Why I downloaded it: Rhapsody promotes new releases on their home page. It was a no-brainer to check out this album from (most of) the group that created the best rock album of the late 80's - Appetite For Destruction. Rhapsody's review: We know they're experienced -- between the five members and uber-producer Brendan O'Brien, Velvet Revolver have logged over a century in the biz. Thus, it's overcoming the STP meets GnR tag that is VR's greatest challenge, and they do a fine job with Libertad. Although each member gets his time to show off, the group sounds more comfortable binding together. Tightly composed, upbeat, carnal and suave with the huge riffs you'd expect, songs like "She Mine" and "Mary Mary" are fitting for a cruise down the Sunset Strip -- or at least for a quality session of air guitar. My take: Guns N' Roses minus Axl Rose plus Scott Weiland (ex-lead singer of Stone Temple Pilots) times second album together equals Good Rock Album. But not quite a great rock album. It's better than their debut Contraband and more of the songs have a GnR sound to them. It's just not revolutionary or exciting while sounding more like late 80's, early 90's rock than something released in 2007. That's not a horrible thing if you like late 80's rock or more specifically Guns N' Roses or Stone Temple Pilots, and it's worth a free download or stream if you do.
About the Weekly Rhap: Anyone that follows my Multiply knows that I'm a huge proponent of Rhapsody (and other unlimited music subscription services). The model has changed the way I consume music as much as the DVR changed the way I watch tv. What I love most about it is that  I can check out any new album or artist on a whim risk free, and by check out I don't mean a 30-second preview. I can put the whole album on my MP3 player and listen 20 times. Sometimes I get too busy and don't check out new stuff as often as I should, so I'm going to try to briefly review an album a week to ensure I don't miss anything. If you have any suggestions for albums I should listen to, let me know!

Why I downloaded it: There was a 2 page story in the May issue of GQ that discussed how ridiculously popular this band is in the UK. Shortly after that I read a review of the album in Bass Player magazine's "BP Recommends" section.  (Great example of the effect of repetitive coverage, with the secondary coverage prompting my checking out the album.) Rhapsody's review: The Arctic Monkeys' 2006 debut was a massive hit in their native Britain and even broke the U.S. Top 40. The excitement of the new is gone for this follow-up, but the Arctic Monkeys prove they weren't a flash in the pan. Here, their guitar sound is streamlined, putting even more of a spotlight on Alex Turner's cheeky teenage narratives. The feel of the AMs sets them apart more than their sound does. They don't ape the Beatles, the Smiths or the Jam, but update their quintessentially English approach, showing that poor, provincial yobs can see right through their "betters." My take: You ever try on a pair of shoes and they fit but aren't necessarily comfortable? But you figure after a while you'll wear them in. Music used to be like that. You'd shell out your allowance and buy a CD after hearing one or two songs on the radio, or you sacrifice beer money to buy the fifth album from a favorite group on the day it comes out. After listening for the first time you're like "eh." But because you just shelled out the bucks and you can't just go to the store and get a new CD you listen to it again and again and again. Eventually you know all the songs and lyrics and you think it's great! For better or for worse, those days are gone with digital music and especially subscription music. If I download an album because I like a couple a songs and the rest of the album doesn't appeal I just delete the songs I don't care for. Or if I try something by someone I never heard of before and the first couple tracks don't appeal, I don't even bother with the rest. I just listen to something else. After listening to Favourite Worst Nightmare for the first time, I listened to it a second time. And a third. And it's still getting heavy rotation. Like a rare pair of shoes, it was comfortable the first time I put it on and it became a favourite very quickly. Rhapsody classifies the genre as Indie Rock but if I had to describe it I'd say it's a cross between punk and pop rock, with a subtle 80's new wave influence. Heck maybe that's what Indie Rock is? I don't know. What I do know is that this album was enjoyable from the get go and if you like groups as diverse as The Clash, Green Day, No Doubt, Maroon 5, White Stripes, or Depeche Mode - or in other words - if you like music - you'll probably dig this album too.
About the Weekly Rhap: Anyone that follows my Multiply knows that I'm a huge proponent of Rhapsody (and other unlimited music subscription services). The model has changed the way I consume music as much as the DVR changed the way I watch tv. What I love most about it is that  I can check out any new album or artist on a whim risk free, and by check out I don't mean a 30-second preview. I can put the whole album on my MP3 player and listen 20 times. Sometimes I get too busy and don't check out new stuff as often as I should, so I'm going to try to briefly review an album a week to ensure I don't miss anything. If you have any suggestions for albums I should listen to, let me know!

