Back in 2020 I quit the gym and bought a standalone pull-up bar, dip station combo and put it in the garage. Plus some of those giant thick workout rubber bands. Don’t really need anything else to do all the movements I was doing at the gym
I agree with you completely but I am also one of those weirdos who just never stopped using Pandora so I have no room to talk, but 90% of my music listening is via my own music collection. IMO it's such a better experience than anything else.
it's incredibly simple. you use the revanced manager, check the boxes you want, and it does it for you. I don't know how to write a patch, they've all been written for me. here's their website, and here's their GitHub. only works on Android. I personally used it to crack YouTube music instead, but you can do Spotify
They don't have everything. I have plenty of tracks on my drive at home that aren't available. ALSO, sometimes you'll find a track you like and save it locally in Spotify, then Spotify decides they don't like that track anymore and you no longer have access to it. It still shows up in your library but it's grayed out.
Also their shuffle button is hot garbage, at least on Android. It's been garbage for years and it recently got even worse.
I heard they've fixed it, but it used to be limited to 100 songs, and it was a simple re-order and not actually random.
It'd always put tracks in the same order (unless you've changed something in the first 100 tracks since last time)
You'd have a 300 song playlist, hit shuffle, and it'd "shuffle" the same 100 songs in the same order, but start at a different point every time.
Algorithms for randomness on things like spotify cant actually be true random because true random will sometimes do weird shit that makes users think its broken. Like if you put 10 songs from 10 artists on a 100 song playlist and hit random there is a not 0% chance that it will put all 10 songs from 1 artist in a row.
It doesn't seem very random to me. What user "vodka" said might be true. Whatever, I can deal with that. What really grinds my gears is that Spotify frequenty turns on shuffle when I want it off, and it frequently switches to "smart shuffle" when I want regular shuffle. "Smart shuffle" will mix in songs that it thinks you might want to hear. I can't tell you how many times I've turned off shuffle without having turned it on. I assume they have some competent people working at Spotify so I can't imagine how they could have let it get to this state.
BlockTheSpot + Spicetify esentially gives you spotify premium for free. No lyrics, and no downloads, but otherwise most premium features are completely free.
That said, I'm considering switching to Deezer, but they do have some missing songs, which is unfortunate.
Yep, same. And it's a good service, and pretty cheap all things considered. Have found a ton of new artists, have played their songs, bought merch from their bandcamps or merch buckets, or whatever, and all because spotify's stupid algorithm does get it right some time.
But fuck them, I guess, for not giving enough away in their free to use tier.
Pretty good audio quality too, I have Sennheiser hd600 (300$) and have tuned the heck out of them. They sound amazing and I still cannot tell the difference between flac (uncompressed) and high bitrate mp3 (what Spotify uses).
Yeah, the only time I've ever heard the difference in audio quality between flac and 320mp3 is when I've been trying to sample parts of songs in Ableton, adjusting the bpm and doing some warping, and you get artifacts. When I listen to music, I have a nice system at home, and I cannot tell the difference. And maybe it's me, but beyond 20khz basically doesn't exist.
Yeah, there's a farmers market nearby with the same fucking problem. If you don't pay, suddenly they don't give you the fruits of their labor! Bastards...
I'm not saying it's an excuse for hiding accessibility features behind a paywall, but for that you're going to want to search YouTube for "(song title) karaoke".
fuck off, it's not that simple. Spotify you can't just play whatever and also you can skip like 5 songs per hour or whatever the fuck. Charging for lyrics is fucking ridiculous and you saying just google it isn't any better.
Spotify you can't just play whatever and also you can skip like 5 songs per hour or whatever the fuck.
Okay? That has literally nothing to do with getting lyrics for free...
Charging for lyrics is fucking ridiculous and you saying just google it isn't any better.
The people are entitled to their free music and free lyrics right in the same spot. Having to do a single Google search to get those lyrics is inconceivable!
If it were a paid account yeah, it'd be extremely shitty. But seeing as it's a free account, it's their prerogative to try and get people to pay for the service. Besides, I don't get this entitlement that spotify has to provide music for free. They're a (admittedly greedy) middle-man that wants to get paid. If one wants free music and everything, well, time to self-host.
But seeing as it’s a free account, it’s their prerogative
Oh, so not charging money magically exempts companies from meeting ADA accessibility requirements for their public accommodations?
Edit: what I'm taking issue with is the notion that being on the free tier of service changes anything. Maybe Spotifiy has an obligation or maybe it doesn't, but either way, it's the same regardless of how much or little the customer pays. Being a second-class customer does not make you a second-class citizen who doesn't get equal protection under the law!
Providing a substantially inferior outcome to someone with an ADA need absolutely violates ADA rules.
When stuff like this has gone to court it hasn't been pretty for the offending organization.
There's a bigger question about how much of what Spotify currently provides falls under ADA. Web services used to get a free pass. They largely don't anymore.
Source: some of this stuff is my problem, professionally. And no, I'm not going to look up a primary source for anyone. That's Spotify's lawyers job.
You obviously don't give a shit, dude, I don't know why it matters to you so much that people want their lyrics back. Do you own stock in Spotify or something?
I don't care about the technicalities of the ADA, dude. You can jerk off to legal documents all you want, I want lyrics to songs for deaf people, a feature that already exists.
If they don't require it, they should. I already asked you to take my hand on this. But, you don't care because you like it when deaf people suffer.
I never said it was. I said that the requirement is the same whether it's a free account or a paid one. It's either always required or it's never required, but it sure as Hell is not "their prerogative" based on how much they get paid.
Think about it for a second: what the parent commenter is suggesting is that it's somehow okay for a company to use compliance with legal requirements as an upselling opportunity! You do see the problem with that line of thinking, right?!
What's relevant is that the commenter I replied to suggested that it's Spotify's "prerogative" whether to comply with the law or not. It isn't.
This issue here is people spouting dangerous late-stage-capitalist nonsense, not the content of the ADA rule. Your demand is actually just a derailment tactic.
The person agreeing with you has literally said they can claim they don’t make enough and not need to comply with ADA laws…. Apparantly…. So yeah they can just choose to not comply. This is from someone working directly with them, so we have to accept this is true I guess.
The factpossibility that they're unable to provide lyrics gives radio stations a free pass on this, under ADA (and most similar laws).
Edit: Correction, per correction below - options for providing radio captions do exist.
Edit 2: For anyone reading along to learn - a radio station without captioning technology is unlikely to be required to add captioning under any accessibility law I'm aware of. But a station that provides captioning is unlikely to be able to charge extra for that captioning under current accessibility laws.
Businesses are typically accountable to provide equitable accommodations at no additional charge.
A comparison that may help: a storefront with no dedicated parking whatsoever is typically not required to provide the usual required percentage of reserved accessible parking. Or rather, their zero reserved spaces meets the required percentage automatically, at it's whatever percentage of zero total spaces.
Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in (can no longer be evaded during a court case or an audit) dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.
As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under (no longer receive any exemption under) the same laws about how they managed those captions.
Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of "undo burden" would probably not hold up in court, anyway.
While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.
Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.
What…? The laws applies to everyone, you can’t just claim I can’t afford it. Got a source please?
As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under the same laws about how they managed those captions.
Where was this pointed out? Most don’t, and the few that do just link to other places, something Spotify could do to with what you’re claiming. Why do they need to provide the actual words when radios don’t? Another source on this would be great. You’re already saying the laws apply differently, but are the same? You’ve contradicted yourself multiple times already….
Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of "undue burden" would probably not hold up in court, anyway.
Source that’s a thing.
While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.
So I can just claim I don’t make enough and not need to follow any ADA laws? That doesn’t sound right, even non-profits get riddled with ads claims, so again, source please!
We all know you’re talking out of your ass, so yeah I don’t expect any actual response, so enjoy your weekend troll!
I have, it doesn’t say what you’re claiming, so please, provide the links since I can’t find it. Or the more likely answer, it doesn’t exist and now you’re insulting me since I’ve called out your lack of actual education. You can’t just make a claim and not provide a source lmfao, that’s trolling.
It’s always funny when a phony tries to play big leagues when actual people with education are already available.
they are able to, many FM stations support RDS to serve data. ever been ina car that told you the song playing on the radio or the station's name? yeah thats RDS.
You are technically correct - the best kind of correct! (Futurama quote, meaning I appreciate your correction.)
It's probably not an issue for a station that simply doesn't have that level of captioning, yet.
But I take your point - it would likely be a violation if they had that captioning and tried to monetize it. (In my far more informed opinion than that of a couple of asshats who were replying to me in this thread.)
So why does that apply to OTA, but not their website or other delivery methods…?
Your “laws” seem to have lots of exceptions when you need them to. But also, not surprisingly, very easy to find the flaws since they don’t exist and you’re not smart enough to think of these yourself apparently….
Some do. It’s pretty rare, but stations that are more talk-show or interview style shows might have transcripts on their site afterwards. (The Final Straw Radio, my beloved)
Music stations? Probably not. At least I’m not aware of any that do. But I also don’t like hearing the disk jockey chat between music so I don’t listen to that type of radio ever.
Much like many disabilities, deafness isn't a hard binary between hearing Vs deaf, but a spectrum dependent on many factors. For example, someone may have hearing loss in a particular frequency range, which may affect their ability to hear lyrics. I would also expect that someone's relationship to music may be impacted by whether they were born deaf or acquired deafness later in life.
The point that other are making about this as an accessibility problem is that a lot of disability or anti-discrimination has provisions for rules or policies that are, in and of themselves, neutral, but affect disabled people (or other groups protected under equality legislation) to a greater degree than people without that trait. In the UK, for example, it might be considered "indirect discrimination".
You might not need lyrics to listen to music, but someone who is deaf or hard of hearing is likely going to experience and enjoy music differently to you, so it may well be necessary for them.
I don’t even know the lyrics to some of my favorite songs. I think the whole complaining about unlimited, free lyrics is ridiculous. Spotify isn’t a charity and just because someone can’t enjoy music as much due to not reading lyrics isn’t an accessibility thing.
Guess Spotify should just get rid of the free tier and then this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Okay, well get back to me when you have some lived experience of deafness and maybe we can have a productive discussion then, seeing as my point seems to have gone completely over your head.
Listen, I don't want to be in a pointless internet argument; I could answer your question by referencing some of the things that go into deciding what reasonable adjustments should be put in place, legally speaking (in particular, your question is getting at the "how much is reasonable" aspect of the problem"), but I only want to engage in this conversation if you're actually interested to learn.
(On that front, I apologise for the sharp tone of my previous comment, because that certainly wasn't conducive to conversation.)
Legally speaking, the ADA promotes accessibility in public accommodations, but it does not require music streaming services to provide lyrics. There is no legal precedent requiring these services.
Additionally, the service in question is free. Do any music streaming services provide both lyrics and music for free? While I don't particularly favor Spotify, this argument doesn't relate to any legal obligation on their part.
There is no legal precedent requiring these services.
There is legal precedent for requiring captioning where I’m from and probably in the US as well. Practically every form of broadcasted video (and at least here, it is required of websites with video) has a legal requirement to provide captions. I don’t see how it would be difficult to apply that to music.
It being available on the free tier has almost no relevance to Spotify being a profit making entity that has to comply with the law. I’d be surprised if they don’t get in trouble for it legally. As pointed out elsewhere it’s paywalling an accessibility feature. Which seems like a great way to draw enough eyeballs to your bullshit and get legislation changes; assuming it doesn’t already violate it.
