I don't buy CDs or LPs anymore, they just take up space on my shelves. Especially the CDs, which I rip and then basically never touch again. A lot of the artists I like are on Bandcamp, where 85-90% of the take goes straight to the artist, so I like buying music there rather than at shows.
But I make sure to buy a t-shirt or a patch or even just some stickers at shows instead.
Exactly! To most people, music is ephemeral. They don't feel the need to build up a collection, they just want to hear the newest music easily. To them, streaming is more like a radio where you get to choose the playlist. They don't linger on specific albums, they just want the radio hits.
You know it's possible to differentiate and only subscribe to some things, for the convenience, right? It's not all-or-nothing.
Subscribing to a streaming service is no different to using the library. They can also remove books from their shelves for whichever reason, and they track which content you check out. But the existence of a library does not prevent you from buying books yourself.
Streaming is a library of music. It's curated and has a gigantic selection. Will there sometimes be issues or missing content? Yes, that is simply how it has always been, for all libraries.
I have made the choice that I like having a subscription to a streaming service. It has a gigantic library, well-implemented search and very good automated recommendations. It is hugely convenient for a music lover like me.
Do I also keep an offline backed-up library of all my favorite music I've bought and ripped/downloaded myself? Hell yes, because I may want to cancel my subscription at some point, or move to a different streaming service with different coverage. Or I might be offline for a long period of time, and I would like to have local copies.
No one is preventing you from buying music. Are there any albums out there that are streaming-only, with no option to download or buy a physical copy? No?
Then stop whining, and don't subscribe to a streaming service if you don't want to.
Out of ~20,000 tracks in my collection (all ripped from CDs or paid downloads from sites like Bandcamp), I found that ~1,500 were not available on Spotify. Most of these are independent self-published artists, rare remix albums and obscure local music that has probably sold less than 1000 albums in total between them. The majority of that stuff I wouldn't expect to find on any streaming service, to be honest.
I was (and am) generally satisfied with my collection, it's full of stuff I really like. Most of it is available on Spotify, but it also gives me access to music I probably wouldn't add to my collection, but still like to listen to once in a while, like Ozzy's solo albums or some song I couldn't get out of my head. Spotify lets me look up and listen to that music just as easily as I play my favorite albums, and that's hugely convenient to me, also if I'm having friends over and there's a specific song we want to listen to, but it's not in my offline collection.
I pay $10/month for the convenience, and I still keep my very favorite albums offline, just in case.
Oh boo hoo, "everything was better in the old days" is absolute bullshit.
Popular music was shitty back then, and it's still shitty today. You only remember the stuff you grew up with as good, because you attach a bunch of emotional memories to it.
Only if you don't buy very much music at all. I used to spend $50-100 on music every month, sometimes more. Compare that to Spotify, which charges $10/month (and sometimes offers a reduced yearly payment).
More guns in the hands of people = bigger number of guns overall in the country = much more likely that criminals will be able to get their hands on guns by stealing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe consider paying for a subscription then, if you're that annoyed by ads and you listen to that much music?
Nah, the CDs is simply an obsolete format for data. Lossless downloads are better.
That's good. I love brutal slamming death metal, and I want more of it.
I don't buy CDs or LPs anymore, they just take up space on my shelves. Especially the CDs, which I rip and then basically never touch again. A lot of the artists I like are on Bandcamp, where 85-90% of the take goes straight to the artist, so I like buying music there rather than at shows.
But I make sure to buy a t-shirt or a patch or even just some stickers at shows instead.
Don't listen to music published by the big labels, then.
There is a ton of independent music out there that is just as good or better.
Exactly! To most people, music is ephemeral. They don't feel the need to build up a collection, they just want to hear the newest music easily. To them, streaming is more like a radio where you get to choose the playlist. They don't linger on specific albums, they just want the radio hits.
You know it's possible to differentiate and only subscribe to some things, for the convenience, right? It's not all-or-nothing.
Subscribing to a streaming service is no different to using the library. They can also remove books from their shelves for whichever reason, and they track which content you check out. But the existence of a library does not prevent you from buying books yourself.
Streaming is a library of music. It's curated and has a gigantic selection. Will there sometimes be issues or missing content? Yes, that is simply how it has always been, for all libraries.
I have made the choice that I like having a subscription to a streaming service. It has a gigantic library, well-implemented search and very good automated recommendations. It is hugely convenient for a music lover like me.
Do I also keep an offline backed-up library of all my favorite music I've bought and ripped/downloaded myself? Hell yes, because I may want to cancel my subscription at some point, or move to a different streaming service with different coverage. Or I might be offline for a long period of time, and I would like to have local copies.
No one is preventing you from buying music. Are there any albums out there that are streaming-only, with no option to download or buy a physical copy? No?
Then stop whining, and don't subscribe to a streaming service if you don't want to.
Why not just buy the download, instead of cluttering up your shelves with inferior-sounding LPs?
Out of ~20,000 tracks in my collection (all ripped from CDs or paid downloads from sites like Bandcamp), I found that ~1,500 were not available on Spotify. Most of these are independent self-published artists, rare remix albums and obscure local music that has probably sold less than 1000 albums in total between them. The majority of that stuff I wouldn't expect to find on any streaming service, to be honest.
I was (and am) generally satisfied with my collection, it's full of stuff I really like. Most of it is available on Spotify, but it also gives me access to music I probably wouldn't add to my collection, but still like to listen to once in a while, like Ozzy's solo albums or some song I couldn't get out of my head. Spotify lets me look up and listen to that music just as easily as I play my favorite albums, and that's hugely convenient to me, also if I'm having friends over and there's a specific song we want to listen to, but it's not in my offline collection.
I pay $10/month for the convenience, and I still keep my very favorite albums offline, just in case.
How many people do you know who only buy 2-3 CDs per year? That's how many I used to buy every month, on average.
Sure, there are some people out there who only buy one or two "greatest hits" albums once in a blue moon, but those people are sad and boring.
Oh boo hoo, "everything was better in the old days" is absolute bullshit.
Popular music was shitty back then, and it's still shitty today. You only remember the stuff you grew up with as good, because you attach a bunch of emotional memories to it.
Vinyl is absolutely not equal to 12-bit lossless. There is wow/flutter, frequency response and pops/ticks to consider as well.
Youtube has none of that.
Or maybe they should just pay the $10/month, which is hilariously inexpensive for what you get in return?
Because people want everything for free, even when the alternative is a measly $10/month for access to the biggest library of music in the world.
Maybe, just maybe consider paying the subscription fee if you want to use their service?
Knife/blunt object violence is a hell of a lot less deadly than gun violence.
Only if you don't buy very much music at all. I used to spend $50-100 on music every month, sometimes more. Compare that to Spotify, which charges $10/month (and sometimes offers a reduced yearly payment).
Now I just buy a lot of merch instead.
DILLIGAF?
Autocomplete, do you use it, dumbass?
Have you ever heard of autocomplete, you idiot?
Autocomplete, it was obviously supposed to say "rapist".
More guns in the hands of people = bigger number of guns overall in the country = much more likely that criminals will be able to get their hands on guns by stealing them.
More guns = more gun violence.
Tell her that the supposed racist in your fantasy scenario is much more likely to grab her gun from her and threaten her with it.
They absolutely can, if that is their job as a professional test driver, and they have someone else monitoring the systems.