the band).  .info also generates some amount of ad revenue, though I\'d imagine Dave Peck spent(ds) some out of pocket money to keep this place up and running.
I agree that recording for profit has passed, and new, innovative strategies are required for the survival of the music industry.  The RIAA and MPAA should have caught the wind a while ago and setup their own sites; as is said, ya can\'t fight the tide...[actually you can... but it\'s best avoided]

and breakfast should raise ticket prices :duck: