5 ms·
>These streaming platforms are so bad. We had better software in the 90s and 00s. You are sitting in a chair in the sky. I can play any music I want right now
by dash2 4y ago
>These streaming platforms are so bad. We had better software in the 90s and 00s.
You are sitting in a chair in the sky.
I can play any music I want right now for a £10/month fee. In the 90s I was buying CDs with five good songs and five filler for £15. In the 2000s I was finding stuff that I could pirate, downloading it, and playing it on my beige desktop computer because there was no such thing as a smartphone.
- madengr 4y ago
- matheusmoreira 4y ago> I can play any music I want right now for a £10/month fee. Any music? Nope. Maybe the popular stuff that plays on the radio.
- ghaff 4y agoOh please. And in the "old days" you couldn't buy just any random indie music in a record store either. Yes, "any" music is obviously an exaggeration for a mainstream music streaming service. I'm guessing I own a few things that aren't on Apple Music or Spotify. But the vast vast majority of music most people in the West listen to is on the streaming services. It certainly isn't just Top 40.
- MontyCarloHall 4y agoI personally don’t find that to be true. Time for some objective anecdata. There is a site [0] that ranks how “mainstream” one’s listening habits are based on their last.fm profile. Punching in my username, I get ranked as 12% mainstream (i.e., only 12% of last.fm users listen to music more obscure than mine). Keep in mind, this is relative to last.fm users, whose musical tastes are probably more obscure than the general population. Approximately 95% of my lossless library is on Spotify or Apple Music. So I’d say they’re doing a pretty good job maintaining a comprehensive catalog. [0] https://mainstream.ghan.nl/ https://mainstream.ghan.nl/
- tyrfing 4y agoThat site says I'm at 6%, and I agree 95%+ is accurate. Some particularly obscure stuff is only on YouTube or Bandcamp, that's maybe 3%, another 1-2% is simply unavailable due to various licensing issues, generally odd albums for artists that have most of their content available. If you go way, way down the long tail of 400-youtube-view music from decades ago, most of it won't be available anywhere except YouTube and pirate sites, both with spotty coverage.
- swozey 4y agoI use datpiff for truly obscure/b-sides stuff
- tvararu 4y agoI personally find it to be true. Apple Music has a feature based on iTunes Match that will take your local files and attempt to match them based on their metadata and audio fingerprint. The last time I used it, from my (then) ~5000 song library, it matched ~3600. That means that a good third of the music I listen to is not available in the same exact version on streaming services. I dug into why, and reasons include: - The LPs were never licensed properly. Such as Exmilitary by Death Grips, which is a bootleg release with copyright issues. - The artist hasn't signed up for streaming, like it used to be the case with Tool. Or they only stream on one platform and not another. Dr. Dre and Jay-Z come to mind. All three artists I mentioned in this bullet are "really mainstream." - The version I like is not the streaming release. I like the casette version of Ashes 2 Ashes, Dust 2 Dust by Tommy Wright III, but not the CD reissue. - The artist is actually too niche. I have quite a few things in my collection from Bandcamp or Soundcloud that don't exist elsewhere. - The release is "weird." Like the radio stations from the classic GTA games.
- ymolodtsov 4y agoAlso, Apple Music allows you to just put any music in there and sync across devices, if you're missing something. The reason between Apple Music and iTunes Match is that the latter doesn't replace your existing copies with the alternatives it find in its database. AM will gladly do it unless what you have offline is truly unique.
- the_only_law 4y agoI’ll post my playlist and you tell me how much of it you’ve heard on the radio. Sure, maybe you won’t find that one band from the 90s you loved that played a few shows and only ever recorded anything on tapes that have been obscured over time. But one of the reasons I use streaming over the radio is because streaming libraries offer 1000x times the diversity of any radio station or chart.
- samtheDamned 4y agoWith spotify maybe but for youtube music this is definitely true
- _kevinspencer 4y agoThis isn’t true at all. I’ve been a Spotify user for years and listen to plenty of artists that wouldn’t get played on the radio.
- jzackpete 4y agoIf there was music I wanted to listen to, OiNK[1] had it. Had it been allowed to survive, I'm sure it would have evolved into something far better than our current options. I'm willing to pay for music but not a huge fan of songs/albums randomly disappearing from my library due to some licensing decision[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oink%27s_Pink_Palace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oink%27s_Pink_Palace [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/spotify/comments/5ph69t/why_does_spotify_randomly_remove_songs_albums_and/ https://old.reddit.com/r/spotify/comments/5ph69t/why_does_sp...
