Elbows Music Blog Community

never heard of them. plus the notion of "internet radio" is just silly. It gives the idea that internet is airwave and frequency that can be occupied and people has to listen to  particular frequency.  I am sure it is part of their plan to apply radio law/entertainment/tax/fee legislation onto the internet. But I'll laugh when reality finally catches up and they figure out that the internet is nothing like radio airwave. Internet is a giant file transfer system. It's big tangled web of bits being shoved around.

 I'll chuck this one in anachronism bin along with "internet can be divided into geographical market segment". Let them play their silly game, as long as it doesn't really affect the fundamental working of internet.

Good music will keep flowing, just as crappy one. Payola just helps me identify which one which. (can't keep using iTune top chart to keep as crappy music indicator I suppose.)

I don't really get Joey's concern that he wants to know if the music he is listening to is there through talent or there through money. Surely if he decides the band he is listening to has very little talent then he will skip the track or stop listening to the service. It might be the case that he quite likes a track that paid its way to his ears, his enjoyment shouldn't really be affected by the context in which it came to be about.

Yeah It's true and I agree that the less money dictates the success of a band the better.

But from the viewpoint of someone who is purely a listener it seems a little pretentious, and quite unfair on bands with money, to change your opinion of a song based on their bank balance.

Surely the only people who should be concerned about bands buying their way to airplay are people like Earbits who are going to be running a service that makes its money by compromising on quality. It is very worrying that there are companies willing to pump such large sums of cash into a business model which seems so doomed to failure. If the music is compromised then listeners will stop listening and if the quality is still good then I have no problem.

Nope, PFoS, sorry, but I disagree.

Putting out a record or even a handful of demos, every single tiny little thing costs money.  This means if you have it you will be heard and if you don't, you won't.  It's as simple as that - broke bands simply cannot pay for the access to every possible thing - how much for a radio plugger, how much to be featured here, or there... the list of opportunities to lose money is basically endless.

The best thing about the internet is that the cost barrier vanishes, because it can be replaced with work.  You can't just become an internet sensation by having an awesome song, but if you are prepared to work hard, find blogs, community radio stations, freelance journalists and so on and to get in touch with them, then you are on a level playing field with everyone who has to do the same.

As soon as things like this cost money, the overwhelming advantage settles in favour of the people who are rich.  The listeners may not care where something comes from, but if you're on every last channel known to man because you can afford to be so, then the broke band who is just on the few places they can submit to without having to pay has no chance.

Irrespective of quality and popularity, the ones with more money will be heard more often and hence have a million times more chance to find their audience than people bands who can't cough up.