[subego]

In that early torrid love affair phase.

I've noticed that for me you can pick any song and it's almost 60 plays on the nose.

Now I'm curious what other people's number is, and does it stay as unexpectedly consistent.

[Spheric Harlot]

Maximum plays in my library is 49, but that's a radio stream, so it doesn't count.

Next up are 19 to 30 plays total - kids' music, played by request of the little 'un.

Then there's a bunch of my own that get played in all sorts of different listening environments for testing, and then the rest is down by 13 plays and under.

My library is fairly extensive, though.

I really can't stand playing a song over and over, regardless of how good it is. Then again, I do that on the job.

For just listening, I'll usually put on an album.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

For just listening, I'll usually put on an album.

A what?

[Laminar]

I have a short attention span when it comes to music, so I stick to Pandora to give me something fresh. Though when I discovered these I basically looped for several days straight.

[andi*pandi]

I mostly listen via shuffle, so playcounts don't have much relevance. New music does get put into a "recent" playlist that I listen to occasionally.

Most songs are under 15 plays, exceptions being The Muppets Happy Feet at 33. This is since a loss of data last year.

[ort888]

Six.

[abbaZaba]

the least played song in my top 100 played has 106 plays. the most played: 263

why would you have your music if you aren't going to listen to it?

[subego]

I am surprised at the low play counts.

[Waragainstsleep]

I listen to my music in the car more than anywhere else these days.

[subego]

One way iTunes has changed my listening habits is I hate listening to music I like which doesn't register in my playcount, so when driving I default to talk radio.

With something like Pandora, Once I really latch onto a song, I'll put it to sleep and then buy it, thus keeping my playcount more or less accurate. It sounds better too.

[turtle777]

Eleventy billion is the right answer. Plus minus a few billion.

-t

[Doofy]

Exactly 5,468 times.

Everyone in this thread except Turty and abbaZaba has ADHD.
But then, you're not going to treasure a new song and play the poop out of if you nicked it off a torrent site, are you?

[subego]

For better or worse, whether I spent a dollar on it has little influence on my treasure poop index.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

For better or worse, whether I spent a dollar on it has little influence on my treasure poop index.

OK, so... ...obviously we need to make it $1,000 a song. Then you'd treasure them and get your money's worth.

[subego]

Go for it!

[Laminar]

.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Everyone in this thread except Turty and abbaZaba has more important things to do besides sitting around listening to music all day.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee et

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

+

[Shaddim]

I still listen to tool's Lateralus album, and have probably heard it at least once /wk since it came out.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by subego 

In that early torrid love affair phase.

I've noticed that for me you can pick any song and it's almost 60 plays on the nose.

Now I'm curious what other people's number is, and does it stay as unexpectedly consistent.

My last buys were Foo Fighters Walk single (6 days ago - 3 plays*) and Mavis Staples You Are Not Alone (4 days ago - 2 plays).

The top 50 most played songs here are almost exclusively "swing" tracks, because I like to sing along to Frank and Dean when I cook. The most played song is Sinatra's One For My Baby (And One More For The Road) (added 4 years ago - 23 plays), but then my "Swing" playlist is set to random (and runs for 8 hours), so that song is fairly, um... random.


*Now 4 plays.

[andi*pandi]

Probably I should go look at my stats on my work iTunes, those have probably not been wiped out for a few years.

Yet, I do a lot of music-listening in the car, and that's on cassette...

Which says the music I like best is music I bought over 10 years ago.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Probably I should go look at my stats on my work iTunes, those have probably not been wiped out for a few years.

Yet, I do a lot of music-listening in the car, and that's on cassette...

Which says the music I like best is music I bought over 10 years ago.

Most good music is at least 10 years old. In fact most good music is at least 20 years old.

[Spheric Harlot]

That's merely due to the fact that music has been made for thousands of years. "The last ten years" is a pretty short time-span.

Edit: Also, "at least 20 years old" specifically INcludes the 80s, while EXcluding the 90s - that's just idiocy. There was some great stuff in the 80s, but that decade includes quite a bit of the worst music ever made. Things got interesting in the 90s, before the stagnation of the 2000's.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That's merely due to the fact that music has been made for thousands of years. "The last ten years" is a pretty short time-span.

Edit: Also, "at least 20 years old" specifically INcludes the 80s, while EXcluding the 90s - that's just idiocy. There was some great stuff in the 80s, but that decade includes quite a bit of the worst music ever made. Things got interesting in the 90s, before the stagnation of the 2000's.

There has always been bad music, but I do think the 90s is criminally overrated. That said, popular music of the 90s was a whole lot better in the states than it was over here. I guess I just got scarred by being force to listen to the worst of it repeatedly on the school bus.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Edit: Also, "at least 20 years old" specifically INcludes the 80s, while EXcluding the 90s - that's just idiocy. There was some great stuff in the 80s, but that decade includes quite a bit of the worst music ever made. Things got interesting in the 90s, before the stagnation of the 2000's.

