Half getting Spotify

Some related artists, earlier

I can't justify paying £10 a month for Spotify, the music streaming service, but I have dabbled with the free version, and now that it is possible, for instance, to specify that you want to play the tracks of a specific album in the mobile version (even if it has to be shuffled), I am finally starting to get the point of Spotify. Of course, it's useless for all my 70s concept prog rock albums, which have to be played in the correct track order, or Rick Wakeman comes round and duffs you up. But for a lot of others, shuffle is just fine.

However I do still have a bit of a problem with the streaming service (over and above the feeble royalty payments they make to the performers). The thing is, when I want music at the moment I typically go to my iTunes library and flick through it and I'm looking at stuff I know and love - I can browse it sensibly. But Spotify is too big to browse in an undirected fashion.

I find myself staring at the interface thinking 'I can play almost anything. What should I choose?' And I don't know where to start. If you go into Browse, it really doesn't help. I know I can, for instance, go into Pink Floyd and choose 'Related Artists'... and use that kind of mechanism to navigate through stuff I might like... but even so, it's hard work.

So much though I find the concept appealing, I think I'm still mostly stuck in old fogy iTunes land.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog