Today on Blogcritics
Home » A look at Yahoo Music Unlimited

A look at Yahoo Music Unlimited

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Recently, Yahoo unveiled the beta version of its answer to iTunes, Yahoo Music Unlimited. The business model is similar to Netflix‘s: for a flat fee, currently set at $4.99 a month if you sign on for a year, you can download as many Windows Media Audio files (WMA’s) as you want to from their selection.

There are three major caveats:

1) You do not gain a property right to the WMA files – so as of midnight on the day your subscription runs out, you can’t play the songs any longer.

2) You cannot transfer the WMA’s to an mp3 player unless it is one of a dozen or so new models by the likes of Creative, Dell, and iRiver – so iPods and old Creative Jukeboxes need not apply.

3) You cannot burn WMAs you have downloaded onto a cd, unless you pay another 79 cents per song for the right to burn it.

I’ve been using Yahoo Music Unlimited for about a week or so, and I think it’s pretty awesome. The songs download pretty quickly – under 10 seconds for most tracks.

The fact that you don’t actually get a property right to the files bothered me at first, for the same reasons I hate paying rent and would never lease a car. And I guess part of that was because I wondered if the tracks would play unpredictably, starting and stopping the way that streaming media does. But because the files are downloaded onto your hard drive, they play and sound just like an mp3, and not a preview or streaming file. I have an old Gateway 2000 hooked up to my stereo with a standard $7 cord from Radio Shack, and it sounds great.


Like iTunes, Yahoo Music Unlimited’s selection is extremely unpredictable. This is obviously mostly a consequence of the developing state of the services’ contractual arrangements with labels. The most frustrating example of this has to be the Rolling Stones’ catalogue: the earliest album of theirs offered is 1971’s Sticky Fingers. The Stones had already released 4 or 5 masterpieces by 1971, and although 40 Licks is there to take care of a lot of the hits, I want “Monkey Man,” “Please Go Home,” and all the other great Stones album tracks from the 60’s (a friend of mine once got into a heated argument with a stranger about whether Sticky Fingers or Exile on Main Street is a better album – but I’ll take 1969’s Let it Bleed over either one).

The inverse of this problem happens with Led Zeppelin – while you can download some really cool Yardbirds stuff, like The Little Games Sessions (which features “White Summer,” an early version of Zeppelin’s “Black Mountain Side”) you can’t get anything from the band Jimmy Page formed just a year or two later. No “Stairway,” no “Kashmir,” no “The Rover.”

Another band that would be good to have is the Beatles. But you can’t really blame this one on Yahoo – Beatles stuff always has a premium on it. And considering Jacko owns the Beatles’ catalogue now, maybe it’s a good thing that they don’t have the Beatles. Do you really want part of your subscription fee going to this?

The gaps in Yahoo’s classic rock selection are made up for by impressive offerings from other heavyweights. So far, I’ve downloaded the Jimi Hendrix box set, the Who box set, the Cream box set, the James Brown box set, the Velvet Underground box set and the recently-released VU Quine demos, all of David Bowie’s 70s albums, most of Bob Dylan’s 60s albums, his three-volume Bootleg set, and that 1966 live show where the guy calls him “Judas” for playing electric guitar.

I can’t believe how much good music that is for five dollars a month! Each of those box sets costs about $60 – the full-year cost of Yahoo Music Unlimited – individually.

Here’s a quick run-down of various other things I’ve searched for, to provide a very inconclusive glimpse of what is and isn’t included in Yahoo Music Unlimited’s offerings:

Southern Rock from the South: Yahoo has a lot of Lynyrd Skynyrd, including a number of live versions of classics like “Sweet Home Alabama.” And they have the excellent Southern Rock Opera by Alabama’s Drive-By-Truckers. But they don’t have anything by the garage rock duo the Immortal Lee County Killers, Alabama’s wild-eyed answer to the White Stripes.