Why I downloaded it: Over a year ago Time Magazine briefly reviewed Lady Sovereign's debut album, Vertically Challenged, as one of 5 CDS You Should Not Miss. I downloaded it and it was a pretty good listen. More recently I read that she's currently opening for Gwen  Stefani and that Jay-Z signed her for his label. Rhapsody's review: One day, while taking a break from his busy schedule of (still) not(officially) dating Beyonce, Jay-Z looked at the Def Jam roster and realized what was missing was a pint-sized female rap prodigy. So faster than you can say "retired," Jay recruited the motor-mouthed, Cockney slang-slinging emcee Lady Sovereign. Public Warning, her rollicking Def Jam debut, is so good that it's easier to list what doesn't work: "Those Were the Days" is kind of boring. That's it. The moral of the story? As usual, Hova knows best. My take: A unique combination of the female braggadocio of a Missy Eliot, the pitch of an MC Lyte, and the lyrics and ability to alter flow of an Eminem. With so much rap sounding the same and talking about the same things, it's great to hear something that's not only unique sounding, but very good. A must listen for any hip-hop fan.
About the Weekly Rhap: Anyone that follows my Multiply knows that I'm a huge proponent of Rhapsody (and other unlimited music subscription services). The model has changed the way I consume music as much as the DVR changed the way I watch tv. What I love most about it is that  I can check out any new album or artist on a whim risk free, and by check out I don't mean a 30-second preview. I can put the whole album on my MP3 player and listen 20 times. Sometimes I get too busy and don't check out new stuff as often as I should, so I'm going to try to briefly review an album a week to ensure I don't miss anything. If you have any suggestions, let me know!

This article describes why I'm personally not excited about the iPhone, despite how awesome it sounds.

While the iPhone may be the phone of the future, to the degree that it is a music player, it is based on the ideas of the past.

Rhapsody, not iTunes, in my opinion, is the future of music.

RealNetworks is way ahead of Apple in navigating the complexities of licensing and software for a streaming music service. Maybe the two companies will somehow get together. Until they do, or Apple otherwise gets the music subscription religion, the iPhone won't be what it should be.

Also, an interesting NY Times article that pretty much slams all copy-protection.

Want an iPhone? Beware the iHandcuffs

IN the long view, Mr. Goldberg said he believes that today’s copy-protection battles will prove short-lived. Eventually, perhaps in 5 or 10 years, he predicts, all portable players will have wireless broadband capability and will provide direct access, anytime, anywhere, to every song ever released for a low monthly subscription fee.

It’s a prediction that has a high probability of realization because such a system is already found in South Korea, where three million subscribers enjoy direct, wireless access to a virtually limitless music catalog for only $5 a month.

Anyone who has followed my blogging knows I'm a big proponent of the subscription model for listening to digital music. (See iTunes is dead) It's perhaps the 2nd most impactful (after DVR) example of technology altering my lifestyle.

There's a lot of coverage today on MTV's entry into this market with their Urge offering. Like Rhapsody, Napster, and Yahoo Music, users of Urge can pay a flat monthly fee ($9.95 for just streaming / $14.95 for streaming and downloading to PCs and MP3 players) for virtually unlimited music.

Two things make this news especially compelling. First MTV, despite the fact that there's no music on the main network itself anymore, is still a tremendous music brand, perhaps the strongest if you consider the ability to promote the product. Apple with it's iTunes and iPod and iBono are certainly in the arena but they need to pay for those hip commercials. Perhaps some would consider MySpace a good music brand. Maybe if you're 20 years old and like hunting for independent stuff. If somebody can think of a better music brand and outlet for virtually free promotion (I have something like 8 or 9 MTV or VH1 channels on my cable system) please reply.

Second, as opposed to coming out with a proprietary music player as Yahoo, Rhapsody, and Napster have, MTV's Urge will work natively with Windows Media Player 11. You can play and manage music you download from the other subscription services with WMP, but you can't browse, stream and download from WMP. With Urge you can. This means more promotion for the service when you think about all those PCs pre-installed with Windows Media Player.

Some may cringe with some stale "Microsoft is evil" sentiment. Before you do, please keep in mind that you can only play songs you buy on iTunes on iPods, not other MP3 players, nor will songs you buy on other services work on iPods. That's more iRestrictive than anything Microsoft is doing, in the digital music realm at least.

