6 ms·

Nifty. Please be aware that this is not a "spotify client" per se. It gets the data from Spotify, and plays the audio from YouTube. It's an interesting invent

Nifty. Please be aware that this is not a "spotify client" per se. It gets the data from Spotify, and plays the audio from YouTube. It's an interesting invention, and worthy of the first page, if you ask me.

anotheryou 3y ago
oh ok... I'd have tried it, but I pay for good audio quality so I won't :)
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  Is there a difference in audio quality between Spotify and YouTube?
  - anotheryou 3y ago
    yes, I think so. And youtube is mixed quality, especially for older uploads. Newer youtubes are "opus (251)", which I think is 128kbps 48KHz Opus (WebM standard). - Spotify at least used to be ogg vorbis and claims to be "320kbit/s [mp3] equivalent" I think the 128kps Opus is still considered quite lossy¹ and 320kpbit/s mp3s I know I can hear the difference to wav on some tracks in a blind test, but generally don't find them better or worse. ¹ from some google test: https://i.imgur.com/odPogeR.png https://i.imgur.com/odPogeR.png via https://www.opus-codec.org/comparison/ https://www.opus-codec.org/comparison/
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      Lossless still beats MP3@320CBR audibly, but you need a pipeline which can render that difference. I’ll not rewrite details here, one can search my comment history if more details are required.
      - anotheryou 3y ago
        Yes, at least for my setup it makes a difference, but for me not in quality.
      - Tarq0n 3y ago
        Some of the best recordings I've heard (NPR) are only on YouTube. This leads me to believe recording quality is orders of magnitude more important than encoding, as long as a decent bitrate and encoding scheme were used.
        bayindirh 3y ago
        The quality ceiling for any recording you have is the quality ceiling of the weakest link in your audio pipeline. This means, to be able to get a good sound from any system, you have to feed it a good signal, and that path starts with recording. Current audio codecs are great from a psychoacoustic point of view. A good encoder can create an enjoyable file at modest bitrates (192kbps for MP3, and 128kbps for AAC IIRC), and retain most of the details. The audible residue when you subtract a MP3 from a FLAC is not details per se, but instrument separation and perceived size of the sound stage. People generally call this snake oil, but I have the same amplifier for the last 30 years, and I can say how different qualities of audio render through the same pipeline. A good recording stored losslessly can bring the concert to your home, up to a point. MP3 re-encodings of the same record will sound flatter and smaller. Lastly, it's not possible to completely contain the sound of a symphony orchestra in a stereo recording. That's not happening. So there's always a limit. If you have the time, there's a nice ABX test: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
        _joel 3y ago
        > Lastly, it's not possible to completely contain the sound of a symphony orchestra in a stereo recording Thank god we have more than 2 ears.
        empiricus 3y ago
        Thank god they recorded the concert using binaural mics on an identical copy of your head :)
        bayindirh 3y ago
        The problem is not the number of ears we have, but the amount of air moved by the instruments themselves and how they interact with each other. A symphony orchestra is miced per group normally (2 for violins, 2 for trumpets, etc.), but if you're around 60 people, you can mic every instrument individually. To reproduce the sound 1 to 1, you need to mic every instrument individually, and playback them with speakers matching the frequency response and air pressure . So you need speakers equal to the number and characteristics of instruments themselves. On top of that you need to record them ideal microphones and store them loslessly in the process. Otherwise, you can't create the sound by recording 100 people with 20 microphones, and downmixing them to two channels. It's not possible. I played in double bass in an orchestra, listened countless orchestras, listened the recordings of our own concerts. The gap is enormous.
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      I don't think that imgur link is a good example. The only opus 128 there is heavily optimized for low latency (5ms frame size). If you remove that optimization, and instead optimize for quality, opus does better than mp3 at the same bitrate. https://www.opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg https://www.opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg
      - anotheryou 3y ago
        too bad that diagram stops at 128, as I want to compare to 320 mp3 no question opus is the more efficient codec
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