Southern Rock from Canada: Yahoo has a bunch of stuff by The Band, and most of Neil Young’s catalogue, including classics like Everyone Knows This is Nowhere, Tonight’s the Night, and On the Beach. Ironically, Trans, the bizarre, futuristic electronic experiment that made Neil the first artist sued by his record company for making “intentionally uncommercial music,” is not available by download.

Bands involved in P2P legal battles – Wilco’s decision to release Yankee Hotel Foxtrot by P2P, after their label said they didn’t hear a single, has become a legendary example of how an artist can profit off of P2P, so it isn’t surprising that most of their stuff is available on Yahoo’s service. Terrence Trent D’Arby and Chuck D, who were parties in one of the amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court for Grokster are also represented in Yahoo’s selection. In contrast, nothing from Metallica’s catalogue is available for download, which is not surprising.

Alternative/Indie Rock – Queens of the Stone Age is the only band that rocks hard enough to make lyrics like “I can go with the flow” seem badass. Yahoo has their last three albums, but not their eponymous debut, which is uneven, but has some great songs on it. Also, Yahoo has several albums from pre-Queens band Kyuss, but does not have any of the Desert Sessions side projects, which spawned demo versions of many Queens songs. Yahoo’s selection in this area is very unpredictable – the service does not have anything by Radiohead, Pavement, or Fugazi, but does have Sonic Youth, Built to Spill, Modest Mouse, and Unwound.

Jazz – Yahoo has very impressive offerings from the likes of Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis, and John Coltrane, including some of the really nice box sets, like Davis’ Complete Columbia Recordings and Bitches Brew Sessions. It takes several minutes just to sort through the selection of recordings Yahoo has for Davis and Coltrane.

Radar Love – Was Golden Earring French or Dutch? I was debating this topic with someone recently. At any rate, its safe to say that they were the closest a European band ever got to sounding like ZZ Top. Yahoo has a lot of great one hit wonders like this classic, and one hit wonders are one of the best things to download, because you don’t really need the whole album anyway. They’re missing some good ones, though, like the Easybeats’ “Friday on My Mind” (instead of the British Invasion-era original, Yahoo has covers by David Bowie, Johnathon Richman, and several other people).


Yahoo Music Unlimited’s interface is a downloaded Music Engine, which then connects to the internet when you want to download something, similar to the way iTunes works. While the Music Engine is relatively simple and easy-to-use, there are a couple of problems Yahoo should fix:

1) You can either click to download the entire album, or go to the album’s listing and look at the available tracks. But sometimes, only some of the songs on a given album are available for download. This may be due to contractual issues in some cases, such as a compilation album or best-of, where multiple labels are involved. But the main cause of this seems to be when there are multiple copies of an album listed, where there has been a reissue or alternate version of the album released.

The problem with this is that the individual songs seem to be included in Yahoo’s library only once, so that clicking on the “download album” button on the “2004” version of an early 70’s rock album might get you just the new bonus tracks that were added in the reissue version, but not the main album tracks themselves. To get the full album, you have to go download the other pre-reissue listing of the album, too. With some albums, there’s no explanation for this double-listing. For example, when I searched for the Jurassic 5 album Power in Numbers, there were four versions of the same album listed – two with explicit lyrics, and two edited versions. Then, within both of the “explicit” or “edited” categories, there were different versions from consecutive years, with some of the tracks on one, and some of the tracks on the other.

2) The other problem is that the Music Engine’s connection to the online component seems to get messed up easily. For example, sometimes when you switch back and forth from “Yahoo Music Unlimited” to “My Music” on the interface (which you’re going to be doing a lot if you want to play music while you’re searching for more), it disconnects. And weird things happen if you accidentally log out or close the program while it is downloading. This happened while I was downloading, and the songs came out sounding distorted, and jerky like a skipping cd. That’s only happened once, though, with a tiny percentage of the (seemingly millions of) songs I’ve downloaded.

