4 ms·

The new Muxtape is live

27 points by KevinBongart 18y ago

ryanb 18y ago
Elegantly designed, but they still don't appear to have any business plan in mind. Are bands/record labels expected to pay to promote their own music?
- catone 18y ago
  On their FAQ page, it mentions future plans to offer utilities for bands to sell downloads, create and sell merchandise, and sell concert tickets. Presumably, those would be pay services. (They could also sell premium packages that allow artists to put up more tracks, get analytics, etc.). I mean, this is all conjecture, but figuring out the business model for a site like this doesn't seem too difficult. Whether or not indie bands will pay for that sort of thing, and how much, is a completely different issue.
- aston 18y ago
  Looks like there might be some planned synergy here between muxtape and Normative, Jakob Lodwick's music label. Reggie Watts--one of the featured artists--is signed to the label, and Lodwick is an (the?) investor in muxtape.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Reggie Watts, Francis and the Lights, Adron, and Vulture Realty are all from Normative. Eric Lodwick - Jakob's younger brother - is a member of Vulture Realty.
  - blasdel 18y ago
    Reggie Watts is Jakob Lodwick's roommate. It's always more incestual than you would even think!
    - pstinnett 18y ago
      Normative and Muxtape also share an office.
      - unalone 18y ago
        Not to mention Lodwick payed Justin O, the developer of Muxtape, $95,000 to work on Muxtape, and Lodwick and Francis of Francis and the Lights used to be roommates. The NY startup scene is fascinating.
apgwoz 18y ago
While I appreciate that muxtape is still alive, the new identity of it definitely does not reflect the free spirited discovery tool that it once was.
- unalone 18y ago
  Well... no, because that was violating copyright like mad. On the bright side, that led to Opentape (http://opentape.fm/ http://opentape.fm/), which is much more open for use.
  - apgwoz 18y ago
    > Well... no, because that was violating copyright like mad. That's the point. By doing so, it allowed users to discover music in a new way, like a traditional "mixtape." It's no accident that "muxtape" is extremely similar to "mixtape." I'm familiar with opentape, and while it's a great project, the appeal for me with muxtape was simply the fact that I could go click on some random tape on the front page and hear new music... analogous to finding a random mix tape on the floor of a concert, with a track listing.
    - unalone 18y ago
      Yeah, but the "point" was illegal. Gawker wrote an article about this that made a pretty good point: "Make something somebody wants" is only a valid tactic if you can legally provide that thing. I'll miss it. But the new one's gorgeous.
      - apgwoz 18y ago
        Well, the question of legality is just that, a question. The terms of services specifically stated that you must not upload music that you don't have permission to let Muxtape use. This is what I remember it to be, but archive.org doesn't have muxtape.com yet (from http://wiredformusic.blogspot.com/2008/03/muxtape-barely-legal.html http://wiredformusic.blogspot.com/2008/03/muxtape-barely-leg...): Muxtape is a service for creating mixtapes. Users may not upload multiple songs from the same album or artist, or songs they do not have permission to let Muxtape use. Individual users may not create multiple muxtapes. Accounts not meeting these restrictions are subject to termination without notice. Muxtape will never reveal your email address to a third party. Muxtape is alive. Wasn't there some ruling that said that websites that host user contributed content aren't liable for copyright infringement, iff they comply with take down requests in a timely manor? I would think that would apply here. Also, if I remember correctly, by the end of the original muxtape, they were linking out to Amazon for purchases. I wonder how much money was actually paid out to record companies from this? Another tought: would muxtape have been able to get a license similar to the one Pandora uses for it's service?

27 points by KevinBongart 18y ago

ryanb 18y ago

Elegantly designed, but they still don't appear to have any business plan in mind. Are bands/record labels expected to pay to promote their own music?

catone 18y ago
On their FAQ page, it mentions future plans to offer utilities for bands to sell downloads, create and sell merchandise, and sell concert tickets. Presumably, those would be pay services. (They could also sell premium packages that allow artists to put up more tracks, get analytics, etc.). I mean, this is all conjecture, but figuring out the business model for a site like this doesn't seem too difficult. Whether or not indie bands will pay for that sort of thing, and how much, is a completely different issue.
aston 18y ago
Looks like there might be some planned synergy here between muxtape and Normative, Jakob Lodwick's music label. Reggie Watts--one of the featured artists--is signed to the label, and Lodwick is an (the?) investor in muxtape.
- unalone 18y ago
  Reggie Watts, Francis and the Lights, Adron, and Vulture Realty are all from Normative. Eric Lodwick - Jakob's younger brother - is a member of Vulture Realty.
- blasdel 18y ago
  Reggie Watts is Jakob Lodwick's roommate. It's always more incestual than you would even think!
  - pstinnett 18y ago
    Normative and Muxtape also share an office.
    - unalone 18y ago
      Not to mention Lodwick payed Justin O, the developer of Muxtape, $95,000 to work on Muxtape, and Lodwick and Francis of Francis and the Lights used to be roommates. The NY startup scene is fascinating.

apgwoz 18y ago

While I appreciate that muxtape is still alive, the new identity of it definitely does not reflect the free spirited discovery tool that it once was.

unalone 18y ago
Well... no, because that was violating copyright like mad. On the bright side, that led to Opentape (http://opentape.fm/ http://opentape.fm/), which is much more open for use.
- apgwoz 18y ago
  > Well... no, because that was violating copyright like mad. That's the point. By doing so, it allowed users to discover music in a new way, like a traditional "mixtape." It's no accident that "muxtape" is extremely similar to "mixtape." I'm familiar with opentape, and while it's a great project, the appeal for me with muxtape was simply the fact that I could go click on some random tape on the front page and hear new music... analogous to finding a random mix tape on the floor of a concert, with a track listing.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Yeah, but the "point" was illegal. Gawker wrote an article about this that made a pretty good point: "Make something somebody wants" is only a valid tactic if you can legally provide that thing. I'll miss it. But the new one's gorgeous.
    - apgwoz 18y ago
      Well, the question of legality is just that, a question. The terms of services specifically stated that you must not upload music that you don't have permission to let Muxtape use. This is what I remember it to be, but archive.org doesn't have muxtape.com yet (from http://wiredformusic.blogspot.com/2008/03/muxtape-barely-legal.html http://wiredformusic.blogspot.com/2008/03/muxtape-barely-leg...): Muxtape is a service for creating mixtapes. Users may not upload multiple songs from the same album or artist, or songs they do not have permission to let Muxtape use. Individual users may not create multiple muxtapes. Accounts not meeting these restrictions are subject to termination without notice. Muxtape will never reveal your email address to a third party. Muxtape is alive. Wasn't there some ruling that said that websites that host user contributed content aren't liable for copyright infringement, iff they comply with take down requests in a timely manor? I would think that would apply here. Also, if I remember correctly, by the end of the original muxtape, they were linking out to Amazon for purchases. I wonder how much money was actually paid out to record companies from this? Another tought: would muxtape have been able to get a license similar to the one Pandora uses for it's service?