      Even disregarding which codec Youtube uses, there's also the question of what codec was uploaded(unless it's an official upload), which in many cases was probably a lossy codec in the first place. So often you're listening to some lossy codec, reencoded to another lossy codec.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > Even disregarding which codec Youtube uses, there's also the question of what codec was uploaded(unless it's an official upload) Hm? What codec was uploaded if it's an official upload?
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        Presumably a lossless one. As opposed to some mp3 ripped off a scratched CD in some guy's drawer.
        jamiek88 3y ago
        Aaah Napster. You changed my life.
        thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > Presumably a lossless one. Why? For example, there are many songs on YouTube listed as "Provided to YouTube by CDBaby". (Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHpQ668gzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHpQ668gzA ) CDBaby only provides one format, which is mp3. They'll accept uploads in any of four formats, of which one is also mp3. So you'd need to answer two questions: 1. Is the file that CDBaby distributes to YouTube the same file they distribute to everyone else, or is it the same file they receive from the artist? (Note: if the answer is #1, that is likely to save CDBaby a bundle on storage!) 2. What did the artist upload to CDBaby? And then you'd also need to answer analogous questions for the other major providers of official music on YouTube; there are tons and tons of them. CDBaby appears to be unusual in that, in addition to providing your music officially to YouTube, it will also sell it to consumers. Most of these services don't appear to offer anything but official distribution to major websites.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- redcobra762 3y ago
  He says as he plays his music over Bluetooth… :)
  - anotheryou 3y ago
    me? I got good wired speakers
nunez 3y ago
Okay, THAT is Hacker News worthy.
- denysvitali 3y ago
  To be fair it would be more HN worthy if they managed to reverse engineer the DRM of Spotify to create a custom client without the Spotify library (which only works for Premium users)
  - yellow_lead 3y ago
    There are bypass methods here for almost all platforms: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/14rszaw/v3_the_ultimate_spotify_ad_blocking_guide_windows/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/14rszaw/v3_the_ulti...
  - hirako2000 3y ago
    Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what.
    - JadeNB 3y ago
      > Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what. Circumventing DRM, no matter how trivial, is a violation of the DMCA.
      - linuxandrew 3y ago
        Then just host it elsewhere. Spotify isn't an American company and not everyone who uses Spotify lives in America.
        JadeNB 3y ago
        The implicit question of: > Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what. was what violation would cause Github specifically to take it down, not whether it could ever find a host. The parent brought up Github, not I.
hackernewds 3y ago
Watch Spotify revoke their public API key or reduce access to the public API because of this
- bayindirh 3y ago
  This is something between the app developer and Spotify. I'm neither. BTW, If you need an API key for public API access, you may need to enroll yourself to use that API. I don't ship public API keys with my apps.
- smashah 3y ago
  Let's stop developer (victim) blaming for soulless billion dollar companies restricting API access.
  - eptcyka 3y ago
    Billion dollar company that still isn’t profitable.
    - dventimihasura 3y ago
      It seems to me like there are people who have profited from it. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-daniel-ek-spotify-23997084 https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-dani...
    - notyourwork 3y ago
      Spotify is profitable as of recent quarters.
      - sitzkrieg 3y ago
        now the focus shifts to unrelenting growth at any cost, yay
    - smashah 3y ago
      That's not the fault, nor responsibility, of developers and API access. API access (interop) is a digital human right. If companies can't be profitable without restricting that then that's a deficiency upon them and their gormless VCs
tills13 3y ago
Not really suggesting Spotify pays their artists well but surely YouTube is worse, right?
- judge2020 3y ago
  Supposedly "between $0.001 and $0.003" from [0], but then this site[1] claims: > Plays on YouTube Music will gain on average $0.008. Although neither have sources. I imagine YouTube Premium plays match or beat Spotify on average. Of course, for anything, if you block ads AND refuse to pay for the premium subscription, the artist makes $0 from your listening. Hopefully you can support them off-platform via merch or even purchasing their albums (e.g. iTunes which provides DRM-free versions), but then you're still not paying for the platform if you continue to use one with an ad blocker. 0: https://www.lalal.ai/blog/music-streaming-payouts-2023/ https://www.lalal.ai/blog/music-streaming-payouts-2023/ 1: https://routenote.com/blog/how-much-music-streaming-services-pay/ https://routenote.com/blog/how-much-music-streaming-services... Although this doesn't take into account
  - jpalawaga 3y ago
    is that true? presumably youtube still has to pay the artist for reproducing/streaming the song, even if you didn't watch an ad. I'm suspicious that the licensing agreement YouTube says "we'll pay you for the right to stream your music, unless if they use an ad blocker, then too bad."
    - lxgr 3y ago
      In the countries where Youtube has an agreement of that form with music rights holding agencies like Germany's (in)famous GEMA I'd assume that to be the case. For monetized videos, where Youtube directly pays the channel owner, I've heard a few times now that they really don't pay anything when neither ads are successfully displayed or the viewer has Premium.
  - NJRBailey 3y ago
    My colleague has his music on both Spotify and YouTube Music, and he has said in the past that one YouTube listen is worth 2x as much as one Spotify listen.
dang 3y ago
Ok, we've put that in the title now, along with the project name. (Submitted title was "Open source Spotify client that doesn't require Premium nor uses Electron")
jackjeff 3y ago
I see. What I really want is a converter from Spotify abomination to standard podcasts which I can read from any podcast client. Last I checked the podcasts are DRM encumbered. So you’d have to spin up a client pretending to be chrome and use the Wivedine extension to decrypt every mp3 frame. No hacking required. But Life is too short. So instead I refuse to listen to fake podcasts on Spotify.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  Me too. Spotify may have successfully killed the "open medium" promise of the words "podcast" and "podcasting" as part of their embrace/extend/extinguish strategy, but there are many great podcasting clients that continue to support opencasting, and very few shows exclusive to closed audio platforms like Spotify.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Huh? Does Spotify have any exclusive podcasts worth bothering with? Because I haven't seen the death of open podcasts since every podcast is still on Apple Podcasts.
    - input_sh 3y ago
      Spotify pretty much backtracked on paying huge sums for exclusivity about a year ago, and the list of Spotify-exclusive podcasts has definitely gotten a whole lot smaller since then.
    - mr_mitm 3y ago
      I've seen a few German productions. There is a worthwhile podcast about the wirecard debacle produced by a big German news outlet that was exclusive to Spotify.
prmoustache 3y ago
On the other hand, why would you choose to use spotify API for a start? Spotify doesn't have nearly the quantity of available music that Youtube has. So many times when I try to find some music on my partner's spotify account it is just not there, and I give up and we listen to it via newpipe or freetube.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Huh my experience is the total opposite. I try to download my Spotify playlists from YouTube Music because its easier but half the stuff isn't there or incorrect versions etc.
- iamacyborg 3y ago
  That was my experience when I used to use last.fm for radio as well. Connecting via YouTube offered significantly more music than via Spotify, albeit some big artists restricted it.
- Larrikin 3y ago
  I would find it pointless to make music playlist on Youtube. Stuff gets taken down too easily, skits are prevalent, and theres so many accounts that just rip off music from other people. If it can't be on Spotify, I'm better off finding it on Soundcloud.
  - stemlord 3y ago
    It should be Discogs. Discogs is by far the largest publicly-accessible music database on the web.
erk__ 3y ago
This was the trick used by bots on Discord that played music (before they pretty much all got disallowed) It would simply get the title from the Spotify API and then look it up on YouTube to play. At some point I actually had set up a rather awful hack where I had a Discord bot that could play webradio and then pointed it towards my own Mopidy server which used the Spotify plugin to have a webpage such that multiple people could add songs and such. It was a great hack though I did not use it for long.
- stemlord 3y ago
  I don't understand why people are using Spotify to get data instead of Discogs?
  - erk__ 3y ago
    This was just so people could give the bot a Spotify link.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mandeepj 3y ago
> It gets the data from Spotify, and plays the audio from YouTube. How soon before they modify their apis to stop that?