Yes in the USA there are laws that require CC on programs being televised, but not all. Interestingly enough, one of the TV exemptions is programs that are mostly musical.
After doing a bit of research now I can see your point and I agree with you that this could set up a legal situation like it did back in the 90s. I wouldn’t mind if they revisited the 1996 Telecommunications Act so they could break up the radio monopoly here, but I digress.
one of the TV exemptions is programs that are mostly musical.
Even being hearing impaired, I gotta be honest, the irony is kinda funny. Glad to hear it! I was concerned that people in this thread advocating for it would seem like they're coming from a place of entitlement so I hoped bringing the caption side of it would highlight otherwise. I agree! Hopefully they do at some point but slow progress for stuff like that.
I’ve never seen closed captioning for music in shows, it’s literally just music signs. So obviously they aren’t the same and you’re talking out of your ass like the other user…..
So what precedent? Your precedent that you are claiming, shows that it’s okay to not CC music lyrics…. Jeeez shot your own fucking foot with this silly pout didn’t you…?
Jeeez shot your own fucking foot with this silly pout didn’t you…?
Honestly, this caught me so off guard it made me laugh. Not even the guy I was disagreeing with came at like that?? The point was caption/transcription/lyrics are essentially synonymous, all are transcribing some other medium to text for the point of being read. So my point that there is precedent (CC on television being required legally) still stands.
It does shit me that older programs they could/can just put the treble clef symbol for music as you mentioned though.
It does shit me that older programs they could/can just put the treble clef symbol for music as you mentioned though.
Old…? That’s the point dude, they still do it since there is no requirement (even in fucking tv) to cc music. Wow…. Music has NEVER EVER FUCKING BEEN CLOSED CAPTIONED.
Lmfao.
There is zero precedent and your point is just wrong, your example they don’t even CC the music in it… so how is it precedent for it on radio. Fucking yeesh. Your example actually proves there is absolutely zero precedent on anything for music closed captioning…. Hence shooting your fucking foot with your own point… can you comprehend that now? Or does it need to be explained even more simply for you……?
Songs are captioned in TV though and I see them include lyrics (when no characters are speaking) or a song title. As the other poster mentioned though it is exemption to current law. Which is beside the point. I’ve also never claimed music was captioned. That is the point of this discussion currently. Try to keep up. Also no need for caps mate, take a deep breath.
Either you don’t understand what the word precedence means or (more likely) you’re deliberately missing the point so you can do what your post history is full of. Which start arguments with people and try your level best to demean them. There has been 0 reason for your tone or behaviour during joining this discussion.
Seriously, the way you speak to people is gross. If your idea of recreation is having a go at people online then it pretty apparent that you’re probably not doing too well with life.
Songs are captioned in TV though and I see them include lyrics (when no characters are speaking) or a song title.
I’ve never heard of that, or have I seen that in ANY media I’ve watched, got a source?
Either you don’t understand what the word precedence means or (more likely) you’re deliberately missing the point so you can do what your post history is full of.
Uhh… what…? Clearly you don’t, precedence means that it sets the bar for all others, (please provide whatever you’re using for a definition so maybe this can be cleared up and you can maybe show you aren’t a troll and actually meant to have a conversation) if nothing closed captions songs… how can that be precedence for it? If anything it’s precedence that nothing needs to do it, since anything with CC doesn’t do songs… again hence the shooting yourself in the foot with your point… but it’s not surprising you would need this explained again.
It’s funny, I didn’t go through your post history, since it isn’t relevant to the conversation at hand, but there’s multiple things wrong with this yeesh. A, you also have comments that come out that way, it’s literally a personal perspective/opinion…. Fucking yikes if you need this pointed out…. and B it’s fallacious and is done to attack someone’s character instead of the points at hand.
Why do you people always resort to stuff like this when backed into a corner…? You clearly have zero understanding of the topic, and talking about something completely irrelevant like it is, is only detrimental to any ACTUAL conversations happening. Common troll tactic, again, fucking yeesh lol.
