In a much hyped move Google <a href="http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/10/hands-on-google-music-streams-useful-not-revolutionary.ars">changed their search presentation</a> for musicians/music this week. The business implications of what this means to Google, iMeem, LaLa, Pandora, MySpace and other industry players is undergoing some <a href="http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/102909google">hefty</a> <a href="http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i0a82a4070f2192ec2e4a58b9053acdbc">analysis</a>.

<blockquote>So, why is Google such a clear-shot winner?  The answer lies in the way the deals are being constructed.  Google is organizing and pointing to on-demand streams, images, lyrics, and other information -  but not paying royalties, haggling with labels, or otherwise getting their hands dirty with messy music content (of course, YouTube is another story).  On top of that, Google is not splitting AdWords advertising revenue with its partners, according to sources close to the arrangements.</blockquote>

What seems to be overlooked in all this navel gazing is - what information is the user actually getting?

Give it a shot, search for "Grace Potter" on Google (note: not everyone will see this functionality yet). Here's what I see

<img src="http://www.thisissomewhere.com/images/googlesearch.png" alt="google search" />

A few questions for you.
<ul>
<li>Are the acoustic versions of "Ah, Mary" and "I Want Something That I Want" a realistic picture of the music you can expect to see/hear when dealing with GPN. Note for skeptics, almost all the Google searches that hit this site are for "Grace Potter" not "Grace Potter and the Nocturnals". The returned results for Grace Potter and the Nocturnals are much better.<br /><br />
<img src="http://www.thisissomewhere.com/images/googlegpn.png" alt="google search" /></li>
<li>Google prides itself on presenting the most "relevant information" at the top of their search via patented algorithms, with music though - they've thrown that out the window. Is this a good thing?</li>
<li>Look further, Google started inserting "Image Results" into search about four or five months ago. Shouldn't folks be clicking the "images" tab to see these?</li>
<li>At the risk of sounding whiny, what we're seeing is Google artificially pushing sites like "This Is Somewhere" down the search results page in favor of money making partnerships. Of course, it's their right to do whatever they want, but in terms of legitimacy of search results I'm starting to smell a rat.</li>
<li>Artists are going to have to spend more time keeping up with their iLike, Rhapsody and iMeem profiles since they are not artificially driven to the top of Google Search. FYI the Rhapsody and iMeem profiles for Grace Potter and nearly useless.</li>
<li>Is this too geeky? Sorry, go listen to some music. I spend lots of time thinking through things like this.</li>
</ul>


