I dont think Spotify cares about the 0.1% of users that bring their own MP3s. It's a shrinking market. The growth is all the people who never even heard of an EmPeaThree.
I think back when I ripped my 350+ CDs to FLAC. In retrospect, it wasn't worth it.
I didn’t even try to upload my own songs. I just want to add stuff to my library and then be able to browse everything in my library by artist and album. On the iPhone app, this is impossible, which is absolutely baffling.
The only way to get around this is to make playlists that are just different albums, which is what I do. Not a great system, and I think it has actually changed the way I listen to music for the worse
Why hold on to the concept of a library? I just pick a genre that fits my mood and let ${MUSIC_SERVICE} generate a playlist. If I don't like a song I just skip it.
I don't see any advantages of spending time and effort curating a library, which harks back to the days of physical media.
There's a couple of things I object to there, because personally I really enjoy exploring new music and the back catalogue of bands.
Some artists really put effort into developing their albums or EPs as a coherent expression. If we all were to change to experiencing music like you describe it would inevitably result in a sea change in how the art is created in the first place. Artists will look to optimize for that particular method of consumption, in much the same way we have a large focus on individual track releases now in the streaming dominated world. I feel this limits the expression of the artists in general
I think that this would lead to further stagnancy or homogeneity in the most popular genres, as the playlist generation will look to optimize for the most listeners. This would come at the expense of artists who are not already in the public's sphere of consciousness, and would deeply hurt genres which have infinitely deep pools of sub-genres and micro-scenes; the world of Heavy Metal comes to mind specifically here. I think this damages the overall health of popular music in totality.
More interestingly because music in general is an incredibly subjective experience, opinionated tastemakers can be crucial for exposing underground or breaking through artists to a larger audience. Historically people like John Peel, and more recently Anthony Fantano (TheNeedleDrop) bring new music from underground artists in a wide range of genres to people's attention. It can feel like a minor triumph when you discover a new album that just speaks to you in a style of music you have no grounding in, especially when it's recommended to you by someone you know or trust.
While you may listen to more music in the way you describe, I don't think it would invoke nearly the same level of connection that I feel now, personally I find that to be a bit bleak, and self-defeating in the long term.
I wouldn't bring in an entire library, but one big thing I find Apple Music has over Spotify is how well your traditional library and the Apple Music library converge.
I make use of it a lot for albums and songs not available on Apple Music. AFAIK, Spotify doesn't really have an answer to this.
I couldn't actually find out what was paid, but it did look to be that, artists weren't really paid. It was song writers and publishers who were paid. Performing artists, however, only generated word of mouth which generated ticket sales - so far as I could garner.
The quoted $0.0038 is the total of what Spotify pays out to the distributor, who then distributes it between themselves, the artist, songwriters, their labels, etc.
He's not making a mathematical definition of the areas. 'area' or 'box' is a simple description that everyone can understand. And the map projection used does form squares.
Sure, China did some bad things and shares some blame. That said, we did figure out China was lying in January, but did nothing nothing for the next six weeks (besides an ineffective travel "ban"). We have some culpability as well.
Most people who do that are posting nationalistic flamebait whether they mean to or not, and the majority of readers here do not want flamewars on the site.
I'm afraid that your post upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22834681) is an example. We don't need that sort of low-information, high-indignation arguing on inflammatory topics.
OK let me get this straight, just so I understand.
It's flamebait to recite the material and relevant facts about the Chinese Communist Party / dictatorship including the fact that they murdered the doctors who were trying to warn them and investigate it, after which this same dicatorship lied to the world about the spread of the disease and permitted tens of thousands of people to leave Wuhan provence, carrying what they knew to was a highly infectious virus with them. And now thousands are dead.
That is nationalism and flamebait and not the mere recitation of known facts ?
Seriously just trying to get my mind around the standards we're held to here at HN. We are supposed to deny or massage reality if it makes psychopathologically murderous and murderously irresponsible regimes look, you know, bad?
If that's not what you're telling me, then please, explain. Cite just one sentence or phrase which I wrote you think misrepresents reality and constitutes "flamebait".
You're assuming that reciting facts can't be flamebait. Actually it easily can. Your reply here is even more in the flamewar style.
These comments are clearly fighting a political/national battle, and you can't do that and have curious conversation at the same time. Those are two different states of the nervous system. We want curious conversation here.
In case it feels like I'm saying this because I secretly support the other side: I'm really not. Comments in the flamewar style the other way get moderated just the same, when we see them.
When you're inclined to use labels like psychopathological murder or murderous irresponsibility, it's probably better to wait until your system shifts into a different frame. In case it feels like I'm picking on your personally: we all have our version of this, definitely including me.
Re facts: the thing to realize is that there are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves; humans do that. Which facts you select, which stand out to you as important, is not itself a fact—it's a consequence of how you see the situation and which side you identify with. Those on the opposing side select other facts.
If you show up in a thread with a bag of stones to throw at the other side, it doesn't make it ok if the stones are facts. What matters is the stone-throwing: it destroys the shared connection that makes good conversation possible. Actually, it's worse if the weapons are facts. They make harder stones, and harder hearts too.
I find I just can't relate to what you're saying although I can tell you're perfectly sincere and what you say makes sense insofar as its coherent and on topic. I get your point, I just disagree. What you're citing as selective fact presentation is called presenting a coherent point of view, buttressed by facts. If the facts hurt, then that's information to the injured party and information they need to have.
To give an analogy, our court system is adverserial and most debating societies follow the similar rules. The reason for this is because the best arguments are just that- arguments. In a debating society both sides present their cases as strongly as they can and the audience (here readers) decide. Asking someone not to form accurate, relevant, and decisive facts into an argument because the facts themselves will inflame people is, let's just say very Europeanish. It's akin to bannning so called "hate speech", which is nothing but speech that pisses off the people it exposes in some way.
I can't support a platform that has hatespeech moderation built into it.
What is going on is that people who do do what you're saying I am doing, attacking with selectively edited facts which distort reality, are ruining your platform. They suck up mindwidth and attention and litter the place with n-nested, tit-for-tat, lastwordistic threads. They ruin the joint. Then it's not an engaging place to be anymore and the Good People leave. Just so you know I know what you're talking about.
It's your place, not mine and you can do as you see fit. I can't participate as a commenter, that's all. There's just zero chance I'll change my approach, so it's better that I just refrain, which I am happy to do.
Reddit got it right btw, and then it went full totalitarian and those two things aren't unrelated. When you let people develop their ideas fully, using all the means their intelligence and imaginations can muster, then complex issues become clear. When that clarity doesn't favor your preferred narrative, as it didn't favor the narratives of the handful of Reddit mods who run that place, then you're put in the position of hosting your own ideological destruction. Not many Sam Adamses are ever birthed in the first place and certainly not enough to keep Reddit stocked with moderators, so, of course, they shut dissenting subreddits down faster than a kissing booth at the Wuhan county fair.
I read that as "I on don't trust media" the first time.