Powered by

About Outraged Moderate

  • Aaman

    Nice review – the lack of ‘property rights’ is the primary reason I, for one, would not sign up with a subscription service.

    Products like Tunebite are already emerging to take some of this pain away.

    Napster may drop its price to compete, but the real deal will be whether these offerings will last beyond a few months, or is it a business model destined to fade away?


    If I pay the fee, I expect to be able to burn it on CD, play it on both my laptop and desktop, and on my iPod aswell, otherwise, I won’t spend the money.

    Golden Earring are Dutch, BTW.

  • Thad Anderson

    It’s hard to tell what will happen with this. One thing I did not explain is that you CAN use the service on different computers – although I am not sure whether you can transfer the tracks from one to another (I think you can).

    If you hook a computer up to your primary stereo (or use a computer as your primary stereo), AND can buy one of the new generation mp3 players that’s compatible, this is an amazing deal. My old Creative Jukebox is on its last leg, so I need to buy a new mp3 player anyway – and I like the fact that there several large (20-40 Gig) players are compatible with Yahoo, unlike Napster’s miserly 5 Gig max.

    So I would argue that Yahoo Music Unlimited will be a smash hit, if: 1) Yahoo continues to expand the music selection, so that it is far superior to iTunes'; 2) there is still a big enough consumer set that hasn’t bought an iPod yet, who can be swayed into buying a Dell, Creative, Rio, etc.; and 3) Yahoo, Dell, Creative, and Rio advertise this deal like crazy.

    The 2nd and 3rd “if’s” seem inevitable – so if I was Yahoo, I’d focus on getting Let it Bleed and Led Zeppelin.

  • Tom Johnson

    I will happily await the day this and Napster-to-go go down in flames. This is an incredibly stupid idea. RENTING music? That is patently ridiculous. And not servicing the many, many millions of Ipod users is asinine and, from a business aspect, suicide.

  • Thad Anderson

    I agree with your ideological aversion to renting music . . . but the “rent” you’re paying with this type of service is so much lower than the purchase cost that it’s an impressive deal.

    When it comes down to it, I’d rather have my $5 get me 5000 songs from Yahoo for a month, than 5 songs from iTunes forever. I mean, 5 songs? . . . that’s not even a whole album. And the fact that you cannot resell iTunes, the way that you can sell used CD’s or records (or, going back to the earlier analogy, houses or cars) makes those 5 iTunes seem even less valuable.

    If I was 100% sure that I will still enjoy listening to Queens of the Stone Age when I’m in my 70’s or 80’s, I would definitely prefer the permanence of iTunes. But for now, as a broke grad student, I’d rather have a ton of stuff to listen to for next to nothing.

  • Tan Hoang

    There was a loophole in Napster (regular service, not To-Go) that let people download the music onto more than one computer. I don’t think it was a hack, just an ill-thought out plan from Napster. Some people I know used it to download songs onto like 10 people’s computers. 10 people / $9.95 = $1/person a month to download as much music as one wanted. In this scenario, I’m sure most people lose a dollar in change a day, and wouldn’t mind spending $12 a year for music. In the long run, you’re not spending that much money to listen to music, but you can’t put them into your music player unless you have that Winamp plug-in.

  • Mr. X

    Great review.

    I don’t understand this kneejerk opposition to subscription music by some. There is simply no other way for the consumer to legally have access to such a vast library of music, without spending a fortune. Even with illegal trading it is almost impossible to find such a diverse offering.

    It ultimately comes down to your listening habits. Do you like to explore new music? To go outside the box switch from Bing Crosby to the Sex Pistols, to Classical to Pop… or do you just like to buy a few CDs and play them over and over and over again?


    Maybe you have enough time to listen to 5000 songs in one month, but I don’t. I do like that the songs I buy on iTunes I can listen to for more than 31 days.

  • Unlimited

    SFC SKI said: I do like that the songs I buy on iTunes I can listen to for more than 31 days.

    The songs in iTunes you can listen to for 31+ days only if you pay $1 per song.

    With Unlimited, you can listen to as many songs as you want for as many days as you want as long as you play the flat $5/mo subscription fee.

  • Vike

    I’m no fan of DRM for purchased music (like iTunes, by the way), but for a subscription based model, especially at a reasonable price, what’s all the outrage about? I don’t see anyone raising these sorts of objections to XM or Sirius, and aren’t those also just subscription music services of a different type (a broadcast channel model instead of a file-sharing model), at more than double the price?

    As long as I still have the option of buying non-DRM music on prerecorded CDs (which we will as long as we boycott copy-protected CDs – if I can’t rip it for my MP3 player, it’s a defective disk), there will remain a practical limit on the price of Yahoo/Napster-type subscriptions (as Napster is discovering, it’s apparently less than $14.95/mo.). As part of the mix, a $60/yr. “all you can eat” offering seems perfectly reasonable to me. If the iPod folks have their noses out of joint over this, don’t complain about Yahoo – it makes more sense to petition Apple to provide a comparable option for iTunes.

  • Temple Stark

    Thad, This work of yours now has another venue for success, glory and taking control of the world :-) – and many more eyes – at the Web sites, a place affiliated with about 12 newspapers.

    One such site is here.

    Also please let your contact know, if you had one, that this article, is published at one more place. That helps a lot.

    Thank you.
    Temple Stark

  • Thad Anderson

    Thanks, that’s really cool.

  • SphinxMontreal

    Basically, Yahoo! wants to hook you in and have you paying $4.99 per month (at least) for the rest of your life. Once they grab you, what guarantee do you have that this price will not increase?

    As mentioned, this is nothing more than rent-a-music with little or no value due to their absurd and unacceptable restrictions. Why are they going backwards with regards to what you can do with the music?

    I’ll stick to purchasing the outdated vinyl (some at $.99 per record), which is superior in sound to that mp3 crap, which I can burn to a cd with awesome sound quality an infinite amount of times, which comes with lyrics and art that I can read and which has a half life of one billion years. Long live the plastic!

    As for the wonderful price, I wouldn’t take the deal if it was free.

    Yahoo! and all these other subscription services are fishing with invisible bait, looking for the big catch. Sorry, ain’t biting on air.

  • Thad Anderson

    “Sorry, ain’t biting on air.”

    . . . And I’m not gonna argue with vinyl. Three dollars for one of Creedence’s or Neil Young’s best albums is still the best deal going.

  • Victor Plenty

    They openly say $4.99 is only a temporary price, so it’s basically guaranteed that the price will go up. The only question is when.

    That’s just one of the reasons I have for declining to subscribe. If they committed to keeping the rate at $4.99/mo, I might reconsider. Maybe.

  • Patrick Frankfurter

    I have had Yahoo Music Engine and it hasn’t worked right yet. I’ve paid the subscription and it still says I can only play :30 of each track. Their customer service is worthless.

  • Camkat

    Yahoo Music Unlimited is useless. Why would I pay if I can only listed to music on my PC?
    I have a life, I’m not chained to the PC.
    These people are rip off artists, too. I used it once, then asked to cancel. They charged me for a year’s subscription. Said they’ll cancel my account, but won’t refund, even on a pro rata basis. They are in for a surprise, I will get my money back, and they will waste a lot of time handling my complaint. These people are thieves.

  • Trza

    If you subscribe right now, you get two years for the price of one. That equals $2.56 per month. Who isn’t going to get $60 in entertainment from this service in two years?

    Should they raise their price to an unacceptable level, just cancel. No biggie. You still got to listen to some of your favorite tunes for two years.

  • Andries

    This is a rip-off. I cancelled my service BEFORE the end of the free month I got when they took over Music Match. Guess what! They have no record of my cancellation and went ahead to take money out of my credit card. YAHOO SUCKS BIG TIME