I'll definitely check out Urge as my $5/month Yahoo subscription runs out in a couple of months and I'm not re-upping with them. If nothing else, hopefully Urge, MTV, and Microsoft will bring more awareness to what is a vastly superior way to pay for music.

CNET/New York Times article

In a very recent post called iTunes is Dead I wrote about how superior the unlimited-music-subscription business model is compared to purchasing songs by the track. In the post I wrote:

...the concept of burning CDs will be obsolete at some point too. People will just share playlists since others will have access to an unlimited library as well. This kind of sharing currently takes place among subscribers of the same service. But eventually a subscriber of service A will be able to share a playlist with a subscriber of service B.

I just read today in an article on CNET, Digital Music Spins New Sales Approach, that

Burke, a South Carolina software tester, operates a popular series of Web sites called Scopecreep.com, where he's posted thousands of digital music playlists, from "Best songs of 1989" to "Palindrome songs," that can be played by any Yahoo or RealNetworks Rhapsody music service subscriber.

Not that my prediction that you'd be able to share playlists between services was remarkably bold, but I wasn't expecting it to be validated about 2 weeks after I made it. The article itself doesn't really talk about intra-service sharing, but does talk about how the the subscription services facilitate sharing and how this is the biggest weapon they have against Apple's dominance.

When I refer to iTunes above, I don’t mean the brand or the site. Rather, I’m referring to the business model of selling digital music by the track. In fact, much to the credit of Apple’s brilliant marketing, very loyal following, and leadership position with their iPod and iTunes products, buying songs on an itemized basis may perhaps be the most popular, fastest growing ever obsolete technology.

Those that are legally acquiring digital music on-line are likely buying music on an itemized basis and not subscribing to a service that allows unlimited streaming and downloads for a flat fee. These services include Rhapsody, Yahoo Music, Napster, and perhaps a few others. For those not familiar, the way these new services work is simple. For a flat fee – I currently pay $5 per month – you can download any song in their library. No, you don’t own it. But so what? You can take the song with you on an MP3 player. You can, pretty easily, listen to any song on your home stereo or car stereo.

The only thing you can’t do with a song you’re renting is burn it to a CD, although you can still buy the track if you want to do that. Of course, even if you buy a song you have limited rights, and the concept of burning CDs will be obsolete at some point too. People will just share playlists since others will have access to an unlimited library as well. This kind of sharing currently takes place among subscribers of the same service. But eventually a subscriber of service A will be able to share a playlist with a subscriber of service B. Add to that the power of Multiply where you can share and converse with your social network!

One thing you don’t get with the subscription model is the hassle of ownership. I’ve read a few stories recently about iTunes users losing their library of paid-for music via hard-drive crash or some other catastrophe and there being no easy way to replace it. I used to make sure I backed up my MP3s because I felt restoring a backup would be easier than re-ripping. I ultimately gave up backups because my library got too big and I figured I could always re-rip. Then I had to upgrade hard-drives which, while not necessarily expensive, is another headache. Now, I’m worry free.

The biggest benefit is the freedom of being able to listen to new music. Like a happy Netflix user, I find myself looking more toward unfamiliar and new than the familiar and old. During dinner I’m listening to old jazz. In my bass lessons I’m learning how to play blues, so I’m listening to lots of blues. I read a review of 4 or 5 new albums, and then I listen to them. It doesn’t cost me anything (extra) to listen to something new.

Although I’ve felt this way for a while what prompted me to write today was an article I read on CNET, HP drops iTunes, taps RealNetworks. Although the focus of the article is about Hewlett-Packard shifting from iTunes as the default music player on its computers to Rhapsody which in itself is partly indicative of the trend I’m predicting, what I find most compelling is the last paragraph:

RealNetworks also on Thursday is expected to unveil a separate distribution deal with cable giant Cox Communications, which for the first time will allow the music service's monthly fee to be included on a customer's cable bill.

Imagine what making “Unlimited Music Downloads” a simple option when signing up for cable would do for adoption. Basic or Digital? Would you like HBO? Would you like DVR service? Would you like internet? VoIP? Unlimited Music?

I’m not predicting that the model of paying $0.79 for a song will go away. Just like you can still buy vinyl, there will niche uses. But based on the overwhelming endorsements typical of unlimited music subscribers and the fact that there aren't any benefits to the itemized model, I do believe that someday everyone will be paying flat monthly or yearly fees.