more google maps mashup goodness
http://www.minneapolistrafficmap.com/

Not that I'll use it much right now (I currently enjoy the luxury of a seven-mile drive to work), but it might be fun just to watch traffic pile-ups during snowstorms etc. Hurrah for the city's traffic cameras being turned into webcams!
- posted by vcmc @  2/17/2006 02:05:00 PM  |  2 comments

 
myspace, again
MySpace sucks. But you knew that already, right?

Here's a prediction about what Fox is about to do with it. Hint: it's going to start sucking a lot more.
Even though it's just speculation, it's so plausible it's shocking... that whole "old media" trying to do "new media" thing isn't going to work so well here.
- posted by vcmc @  2/13/2006 03:30:00 PM  |  0 comments

 
more thoughts on VC/startups
Recently I commented here on a post @ bubblegeneration that the true value of a startup is shifting primarily to ideas/innovation etc (as opposed to the more traditional value driver being execution). Today I noticed a post by Xavier Casanova along similar lines:

Starting a new business is a lot easier now than back in 1998 ... the cost of doing business is nowhere near what it used to be. ... Entrepreneurs are the big winners here, since they need less capital to get off the ground.

You still need talented people to execute (and the compensation they require) but as the connectivity provided by the internet makes coordination (and thus outsourcing) significantly cheaper, the ideas will increasingly become the primary reason a company succeeds.


An example: How many web 2.0 apps/platforms have you stumbled across, thought, "this is pretty cool", and never thought of them again? I mean, I use del.icio.us all the time, but that and maybe occasionally one or two others is about the extent of it. I think this points toward commoditization - so many startups have the resources to create something and make it work, but the ones that see use are the ones that are innovative from a functionality/usability perspective (and, yes, reviving old concepts can be innovative if done well). Of course I'm neglecting a discussion of switching costs here, but I don't think that changes the validity of my point.

Can execution be innovative? Do startups need both innovative concepts/ideas as well as innovative execution to succeed in this market?
- posted by vcmc @  2/13/2006 12:14:00 PM  |  0 comments

 
jealousy
yeah, I wish I was this guy.

That sort of thing is probably the closest I'd get to fame - making some big-name artist sound really good.

Or maybe a production credit. I'd be happy with that, too. Speaking of which, Scott Storch's most recent tracks kind of suck, particularly the 50 cent one. Boring...
- posted by vcmc @  2/08/2006 11:09:00 AM  |  0 comments

 
new semi-regular features
Starting today, I'm going to launch a couple of features here at vcmc hq.

First:

People have widely varying opinions on pitchforkmedia, but I am a fan of the place as it's - usually - pretty close as far as reviews and matching my general musical taste. But every once in a while they publish a review that's just...off, at least in my opinion. And so... for my first installment of "what the fuck, pitchfork?":

Belle and Sebastian - The Life Pursuit.

Let me start out by saying I'm not a huge fan of Belle and Sebastian. I really enjoy If You're Feeling Sinister (it's classic, really) but the rest of what I've heard is...lacking, somehow. I haven't heard Dear Catastrophe Waitress, which I've been told is good, and have only heard most of the rest of their catalog once through or as background music. It all seems pleasant enough, just not particularly engaging.

But a friend recommended I give The Life Pursuit a listen.

I only enjoyed two or three songs. The rest, well, were...bland, boring, and seemed to lack focus or direction.

Pitchfork goes and...gives them a good review. And not just any good review - they get a prestigious spot on the "Best New Music" list.* What the fuck, pitchfork? I would have expected something like a 6, maybe a 7.

Maybe I need to give the album some more time.

Which brings me to the second semi-regular feature I will be introducing: multi-phase record reviews. (I need a better name for this, of course. Perhaps one of my (two) readers can suggest one.)

Here's the concept:
A review is divided into, say, three parts over time:
-Initial impression after 1-2 listens
-Short-term impression - after a week or so (5+ listens)
-Long-term impression - one month (10+ listens, if I can stand it for that long)

This will provide some insight into qualities of an album usually overlooked or not adequately addressed by more standard reviews, i.e. how "difficult" it is to get into an album and its longevity.

Hopefully, I'll be able to hear enough new music to update once every week or two - but my music acquisition patterns don't really suit that so well. I guess I'll have to see how it goes.

So: You're already familiar with my current opinion of the new Belle & Sebastian album. What's the current listen count? Two. Over the course of the next week, I will try to get another three full listens in, and update again then.


*A spot on Pitchfork's coveted best new music list has to be worth a lot of cash. Everyone seems to think Pitchfork's this little indie review site, but they have a tremendous amount of influence and a sizable readership. I'm guilty of - at least twice - buying music primarily based on a pitchfork review. That didn't work out so well and I've developed more skepticism since, but that sort of thing has to happen a lot...
- posted by vcmc @  2/06/2006 08:29:00 PM  |  0 comments

 
an experiment in the "art" of the mashup
For those of you who don't read pandas and happen to stumble across this post, I created a mashup over the weekend and finally got a place to put it.

Wes Burdine vs Ludacris

The original song is available on Wes' site as "This is How I Discovered Gold".
Buy his stuff, it's good.
- posted by vcmc @  2/02/2006 10:38:00 AM  |  0 comments