Today the "YouTube for sounds" service SoundCloud announced the launch of SoundCloud Go, a subscription service which unlocks many tunes from big-name labels and offline storage. Having tried it, I'm completely underwhelmed. I love SoundCloud as a service, I really do. It is my go-to platform to discover new music. And while Go is a good effort, its implementation falls short.

For $9.99 or $12.99 a month, it's hard to not compare to Spotify or other big name music streaming services. After all, it's the same price. But what you're getting isn't the same value. I love SoundCloud for its collection of unique indie artists, and that's there whether I have Go or not. Go is supposed to add licensed music from big-name labels, but it doesn't. Searching for the likes of Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, or any other superstar artist just doesn't pull up any real results. Go results are in their own separate page when you search so it's easy to distinguish, but it's almost never what I'm looking for. The organization of the songs is random at best, sometimes putting covers or tributes ahead of the actual music. Forget artist or album pages, too. When I first saw Go on the SoundCloud homepage this morning, I was hoping SoundCloud could do something YouTube is still struggling to do. Find a happy medium between user generated content and licensed music. I was let down hard.

Sure, you get an ad-free experience and the ability to download tracks, but that's hardly worth $9.99/month. If they implemented this licensed music functionality in a decent manner and added more organization tools, and signed up more labels, and bundled their Pro features, then and only then it might be worth the price tag.

Like I said, I love SoundCloud. I just wish they would stop limiting themselves and try to become a real contender. This half-baked implementation of a Spotify-esque streaming system just shows that SoundCloud needs to get its act together. There have been many rumors circulating of SoundCloud losing huge amounts of money, which doesn't surprise me. Their only ways of income are ads and pro sales. (And now Go sales.) But paying off record labels so they don't sue and the cost for hosting music is crushing them. Unfortunately, the only solution to this is a paid tier that doesn't, well, suck.

Sources: SoundCloud, Engadget

If you don't know what net neutrality is, check out my net neutrality post. Verizon has made news this week by announcing that their Go90 video service will not count towards their user's data. This isn't the first time carriers have given certain services a pardon, with T-Mobile boasting free unlimited music streaming to certain services. So what's the problem? It's good for the user, so who cares? Who doesn't want unlimited music streaming or video?

Well, the problem here lies in the very problem with violating net neutrality. It's unfair for other businesses that aren't given this privilege. Imagine that you want to create a new company that streams music to compete with Spotify, but something Spotify has that you won't is that streaming Spotify doesn't affect people's' data. This means you're never going to become as big as Spotify unless you're added to this special "VIP" data list. Not only is this bad for that company, it's bad for the user because it curbs competition. Verizon's choice to have their Go90 app free of data charges is even worse than T-Mobile, because they're the ones directly making a profit and stealing users from the likes of other video streaming platforms. While I don't like T-Mobile's choice to have certain music streaming services not incur data charges, I think it's at least more morally acceptable than what Verizon has just done. At least T-Mobile continues to add various music websites to encourage competition. Verizon, on the other hand, has done this purely for selfish gain.

Sources: TechCrunch, T-Mobile

Technology in music is often seen as a bad thing from people who don't understand it. You'll frequently find people of the opinion that auto-tune and computer generated sounds becoming popular is something that destroys music as an art form. This simply isn't true.

Electronic music is at the highest point it's ever been in history, and while there is a fair share of uncreative dance music, in order to believe it is all like that you have to be willingly ignorant of the beautiful music created of this genre. I'll use Porter Robinson as an example. He started his career producing dance music to be played at popular festivals. Typical stuff to get people going. Over the past few years he has transitioned into using his talent in a more creative way, making music with meaning and experimental genre mixing. A great example of his transition is in his song Fellow Feeling, which describes his opinion on how popular electronic music sounds ugly to him. "Hear what I hear" preceding the industrial and "ugly" chorus, saying the ugliness will all die out, are all talking about mainstream electronic music. If it sounds ugly, that's because it's supposed to contrast with the beauty at the beginning.

Electronic music isn't only EDM. Dance music has its place. People want to get pumped up, but to think that all music made with a computer is made without creativity is ridiculous. If anything, electronic music requires more creativity than standard music production. Designing the individual sounds, combined with the infinite possibilities allowed with a computer makes it one of the most creative outlets music has ever had. 

Many other genres have also been heavily influenced by electronic music, namely pop, R&B, and alternative. Similar to electronic music, there is music of this genre meant to get people pumped up, but there is also music made with beauty and meaning. Below are just a few examples of what can be done from each genre.

Technology has opened up new doors for music and to undermine that by calling all electronically-influenced music talentless is an insult to artists everywhere. Amazing music is constantly getting released, and it's more accessible than ever thanks to services like YouTube, SoundCloud, Spotify, and more. Technology has not only made music better, but more accessible for everyone. 

Yesterday Google announced a new service related to YouTube and music, called YouTube Red. YouTube Red is $9.99/mo for no ads on YouTube videos across devices, background playback on mobile, and the ability to save videos for viewing offline. What most people who have issue with it think is that $9.99/mo is very steep for what you get. That's understandable, except Google is downplaying the fact that it comes with a subscription to Google Play Music.

Google Play Music is a Spotify and Apple Music competitor I wrote about in my post The Battle of Online Music Streaming. Previously, Google Play Music subscribers had no ads exclusively on verified music videos. Background playback was promised, but it wasn't ever stable. With the introduction of YouTube Red, this only adds more value to Google Play Music. Personally, because I am a Play Music subscriber, I will get YouTube Red for free when it launches. That's incredibly generous of Google to combine them.

Google also announced the launch of the YouTube Music app, which isn't exclusive to Red subscribers. It's basically a YouTube app which is optimized for music and background playback. If you don't have a Red subscription, however, you will see ads before videos and videos will not play in the background.

If you aren't interested in a music service such as Google Play Music, $9.99/mo is definitely too much. Google should have branded YouTube Red and Google Play Music closer together in order to signify what a great deal you're getting having them both, as well as offer the option to get YouTube Red exclusively for a cheaper price. When Google puts them in their own separate packages, you're really only seeing half the deal on each website. It's incredibly bad marketing, but really great for users if you know what a good deal looks like. Hopefully this is just another step into offering a theorized "Google Unlimited" service, which would give access to music, books, videos, and maybe even apps all through a monthly price. While Google hasn't shown plans to unite all of these under one roof, having Play Music and YouTube Red subscriptions mirror each-other shows promise. Here's to hoping in the future Google expands on what Spotify started, with the idea of unlimited entertainment.

Image source: YouTube

If you love music like I do, then chances are you've looked into a service like Spotify. Spotify is definitely one of the most popular online music streaming services, but does that make it the best? I'm going to break down some top features of three different music streaming platforms and help you make the decision that helps you listen to the most music.

Starting with Spotify, Spotify pioneered the online streaming model as we know it today. Unlimited music for a monthly price wasn't always a common idea, many record labels refusing to let their music be a part of Spotify's library. Thankfully, as Spotify grew, record labels had less of a say in whether they should join up. Spotify has a free listening tier, meaning you can listen to as much music as you want with some restrictions and advertisements. Beyond that, like the two other competitors, the premium option is $9.99/mo. Spotify once had the largest library out of the competition, but thanks to the growing market and competition, that isn't as true anymore with all three competitors I'm talking about having about equal libraries; around 30 million songs. Some notable features Spotify has include the ability to match the pace of your running to the beat of a song, and listening synced across devices. Spotify does not do well with local files, however. To sync your files it must download them from one device to another. There is no online streaming of local files.

When Apple Music was announced, many considered it the "Spotify killer." After all, why would you use Spotify when you have a built-in app on your phone that does the exact same thing? With Apple's music connections, it wasn't too hard to create a service that rivals Spotify. Apple Music does basically the same thing as Spotify, with the inclusion of Beats One radio and the fact that it syncs with your iTunes library. Apple Music has a 3 month free trial, but beyond that it's $9.99/mo.

Personally, I choose Google Play Music over all the competition. While "Google Play Music Unlimited" may not roll off the tongue, it is definitely the best option in my opinion. Mood radio, material design, an amazing web interface, and the ability to upload your own songs all make for the best overall experience. You can also re-arrange your queue of songs, see what's coming up, and share playlists. The best feature for me is the ability to upload up to 50,000 of your own songs to Google's servers to listen to anywhere. So if a song isn't in their library, you can upload it yourself and listen to it on the web, your phone, and anywhere else. Google Play Music allows free users to upload their own music and listen to radio stations for free. Unlimited, which unlocks the whole library, is $9.99/mo.

So just because Spotify is the most popular doesn't mean it's the best. If the features like running sync matter to you, it may be. But if being able to upload your own music is more important, Google Play or Apple Music would be the best for you.