- buggeryorkshire 4y agoI've never had an experience quite like Oink when it came to catalogue curation and community.
- mwest217 4y agoOiNK was succeeded by What.CD, which was succeeded by Redacted.ch. The highly refined catalog of music is still there on the right place.
- achairapart 4y agoHow does Redacted.ch work? I can't see any signup forms. Actually, I can't see anything but a login form...
- droopyEyelids 4y agoI dont think this is the right forum to ask how to join piracy groups
- pa7ch 4y agoAnyone rememberLordShaft? I miss those forums
- joecool1029 4y agoThey are strictly interview based, if you want a lower hassle orpheus.network still does invites. Smaller site but they get a good % of their releases from redacted.
- carlivar 4y agoI would give up these modern improvements in return for my attention span.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoWhat is stopping you?
- carlivar 4y agoAddiction / dopamine
- rchaud 4y ago> In the 90s I was buying CDs with five good songs and five filler for £15. That is unfortunate. In the early 2000s, I was cleaning up buying used CDs for $1 on Half.com and Amazon. The whole thing about "1 good song on a 10-song album" is a remnant of Steve Jobs' iPod marketing pitch designed to get people buying songs piecemeal for 99c on iTunes. Regular people buy music if they want to support the artist. Trying to maximize the number of good songs per dollar spent is a kind of alien calculus that's led us down this path of algorithm-driven one-hit-wonder hell.
- failTide 4y ago> The whole thing about "1 good song on a 10-song album" is a remnant of Steve Jobs' iPod marketing pitch Yup. I remember people used claim "piracy would ruin the quality of music" - but the truth is, it's these streaming services that are killing the art of the album.
- ambrose2 4y agoTrue, but don’t forget that much of the mid-20th century was “single” focused, and the concept of a full cohesive LP only came about in the mid-60’s (there are earlier examples for but think Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, or The Beatles). Meanwhile, most people still consume top-40 style hits from the radio, etc. for decades after.
- dash2 4y agoI'm a regular person, and I buy music because I want to listen to music.
- mrweasel 4y agoThe software was still better. You're right that we have better, easier and cheaper access to the music we want, but that's unrelated to the software we use to play the music or manage the playlist. You can still buy music on Apple Music, it's not copy protected if I recall correctly, then play it back in WinAmp. That would currently be the best experience from both eras.
- ymolodtsov 4y agoSoftware doesn't matter, what matters is the experience. Apple Music simply isn't a great app but everyone can vote with their wallet and switch to something else. Having music only on your desktop computer and takes space isn't the best experience for the absolute majority of people. But it's good that the ones who want can still do that.
- jancsika 4y ago> You are sitting in a chair in the sky. A chair in the sky is great. But in the 1990s we were travelling without moving through the aggregate of everybody's music collection that they already paid for. In the 2000s we were using idle bandwidth to move the distribution cost closer to zero than ever before. In light of that, I wonder if in a decade you'll be praising an uncomfortable sardine can that drags us across the desert with better than 25% departure delays.
- dash2 4y ago>But in the 1990s we were travelling without moving through the aggregate of everybody's music collection that they already paid for. It sounds as if you are claiming that because person X already paid for a CD, everybody else connected to them via Napster has a right to listen to that music. If so, I disagree. People complain that Spotify et al. underpay musicians. Piracy pays them zero. Meanwhile: I pay once for all the music on Spotify; I can listen to stuff like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T-H-fVlHE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T-H-fVlHE0 which was never available pirated; anything I want starts playing within seconds; and it's conveniently provided to me on my phone, along with playlists that regularly find me music and podcasts I like. Which aspect was better in the 2000s?
- coldtea 4y ago>You are sitting in a chair in the sky. And it's a worse experience than the chairs in the sky we used to sit in the 50s and 60s... https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/vintage-airplane-photos-golden-jet-age/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/vintage-airplane-phot... >I can play any music I want right now for a £10/month fee. Which is not that great in itself. Streaming is for the 5% of the people obsessed with variety over building a relationship with select music (and who does that while claiming its a "false dichotomy"), and casual listening skimmers (the 95%).
- _kevinspencer 4y agoWhy is that not great? I’ve been a Spotify user for years. The Discover Weekly, “artist radio, and daily mix playlists allow me to find other bands I’d otherwise overlook. Finding/sharing playlists with others is a joy.
- coldtea 4y agoBecause it's not about endless consumption of new artists, which soon lose their value in the endless supply of replacements, but about getting in depth with fewer...
- asiachick 4y agoin the 2000s I was using Rhapsody and being mocked because people thought streaming music was stupid.