anotheryou 3y ago

oh ok... I'd have tried it, but I pay for good audio quality so I won't :)

thaumasiotes 3y ago
Is there a difference in audio quality between Spotify and YouTube?
- anotheryou 3y ago
  yes, I think so. And youtube is mixed quality, especially for older uploads. Newer youtubes are "opus (251)", which I think is 128kbps 48KHz Opus (WebM standard). - Spotify at least used to be ogg vorbis and claims to be "320kbit/s [mp3] equivalent" I think the 128kps Opus is still considered quite lossy¹ and 320kpbit/s mp3s I know I can hear the difference to wav on some tracks in a blind test, but generally don't find them better or worse. ¹ from some google test: https://i.imgur.com/odPogeR.png https://i.imgur.com/odPogeR.png via https://www.opus-codec.org/comparison/ https://www.opus-codec.org/comparison/
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Lossless still beats MP3@320CBR audibly, but you need a pipeline which can render that difference. I’ll not rewrite details here, one can search my comment history if more details are required.
    - anotheryou 3y ago
      Yes, at least for my setup it makes a difference, but for me not in quality.
    - Tarq0n 3y ago
      Some of the best recordings I've heard (NPR) are only on YouTube. This leads me to believe recording quality is orders of magnitude more important than encoding, as long as a decent bitrate and encoding scheme were used.
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        The quality ceiling for any recording you have is the quality ceiling of the weakest link in your audio pipeline. This means, to be able to get a good sound from any system, you have to feed it a good signal, and that path starts with recording. Current audio codecs are great from a psychoacoustic point of view. A good encoder can create an enjoyable file at modest bitrates (192kbps for MP3, and 128kbps for AAC IIRC), and retain most of the details. The audible residue when you subtract a MP3 from a FLAC is not details per se, but instrument separation and perceived size of the sound stage. People generally call this snake oil, but I have the same amplifier for the last 30 years, and I can say how different qualities of audio render through the same pipeline. A good recording stored losslessly can bring the concert to your home, up to a point. MP3 re-encodings of the same record will sound flatter and smaller. Lastly, it's not possible to completely contain the sound of a symphony orchestra in a stereo recording. That's not happening. So there's always a limit. If you have the time, there's a nice ABX test: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
        _joel 3y ago
        > Lastly, it's not possible to completely contain the sound of a symphony orchestra in a stereo recording Thank god we have more than 2 ears.
        empiricus 3y ago
        Thank god they recorded the concert using binaural mics on an identical copy of your head :)
        bayindirh 3y ago
        The problem is not the number of ears we have, but the amount of air moved by the instruments themselves and how they interact with each other. A symphony orchestra is miced per group normally (2 for violins, 2 for trumpets, etc.), but if you're around 60 people, you can mic every instrument individually. To reproduce the sound 1 to 1, you need to mic every instrument individually, and playback them with speakers matching the frequency response and air pressure . So you need speakers equal to the number and characteristics of instruments themselves. On top of that you need to record them ideal microphones and store them loslessly in the process. Otherwise, you can't create the sound by recording 100 people with 20 microphones, and downmixing them to two channels. It's not possible. I played in double bass in an orchestra, listened countless orchestras, listened the recordings of our own concerts. The gap is enormous.
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    I don't think that imgur link is a good example. The only opus 128 there is heavily optimized for low latency (5ms frame size). If you remove that optimization, and instead optimize for quality, opus does better than mp3 at the same bitrate. https://www.opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg https://www.opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg
    - anotheryou 3y ago
      too bad that diagram stops at 128, as I want to compare to 320 mp3 no question opus is the more efficient codec
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    Even disregarding which codec Youtube uses, there's also the question of what codec was uploaded(unless it's an official upload), which in many cases was probably a lossy codec in the first place. So often you're listening to some lossy codec, reencoded to another lossy codec.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > Even disregarding which codec Youtube uses, there's also the question of what codec was uploaded(unless it's an official upload) Hm? What codec was uploaded if it's an official upload?
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        Presumably a lossless one. As opposed to some mp3 ripped off a scratched CD in some guy's drawer.
        jamiek88 3y ago
        Aaah Napster. You changed my life.
        thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > Presumably a lossless one. Why? For example, there are many songs on YouTube listed as "Provided to YouTube by CDBaby". (Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHpQ668gzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHpQ668gzA ) CDBaby only provides one format, which is mp3. They'll accept uploads in any of four formats, of which one is also mp3. So you'd need to answer two questions: 1. Is the file that CDBaby distributes to YouTube the same file they distribute to everyone else, or is it the same file they receive from the artist? (Note: if the answer is #1, that is likely to save CDBaby a bundle on storage!) 2. What did the artist upload to CDBaby? And then you'd also need to answer analogous questions for the other major providers of official music on YouTube; there are tons and tons of them. CDBaby appears to be unusual in that, in addition to providing your music officially to YouTube, it will also sell it to consumers. Most of these services don't appear to offer anything but official distribution to major websites.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
redcobra762 3y ago
He says as he plays his music over Bluetooth… :)
- anotheryou 3y ago
  me? I got good wired speakers