It was done for parts of a Fray song in scrubs I believe and there are other examples I’m sure. Given it isn’t a requirement and we’ve both acknowledged isn’t done I’m not going to bother fetching a “source”.
Uhh… you don’t, precedence means that it sets the bar for all others, if nothing closed captions songs… how can that be precedence for it?
That isn’t quite what legal precedence is but close enough, I’ll leave you to research that in your own time. I mentioned requiring CC for TV legally as the precedence for requiring songs or music be “captioned” or have lyrics provided. I don’t understand how you aren’t following this. Hence my assumption of you tripping over yourself to look for an argument.
It’s funny, I didn’t go through your post history, since it isn’t relevant to the conversation at hand
Given I didn’t enter a relatively neutral toned thread with petulant, personal insults; I’m not surprised. You did, so I got curious. Generally when people enter a discussion like that you draw conclusions about them as a poster. I also find these types also very much don't like people looking post histories. A complete coincidence I’m sure.
is, is only detrimental to any ACTUAL conversations happening. Common troll tactic, again, fucking yeesh lol
Actually hilarious given how you entered this discussion and your history full of hurling insults at people over nothing or a perceived moral high ground. Get a better hobby or change your life so you don’t feel the need to try, poorly, putting people down online.
I'm just agreeing that Spotify isn't a charity. They have no obligation to be good or useful, and they will continue to destroy their service, and things will continue to get worse, and there's no point in fighting any of this, and there never will be, and so it is, and so it shall be, until you die.
It's just, I'm learning in real time now how best to treat life, you know? It's good stuff.
I think they were more saying you don't need to understand the lyrics to enjoy music, which would be more like if the elevator still worked for the person in the wheelchair but the mirrors inside are hung so you can only see yourself if standing.
Yeah. I understand what they're saying, but they're wrong, based on past court cases.
Defining "full equal service" in a way that carves out big portions (like knowing what the lyrics are) in ways that fully able bodied people take for granted - has gone badly for companies that let it go to court.
Just because a building can afford a glass elevator so you can see the view doesn’t mean the building next door is denying full service to people who can see because they don’t have one.
You’re a fucking moron and need to shut up, every point you’ve made is easily disproved, it’s like you’ve googled a term and read 2 lines and run with it.
Think for more than 2 seconds with your lies and maybe you could see how each and everyone is just fucking retarded as shit dude….
Give your head a shake, you have zero knowledge on this subject.
Due to the uniquely fucked up way music licensing works, it's likely they license the lyrics through a separate company than the music and probably don't even directly license it themselves (Tidal for example uses Musicmatch's lyric library and api). There's a cost associated with this that is likely outside their control. It's shitty, but it is plalusibly reasonable they implemented this as a cost savings measure.
You keep claiming this “undue burden”, can you provide a source to the exemption in the legislation that states this is possible? Multiple people have asked and you keep just screaming at them.
Prove your point or kindly fuck off and stop making the most obvious fucking lies.
Which has nothing to do with Spotify’s relationship to their customer, or elevators in buildings….
That’s not an answer, that’s googling something and providing something everyone here has probably seen. And that’s probably exactly what they saw and decided to parrot without comprehending it has nothing to do with the topic, now there’s entire discussions of people defending and discussing it.
Idiots that see your link, are going to think that it agrees with the moron since it’s shown as “proof”.
What a bunch of fucking morons here yeesh. You’re also talking about licensing like it applies as well along with them, so yeah not you aren’t “just” doing that, you’re perpetuating this misinformation.
Thats FOR EMPLOYERS AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BLOODY TOPIC AT HAND.
But for some folks, the elevator is completely essential. This dynamic resulted in making pay-to-ride elevators illegal in most places, today.
So this is absolutely fucking hilarious and shows your surface level knowledge (or just googling something and having zero knowledge…) they are only illegal if they are the only means of transportation, every single one of the buildings with one these will also have regular elevators, so they meet the code.
All the law did was prevent single elevator buildings from being able to discriminate. If a non-abled body person has another conveyance method, they can charge whatever they want. This is how amusement rides are able to charge AND have non ada accessible rides. And incase you didn’t know, elevator codes do cover amusement rides in most jurisdictions as well…
hiding accessibility features behind a pay wall is disgusting, because only people with disabilities have to pay for it. *edit if you're downvoting, just let me know so I can block all of the ableists running around this community. **edit 2 - c'mon guys, why are you afraid to name yourselves?
I don't think that providing a financially viable "for free" service means you get to do whatever you want. That's why I prefaced that with "I didn't know." Glad I could help.
if you really, really want, you can go in and edit the lyrics just like subtitles for television shows to say unintelligible dialogue. I'm arguing for an identical experience here, not extra perks that happen to cost the company nothing
I curse when I talk. I was assuming we were all adults here. did somebody block you and hurt your feelings?
Did you forget where you asked people who downvoted you to identify themselves so you could block them?
And despite the lyrics being unintelligible to me, they do exist, and when I went and looked them up (on the occasions Spotify didn't have them), I said oh yeah, there you go.
nobody's talking about the bare minimum of federal law dude. this is a discussion about how humans are supposed to treat each other. if the way you walk around life is "well, it's legal to be an asshole in this situation so I'll do it" then there's no point in having this conversation because do not have the time to make you a better person
also your example absolutely wild. the purpose of an elevator is to get you from here to there. the purpose of Spotify is to help you listen to music. people with hearing issues are required to pay extra or do extra work to get the same experience as a perfectly abled person.
nobody's talking about the bare minimum of federal law dude. this is a discussion about how humans are supposed to treat each other. if the way you walk around life is "well, it's legal to be an asshole in this situation so I'll do it" then there's no point in having this conversation because do not have the time to make you a better person
Just because someone has more money and can provide a better service doesn’t make them an asshole. The differently abled person could pay to use the other elevator, just like you and me, they just wouldn’t get to use the view, which is what the charge is for. How does this make the persons “experience” different if the only point is to move them? Anything else is an added bonus as you said.
also your example absolutely wild. the purpose of an elevator is to get you from here to there. the purpose of Spotify is to help you listen to music. people with hearing issues are required to pay extra or do extra work to get the sameexperience as a perfectly abled person.
You mean… exactly like how an elevator is to move people up and down and the added view is extra and not needed so both still have the same experience…?
Do you even know what point you’re trying to make here? Because as you’ve agreed, Spotify and elevators both are for one use, and the view, lyrics are an added bonus sometimes. But this doesn’t make someone an asshole for not spending the money on a better elevator. Fucking yeeesh…..
lol, just because someone has money they “need” to be a better “person”? No, everyone should be held to the same standards.
It’s you who needs the education if you think segregating “people”to different standards due to their wealth is an even remotely smart idea….
And neither of us should be “teaching” each other, you’re a narcissist if you think that’s what you “need” to be doing in a conversation. Lmfao, this a new one.
Talking about lyrics specifically?; they probably didn't. That's no reason to not make things more accessible to people with disabilities though. It's about quality of life and making sure people with disabilities have equitable access.
If having the lyrics available is an essential part of being able to enjoy the music, it should be as equally accessible as the music is.
Definitely. But if this specific feature, that isn't even primarily intended as an accessibility feature, has apparently not been available before in this form, does it make sense to call out Spotify for making that feature available "only" limited on the free version?
But yes, I'm aware of the community I'm on right now :D
So imagine you’re listening to rap. But you’re hard of hearing. The beats still slap, but the words aren’t intelligible. Hell the beats are even better because you got a subwoofer that shakes the floor. But you know it’s poetry, it’s about the words as much as the beats. So of course you’d want to read along
Just to clarify definitions that probably wouldn't be considered deafness, it would be an audio processing disorder. Ability to hear music but inability to process the words.
