Follow Us

DMN on Feedburner
Connect with:
divider image

Is Musx the Instagram for Music?

musx2

 

Earlier this year I reviewed LuckyPennie, a music-sharing app that feels like Instagram. Instead of photos and videos, LuckyPennie has songs and concert listings.

Entrepreneurs and app-builders are trying to solve a perceived digital problem: How can people easily share songs they like with their friends? LuckyPennie, PingTune, and Tango are a few of the apps that are tackling this supposed problem.

I’m not really convinced that a dedicated music-sharing app will become the next Instagram, Snapchat, or Vine. However, it is pretty annoying that I have to copy SoundCloud, Bandcamp, or YouTube links and then go to Facebook, Twitter, or iMessage to share them with my friends.

Musx launched in February for iOS. It has the same basic idea as LuckyPennie, but has some notable differences.

The app gives users a place to share and discover music. They won’t say how many users they currently have, but Musx has now been downloaded in 100 countries.

On Musx, users create a profile and add friends. The homepage shows either a feed of music from friends, or what’s most popular across the entire app. Songs from SoundCloud and YouTube can be shared.

Your friends probably aren’t on Musx, so if you want to use the app you’ll have to troll around and discover users with similar taste. Some bands and venues that I like use the app, such as GEMS and U Street Music Hall.

musx1

Musx has also added group playlists in their newest update. You and your friends can collaborate on a playlist that updates in real time, even if you are currently listening to it.

Co-founder John Reardon says: “By making it easy for everyone to contribute, music becomes more active, inclusive and enjoyable, like having a free jukebox at every party.”  (Kind of like Gramofon)

So, are music sharing-apps the next big thing? That remains to be seen…

 

Nina Ulloa covers breaking news, tech, and more. Follow her on Twitter: @nine_u

blue bar background graphic
Comments (14)
  1. dan

    I don’t see the need for this with Spotify. I can easily share a song via spotify in under 3 clicks. And yeah not everyone has spotify, but more people have it than Musx and you can still share songs with people from spotify to FB.


    Reply
  2. Willis

    Instagram is the Instagram for music.


    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Is this user uploaded content or is it solely links from youtube and soundcloud?


    Reply
    1. Nina Ulloa

      links


      Reply
  4. Anonymous

    You can share songs with people from musx to FB and Twitter.


    Reply
    1. Richard

      You can share songs to your Facebook wall or Twitter profile. If you mention a user when you share a song and that user has Twitter connected it will mention them on Twitter. There is also the ability to use a share sheet to share a song you didn’t post to Facebook or Twitter.


      Reply
  5. Dave Chappelle

    Do you guys just command-r the company name and reprint the article every week?


    Reply
    1. Nina Ulloa

      try reading beyond the title


      Reply
  6. jw

    >> I’m not really convinced that a dedicated music-sharing app will
    >> become the next Instagram, Snapchat, or Vine.

    God, I hope not. You’d have to be an idiot to think that. You should actually be totally & completely convinced that a dedicated social music-sharing app will never be the next billion dollar app.

    No one wants to download an app in order to share music. If anyone was having a hard time sharing music, Psy wouldn’t have 2 billion views on YouTube. Macklemore wouldn’t be on the radio. Beyonce’s video record would’ve flopped.

    These apps… I don’t care if it’s sharing songs, sharing music photos, tour dates, whatever… You’re not going to build a significant concentration of attention based on such a specific idea. If sharing any of these things was a problem (which it’s not), it’s going to be solved where the concentrations of attention are: Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, etc. Not by building an entirely new app that people have to download. You don’t solve a 3-click “problem” by introducing the dozen or more clicks it takes to download and register for a dedicated app, especially when you can be assured that none of the friends you’re supposed to be sharing with are going to be there.

    Here’s a tip for the app creators… your selling point shouldn’t be “share with your friends” because a user signs up & there’s no friends to share with. If anything, this should be a general community-based share/discover app, with a transition to friends once the app reaches critical mass (as if that’s ever going to happen).

    Like was said above, Instagram is the Instagram for music.


    Reply
    1. Nina Ulloa

      “If anything, this should be a general community-based share/discover app, with a transition to friends once the app reaches critical mass (as if that’s ever going to happen).” …that’s exactly what it is

      & you’d have to be an idiot to think an app for sharing disappearing photos would get a $3B offer… oh, wait…

      i don’t understand why people keep saying instagram is a music-sharing app. i’ve yet to see people using it to share songs.


      Reply
      1. jw

        >> & you’d have to be an idiot to think an app for sharing disappearing
        >> photos would get a $3B offer… oh, wait…

        No, you wouldn’t. Because people want to share themselves, & music is merely a subset of that. It doesn’t justify it’s own feed.

        The point is that social apps that take off aren’t about content types, they’re about communication types. Facebook connects, Twitter broadcasts, Instagram is visual, Snapchat is private, WhatsApp is on the go… these are all aggregators of communication, & users want music, along with everything else, to show up in their aggregation. That’s why they have the concentrations of attention. It’s convenient to see a Vice article & then a cat video & then a wedding announcement & then a music video in my feed. I don’t want an app for music videos, an app for cat videos, an app for wedding announcements, etc. That type of thinking… trying to deaggregate social behavior, is fighting against a pretty universal consumer behavior.

        Successful social apps shape HOW we communicate, not what we communicate, & these guys aren’t offering anything revolutionary on that front.

        Moreover, the type of users who adopt these types of services (MOG, thisismyjam.com, etc) are generally more interested in sharing their own picks than they are listening to others’ picks. So you have a lot of content being created, but not a lot of content being consumed. And users abandon the service because they put the effort into sharing songs that only get checked out by one or two users, if at all. If someone could solve THAT problem, THEN you’d have an app on your hands.

        Also, apps with names that can’t be easily pronounced don’t tend to take off because people need to be able to easily recall the app in their head. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat… easy to read. Muse-icks? Musk? Mus-ecks? It’s not obvious how to say that. Superficial as it may seem, that will kill an app.

        And their branding is terrible… totally out of date colors.


        Reply
  7. The Effort

    However, it is pretty annoying that I have to copy SoundCloud, Bandcamp, or YouTube links and then go to Facebook, Twitter, or iMessage to share them with my friends.

    Really? That’s a few seconds’ work at most. If people are too lazy to copy and paste, the future isn’t particularly bright.


    Reply
  8. Cletus

    What he said….


    Reply
  9. Jack

    I think it is a genius idea


    Reply

Leave a Reply

Connect with:


nine + = 16

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. OUR SPONSORS

  2.  
  3. Most Heated!