nunez 3y ago

Okay, THAT is Hacker News worthy.

denysvitali 3y ago
To be fair it would be more HN worthy if they managed to reverse engineer the DRM of Spotify to create a custom client without the Spotify library (which only works for Premium users)
- yellow_lead 3y ago
  There are bypass methods here for almost all platforms: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/14rszaw/v3_the_ultimate_spotify_ad_blocking_guide_windows/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/14rszaw/v3_the_ulti...
- hirako2000 3y ago
  Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what.
  - JadeNB 3y ago
    > Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what. Circumventing DRM, no matter how trivial, is a violation of the DMCA.
    - linuxandrew 3y ago
      Then just host it elsewhere. Spotify isn't an American company and not everyone who uses Spotify lives in America.
      - JadeNB 3y ago
        The implicit question of: > Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what. was what violation would cause Github specifically to take it down, not whether it could ever find a host. The parent brought up Github, not I.

hackernewds 3y ago

Watch Spotify revoke their public API key or reduce access to the public API because of this

bayindirh 3y ago
This is something between the app developer and Spotify. I'm neither. BTW, If you need an API key for public API access, you may need to enroll yourself to use that API. I don't ship public API keys with my apps.
smashah 3y ago
Let's stop developer (victim) blaming for soulless billion dollar companies restricting API access.
- eptcyka 3y ago
  Billion dollar company that still isn’t profitable.
  - dventimihasura 3y ago
    It seems to me like there are people who have profited from it. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-daniel-ek-spotify-23997084 https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-dani...
  - notyourwork 3y ago
    Spotify is profitable as of recent quarters.
    - sitzkrieg 3y ago
      now the focus shifts to unrelenting growth at any cost, yay
  - smashah 3y ago
    That's not the fault, nor responsibility, of developers and API access. API access (interop) is a digital human right. If companies can't be profitable without restricting that then that's a deficiency upon them and their gormless VCs

tills13 3y ago

Not really suggesting Spotify pays their artists well but surely YouTube is worse, right?

