Should Pandora, Spotify, Rdio, MOG et al even exist?

My FM radio experience consisted primarily of Z100 in the mid-late 90's, so maybe I never really got to experience a 'truly great DJ' in comparison to whom Pandora would seem like a pale imitation, but the fact is that those DJ's can only ever be the exception to the rule. However I do think he's right that the other streaming music services have little to offer (notice how he leaves Pandora out of that list), they have the basically the same music and basically the same service offering. And they do precious little to actually improve circumstances for the music artists themselves.

In contrast, I think Pandora probably does the most of any of these services for the artists themselves, despite the author's argument that it's profit model is primarily about advertising and branding. The key here is the technology -- the Music Genome Project, which the author dismisses right at the start, really does improve discoverability for musicians, as it analyzes and recommends music (and hence artists) not based on whether the artists are or are not subjectively cool-and-trendy (which, let's face it, is how the mainstream music business works), but rather on the actual qualities of the music, and it can then compare that to an individual listener's historical music preferences. If this were the primary mechanism of the music industry (and on the merits, why should it not be?) I imagine it would really free artists up to spend as much time as possible on making the coolest and most awesome music they can come up with, and save them a whole lot of money on things like PR, etc., which has little to do with music itself.

No DJs? Why, there's plenty, they just don't get typical "airtime" anymore. Countless music blogs exist for every genre and niche, not to mention the algorithmic streaming/recommendation services.

"Would you rather save the recording industry, the VC’s, the music technology startup companies or the musicians that provide the means for both those entities to actually exist?"

That's a loaded question, but its greatest fallacy is implying only one can survive. VCs will back whoever they think will bring them a profit and by their nature will seek disruption. Labels are supposed to be handling marketing on behalf of the artists, but mostly exploit them. And tech startups are at the mercy of the labels (and the market). I'd do without the labels and keep the rest. And this might be the greatest opportunity in the industry: the next gen label.

1. Lowering the friction of building a fanbase for the musician

2. Improving discoverability for the musician

3. Helps musicians monetize their loyal fanbase

In short, the musicians are there customers. CD Baby, Myspace, Soundcloud, Youtube all got it right.

Turntable, Pandora, etc. are going after the segment of the music industry that needs the least help, mainly brands (thru advertisers), listeners and music labels.

Serve the musicians, dominate the market. (all IMHO)

As for DJs, did the author completely forget about 'older' streaming internet radio? There are tons of stations that stream music, curated by live people. If people truly wanted great DJs to pick out their music for them, why haven't any online streaming stations taken off the way Pandora has? (or any of the others)

Further, the author says modern rock music is bland etc. That reads more like a criticism of modern rock music, and less like there's a lack of big ideas in music. I'm not familiar enough with modern music in general to say anything on it myself, but perhaps the 'rebellious youth' have moved on from rock?

I really like this essay for the fact that the problems of the industry are not solved by anything that exists at the intersection of VC money and label money.

Lets put it this way: if every one of the four majors stopped signing acts, fired their A&R staff and just focused on precision, AARRR pirate style marketing of catalog, they'd last a lot longer than they will at the rate they're going.

The problems of a diminishing business can't be solved by incrementally improving what is already being done on the backs of money that just sustains the hegemony. It will come with very real disruption.

I think that this will however offshoot out of the Pandora's, Spotify's, Grooveshark's, MOG's, RDIO's, iTunes' and Amazon's of the world. I just don't think we're there yet.

It's still too caught up on the song, file and data aspect of "play" rather than a real adaptation to the changing role of music and music as a holistic cultural experience rather than an artifact/entity.

Anyhooooo....

I can't really agree with this at all. Maybe the big-label top 40 stuff is at an all-time low, but I'm hearing more innovative and daring music coming from young people today than I have in a long, long time. You have to be willing to do a little work to find it though.

Most ads they play are focused on New York City, but give it some years Pandora or a future/similar service will take over the local radio ad market. If not fully over take, offer a better alternative.

This doesn't make much sense to me. MTV isn't a music distribution service, it's an advertising channel. They promote your music to millions of viewers for free (well, to you - the viewers pay). You want them to pay you? That's like expecting Google to pay you to show your ads.

If you don't want their services, that's fine.