7 ms·

> It’s way too convenient to pay $5-10/month for unlimited access to nearly every record ever created. How do you know for certain that the classic 1960's son

> It’s way too convenient to pay $5-10/month for unlimited access to nearly every record ever created. How do you know for certain that the classic 1960's song youre listening to on a streaming service is the exact same song that was played in the 1960's? There's a trust issue that comes with streaming platforms.

burnished 2y ago
Not in the way you're trying to imply, ie broadly recognized as a concern
- lazystar 2y ago
  eh. Back in 2017, Gorillaz released "Hallelujah Money" via youtube. A week later, the song was altered because it had used a clip from Spongebob at the end of the song. The physical album was released a few months later, and contained the new version without the spongebob clip. I pirated the song the day it was released, so I still have the artist's original version. Ever since then, I've always wondered how we can trust that streaming platforms with a monopoly on a service, will provide unaltered versions of an artist's work.
  - foobarian 2y ago
    Not only can't you trust them not to alter the works, you can't even trust them to keep the work available in perpetuity. Video is especially bad with this, with shows and movies randomly getting pulled and/or switching streaming platforms.
  - 2024 2y ago
    It's the artist who altered the song, not the streaming service. I've never heard of a (legal) streaming service that edits the songs submitted to its platform outside of YouTube (which can mute sections of videos that contain copyrighted audio)
  - lancesells 2y ago
    They've been changing album covers and songs since at least the 70s. This isn't anything new or recent, except streaming makes it a lot more convenient while also getting artists out of hot legal water like the Gorillaz change. I'm not here to defend streaming services (vampires), but changes are coming from the artist and not the service. Youtube didn't take out the spongebob sample in the Gorillaz song. Obligatory billy woods + kenny segal's Spongebob: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83F4JpVu61k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83F4JpVu61k
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      Sure, but I think the point is that if you aren't in possession of a copy of the recording, then you will be affected by these changes whether you like it or not. If you are in possession of a copy, that copy will never be so affected.
      - lancesells 2y ago
        Agreed, I was just making a comment that the changes can be from the artists and not the services. I've been streaming music since Yahoo music, but have started to change my ways by buying vinyl or digital through the artists own site or bandcamp. It's less about my music changing and more about supporting the artists instead of the corporations taking a big cut.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    This is nothing new. Back in 1992, Beastie Boys wanted to use a Jimi Hendrix sample but couldn’t get it cleared for the album Check Your Head. They later secured the rights and were able to use the Hendrix riff on the single and music video version. https://www.beastiemania.com/songspotlight/show.php?s=jimmyjames&band=b https://www.beastiemania.com/songspotlight/show.php?s=jimmyj... I’m sure someone could find an even older example.
itishappy 2y ago
Or even the same version the user originally liked! Apple Music (as of last use, about 10 year ago), Google Play Music (RIP), and YouTube Music all do this fun thing where they swap explicit versions of songs out for clean ones or partially clean ones. My favorite example is Kenji by Fort Minor, a song about Japanese internment camps in WWII that features the verse: > stop it don't look at the gunmen > you don't want to get the soldiers wondering > whether you're going to run or not > because if you run then you might get [EMPTY SPACE] This is the explicit version available on the app. The word was "shot." The album version says the word. As of today there's no way to get the album version on YouTube Music, the way it was when I first hit "like."
- 2024 2y ago
  I haven't used YouTube Music before, but the video from the official Fort Minor channel has the "you might get shot" lyric intact (@1:46) https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=pUBKcOZjX6g https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=pUBKcOZjX6g
  - itishappy 2y ago
    The YouTube Music song library is distinct from the YouTube video library. YouTube Music allows you to add both to playlists, which I guess is a nice feature, but I typically just stick with the audio version. Music videos often have additional sound effects added over the song and (I assume) the songs have higher quality audio. I don't think Fort Minor adds sound effects, so this would be an effective workaround in my specific case.
- edflsafoiewq 2y ago
  In what world is "shot" explicit?
  - mindslight 2y ago
    The lowest common denominator beige world of "trigger warnings" before any sentence that may stir emotion.
  - 2y ago
vel0city 2y ago
TBH, when it comes to the music I'm consuming from streaming services I don't really care. They end up taking the space of an enhanced radio for me, always on and always on-demand. Whatever I want at the moment, for the most part. For music I really care about culturally, it's absolutely physical and backed up digitally. But 95% of my listening is definitely streaming services.
- l72 2y ago
  I think it depends on the person. I am a huge music fan, and am very particular about my music. There are some remastered versions that I strongly dislike (and some that I prefer). I find it to be near impossible to know what version I am going to get on a streaming service. The original and the remaster may be from different labels, which means when streaming services renegotiate, you may suddenly end up with a different version in your playlist. For movies, I _probably_ don't care if I get the theatrical cut, extended cut, un-rated version and so on (unless we are talking about the Abyss), so I sort of see your point. But for me, that is why I curate my own music collection locally and run navidrome to stream.

burnished 2y ago

Not in the way you're trying to imply, ie broadly recognized as a concern

lazystar 2y ago
eh. Back in 2017, Gorillaz released "Hallelujah Money" via youtube. A week later, the song was altered because it had used a clip from Spongebob at the end of the song. The physical album was released a few months later, and contained the new version without the spongebob clip. I pirated the song the day it was released, so I still have the artist's original version. Ever since then, I've always wondered how we can trust that streaming platforms with a monopoly on a service, will provide unaltered versions of an artist's work.
- foobarian 2y ago
  Not only can't you trust them not to alter the works, you can't even trust them to keep the work available in perpetuity. Video is especially bad with this, with shows and movies randomly getting pulled and/or switching streaming platforms.
- 2024 2y ago
  It's the artist who altered the song, not the streaming service. I've never heard of a (legal) streaming service that edits the songs submitted to its platform outside of YouTube (which can mute sections of videos that contain copyrighted audio)
- lancesells 2y ago
  They've been changing album covers and songs since at least the 70s. This isn't anything new or recent, except streaming makes it a lot more convenient while also getting artists out of hot legal water like the Gorillaz change. I'm not here to defend streaming services (vampires), but changes are coming from the artist and not the service. Youtube didn't take out the spongebob sample in the Gorillaz song. Obligatory billy woods + kenny segal's Spongebob: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83F4JpVu61k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83F4JpVu61k
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    Sure, but I think the point is that if you aren't in possession of a copy of the recording, then you will be affected by these changes whether you like it or not. If you are in possession of a copy, that copy will never be so affected.
    - lancesells 2y ago
      Agreed, I was just making a comment that the changes can be from the artists and not the services. I've been streaming music since Yahoo music, but have started to change my ways by buying vinyl or digital through the artists own site or bandcamp. It's less about my music changing and more about supporting the artists instead of the corporations taking a big cut.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  This is nothing new. Back in 1992, Beastie Boys wanted to use a Jimi Hendrix sample but couldn’t get it cleared for the album Check Your Head. They later secured the rights and were able to use the Hendrix riff on the single and music video version. https://www.beastiemania.com/songspotlight/show.php?s=jimmyjames&band=b https://www.beastiemania.com/songspotlight/show.php?s=jimmyj... I’m sure someone could find an even older example.

itishappy 2y ago

Or even the same version the user originally liked! Apple Music (as of last use, about 10 year ago), Google Play Music (RIP), and YouTube Music all do this fun thing where they swap explicit versions of songs out for clean ones or partially clean ones. My favorite example is Kenji by Fort Minor, a song about Japanese internment camps in WWII that features the verse: > stop it don't look at the gunmen > you don't want to get the soldiers wondering > whether you're going to run or not > because if you run then you might get [EMPTY SPACE] This is the explicit version available on the app. The word was "shot." The album version says the word. As of today there's no way to get the album version on YouTube Music, the way it was when I first hit "like."

2024 2y ago
I haven't used YouTube Music before, but the video from the official Fort Minor channel has the "you might get shot" lyric intact (@1:46) https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=pUBKcOZjX6g https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=pUBKcOZjX6g
- itishappy 2y ago
  The YouTube Music song library is distinct from the YouTube video library. YouTube Music allows you to add both to playlists, which I guess is a nice feature, but I typically just stick with the audio version. Music videos often have additional sound effects added over the song and (I assume) the songs have higher quality audio. I don't think Fort Minor adds sound effects, so this would be an effective workaround in my specific case.
edflsafoiewq 2y ago
In what world is "shot" explicit?
- mindslight 2y ago
  The lowest common denominator beige world of "trigger warnings" before any sentence that may stir emotion.
- 2y ago

vel0city 2y ago

TBH, when it comes to the music I'm consuming from streaming services I don't really care. They end up taking the space of an enhanced radio for me, always on and always on-demand. Whatever I want at the moment, for the most part. For music I really care about culturally, it's absolutely physical and backed up digitally. But 95% of my listening is definitely streaming services.

l72 2y ago
I think it depends on the person. I am a huge music fan, and am very particular about my music. There are some remastered versions that I strongly dislike (and some that I prefer). I find it to be near impossible to know what version I am going to get on a streaming service. The original and the remaster may be from different labels, which means when streaming services renegotiate, you may suddenly end up with a different version in your playlist. For movies, I _probably_ don't care if I get the theatrical cut, extended cut, un-rated version and so on (unless we are talking about the Abyss), so I sort of see your point. But for me, that is why I curate my own music collection locally and run navidrome to stream.