judge2020 3y ago
Supposedly "between $0.001 and $0.003" from [0], but then this site[1] claims: > Plays on YouTube Music will gain on average $0.008. Although neither have sources. I imagine YouTube Premium plays match or beat Spotify on average. Of course, for anything, if you block ads AND refuse to pay for the premium subscription, the artist makes $0 from your listening. Hopefully you can support them off-platform via merch or even purchasing their albums (e.g. iTunes which provides DRM-free versions), but then you're still not paying for the platform if you continue to use one with an ad blocker. 0: https://www.lalal.ai/blog/music-streaming-payouts-2023/ https://www.lalal.ai/blog/music-streaming-payouts-2023/ 1: https://routenote.com/blog/how-much-music-streaming-services-pay/ https://routenote.com/blog/how-much-music-streaming-services... Although this doesn't take into account
- jpalawaga 3y ago
  is that true? presumably youtube still has to pay the artist for reproducing/streaming the song, even if you didn't watch an ad. I'm suspicious that the licensing agreement YouTube says "we'll pay you for the right to stream your music, unless if they use an ad blocker, then too bad."
  - lxgr 3y ago
    In the countries where Youtube has an agreement of that form with music rights holding agencies like Germany's (in)famous GEMA I'd assume that to be the case. For monetized videos, where Youtube directly pays the channel owner, I've heard a few times now that they really don't pay anything when neither ads are successfully displayed or the viewer has Premium.
- NJRBailey 3y ago
  My colleague has his music on both Spotify and YouTube Music, and he has said in the past that one YouTube listen is worth 2x as much as one Spotify listen.

dang 3y ago

Ok, we've put that in the title now, along with the project name. (Submitted title was "Open source Spotify client that doesn't require Premium nor uses Electron")

jackjeff 3y ago

I see. What I really want is a converter from Spotify abomination to standard podcasts which I can read from any podcast client. Last I checked the podcasts are DRM encumbered. So you’d have to spin up a client pretending to be chrome and use the Wivedine extension to decrypt every mp3 frame. No hacking required. But Life is too short. So instead I refuse to listen to fake podcasts on Spotify.

CharlesW 3y ago
Me too. Spotify may have successfully killed the "open medium" promise of the words "podcast" and "podcasting" as part of their embrace/extend/extinguish strategy, but there are many great podcasting clients that continue to support opencasting, and very few shows exclusive to closed audio platforms like Spotify.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Huh? Does Spotify have any exclusive podcasts worth bothering with? Because I haven't seen the death of open podcasts since every podcast is still on Apple Podcasts.
  - input_sh 3y ago
    Spotify pretty much backtracked on paying huge sums for exclusivity about a year ago, and the list of Spotify-exclusive podcasts has definitely gotten a whole lot smaller since then.
  - mr_mitm 3y ago
    I've seen a few German productions. There is a worthwhile podcast about the wirecard debacle produced by a big German news outlet that was exclusive to Spotify.

prmoustache 3y ago

On the other hand, why would you choose to use spotify API for a start? Spotify doesn't have nearly the quantity of available music that Youtube has. So many times when I try to find some music on my partner's spotify account it is just not there, and I give up and we listen to it via newpipe or freetube.

wkat4242 3y ago
Huh my experience is the total opposite. I try to download my Spotify playlists from YouTube Music because its easier but half the stuff isn't there or incorrect versions etc.
iamacyborg 3y ago
That was my experience when I used to use last.fm for radio as well. Connecting via YouTube offered significantly more music than via Spotify, albeit some big artists restricted it.
Larrikin 3y ago
I would find it pointless to make music playlist on Youtube. Stuff gets taken down too easily, skits are prevalent, and theres so many accounts that just rip off music from other people. If it can't be on Spotify, I'm better off finding it on Soundcloud.
- stemlord 3y ago
  It should be Discogs. Discogs is by far the largest publicly-accessible music database on the web.

erk__ 3y ago

This was the trick used by bots on Discord that played music (before they pretty much all got disallowed) It would simply get the title from the Spotify API and then look it up on YouTube to play. At some point I actually had set up a rather awful hack where I had a Discord bot that could play webradio and then pointed it towards my own Mopidy server which used the Spotify plugin to have a webpage such that multiple people could add songs and such. It was a great hack though I did not use it for long.

stemlord 3y ago
I don't understand why people are using Spotify to get data instead of Discogs?
- erk__ 3y ago
  This was just so people could give the bot a Spotify link.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mandeepj 3y ago

> It gets the data from Spotify, and plays the audio from YouTube. How soon before they modify their apis to stop that?