Deafness is "binary" in that it just means ones ability to hear sound or not. If you can hear sound even slightly then you just have a hearing impairment and are not deaf.
Deafness is commonly understood to include both total and partial hearing loss. Every major dictionary defines it this way. It might have a more precise meaning in some spheres (medical, etc), but in common English it is not binary the way you're suggesting.
Similar to blindness which also isn't an absolute yes or no. People can be blind and still see colors and shapes, but not enough to be able to tell what they are.
No it really isn’t. The hard of hearing are considered deaf. There’s complete deafness, much like there’s complete blindness, but the fact that you’re calling it hearing impairment instead of hard of hearing indicates you aren’t as well versed in Deafness (not to be confused with deafness) as you think
To everyone else reading down here, lot of people also don't really get this same idea with visual impairment and other handicaps.
There are a lot of people who are legally blind, but that just means they can't make out things at certain distances, and these are why we need things like high-visibility curbs and street markers and large-type text options and other accessibility features that able-bodied people in a wide field of industries often forget about and just assume either people are blind and won't be using their products, or will have perfect vision. When really there are far more people who are considered deaf or blind who can still enjoy many of the same things as someone with fully faculties and just need a little extra help.
I am only typing this out because we seem to entering a strange time in the developed world where more and more people are withdrawing from the social contract and not extending compassion towards others, particularly those with special needs.
When I was little I thought the future would be a bright and remarkable place where people took care of each other, because those were the messages you see on PBS shows like Mr Rogers and Sesame Street. Turns out, a LOT of people didn't watch those shows.
So I'm not deaf, not in the slightest, but I struggle to understand lyrics in music. I love music, I live and breathe it and I'm gonna dedicate my life to it, but I've always struggled with understanding lyrics in music. To me, the vocalist is just another instrument in the mix. Having lyrics to read helps me appreciate my favorite tunes more!
For me it is certain singers that apparently everyone else understands but I cannot without knowing the words ahead of time. Not just mumbling, some voices just don't register clearly for me if I don't know what they are saying.
It can depend on the mixing, too. Not just in regards to volume, but also in how the vocals are edited. My recent obsession has been Dusk at Cubist Castle, shit's absolutely amazing. The way a lot of the vocals are mixed and processed are super cool, like layering the same lines over themselves five times over with subtle delays and panning, it sounds real cool! But it makes it sound a lot more distant to me as a result.
Yeah, thst is true. But I'm talking about some popular artists like Pearl Jam and Mase who everyone around me apparently could hear clear as day but I just heard mumble mush at first and could only hear the words clearly with printed lyrics in front of me.
You might have a smidge of Speech Auditory* Processing Disorder. I do and that's what it's like for me. Common comorbidity with ADHD and ASD, and possibly other neurotypes.
Oh almost certainly. I have ADHD, prolly autistic, and I've had many times where my mind stopped processing what people are saying. Which is bad when you work tourism xD
Yyuup. It's bad in basically any job you have to listen to people during, and I always have to establish with friends that it is an honest mistake when I can't understand them and/or spaced out.
I'm ADHD and on the spectrum more than likely, and my therapist says that the cutting edge research pertaining to this is leaning towards combining ADHD and ASD into one conglomerate of symptoms because they overlap more often than not.
I mean, technically a lot of them are, you can't see subtitles for most movies without paying to see the movie, same with any TV show you can't watch with just an antenna.
If they were guaranteed to be the correct subtitles for the show I might not be as mad about it (as I would be if they moved the current system behind a paywall)
I know it’s not just me who is suddenly living life as a smooth-brained subscriber. The average consumer spends $273 per month on subscriptions, according to a 2021 poll of 2,500 by digital services firm West Monroe, which found this spending was up 15 percent from 2018. Not a single person polled knew what his actual monthly spending was.
I only spend $17.38 a month on subscriptions. But that's because I share many family plans.
Fuck Subscriptions
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).