Don't be daft Spher. All you're doing here is showing that you got out of high school sometime around the early '90s and that you're somewhere around your late '30s. Everyone who just missed the '80s states exactly what you just stated, and it's completely false, only governed by taste set as you grew up.
The 2000s have been way worse than the '80s for crap music. Way worse. Sure, the '80s had worse production values, but none of the polished production of the 2000s makes up for the fact that most recent output is a bunch of talentless hippies strumming a guitar they can barely play or a bunch of talentless thugs impersonating Ali G over whatever backing is already there in the presets in BPM.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't be daft Spher. All you're doing here is showing that you got out of high school sometime around the early '90s and that you're somewhere around your late '30s. Everyone who just missed the '80s states exactly what you just stated, and it's completely false, only governed by taste set as you grew up.
The 2000s have been way worse than the '80s for crap music. Way worse. Sure, the '80s had worse production values, but none of the polished production of the 2000s makes up for the fact that most recent output is a bunch of talentless hippies strumming a guitar they can barely play or a bunch of talentless thugs impersonating Ali G over whatever backing is already there in the presets in BPM.

Spot on.

Except that you're showing that you're completely out of touch with a lot of what's going on today, outside of the specialized niche you've been carving for yourself over the past twenty years.

That's the way it works, and always has.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

There has always been bad music, but I do think the 90s is criminally overrated. That said, popular music of the 90s was a whole lot better in the states than it was over here. I guess I just got scarred by being force to listen to the worst of it repeatedly on the school bus.

I have no idea what "popular" music is supposed to be.

Massive Attack and Portishead were "popular" - hugely popular, in fact. But they weren't Pop.

They were also British.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Except that you're showing that you're completely out of touch with a lot of what's going on today, outside of the specialized niche you've been carving for yourself over the past twenty years.

Don't be silly - I know exactly what's going on. I know what a Bieber is, and why Gaga is just a catchy chorus with a lot of filler around it, and why every band from Britain at the moment are talentless hippies. Just because I eat a lot of pizza it doesn't mean I don't know what a burrito tastes like.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I have no idea what "popular" music is supposed to be.

Massive Attack and Portishead were "popular" - hugely popular, in fact. But they weren't Pop.

They were also British.

Yes, and they were good too. Sadly they were very much a minority if you take the decade as a whole. Swamped beneath the ludicrous popularity of Oasis and the untold millions of their almost equally dreadful clones. That and some truly atrocious dance music. (For the record, I don't think all dance music is atrocious, but a lot of it is).

Massive Attack and Portishead were arguably more popular (or popular first) in the US.

Its not like I hated all music in the 90s, lets not forget Nirvana and Pearl Jam at their best and there were plenty more I just think on the whole there was more offensive crap about than there was in the 80s. Yes there was junk in the 80s too but there was usually someone with some semblance of talent involved somewhere along the line.

Doofy is on the money with that last comment about talentless vapid idiots. Nowadays you don't need to play an instrument or be able to sing to have a hit single. This music factory approach started in the 80s with Stock, Aitkin and Waterman but it was in the 90s that it all went horribly downhill. We ended up with a raft of awful indy bands who were just as manufactured except they had learned 3 chords on a guitar and they were sold as an alternative to the pop factory for people who liked 'real musicians'. That meant that the entire british music chart (and therefore any radio station you were likely to hear - we don't have decent local radio stations in this country, not enough room for them) was filled with dreadful pop music, dance music and 'britpop/indy' music, any track of which could be knocked out by someone who used to be talented in about as much time as it took to sing the track through. If that.

Nowadays, I imagine they just have a computer which scans an image of the "artists", records them trying to sing a scale, then generates them an album and an image/brand automatically like Microsoft Songsmith on steroids.

[subego]

Last song purchased: "Hard to Find" by Robot Koch
Purchase date: 6/26 (10 days ago)
Playcount: 38 39 40

[Doofy]

Who's the chick in sig, subego? She has purdy mouth!

[subego]

Ellen Feiss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Doofy]

Dammit. Can't believe I'd forgotten about her. Thanks.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yes, and they were good too. Sadly they were very much a minority if you take the decade as a whole. Swamped beneath the ludicrous popularity of Oasis and the untold millions of their almost equally dreadful clones. That and some truly atrocious dance music. (For the record, I don't think all dance music is atrocious, but a lot of it is).

Sounds like an accurate description of ANY decade since the 1940's at least (and probably before, too).

Keep in mind that what remains of the musical legacy of an era is the tiniest fraction of stuff people still deem worth listening to.

For every Rolling Stones hit of the sixties, there's a hundred thousand completely forgotten shitty ballads by crappy bands, most of whom were thankfully never recorded as that was crazy expensive back in the day, but of those that were, nearly all sank like a rock. And some of them, you can now find on "60s Greatest Hits" compilations, or "The Other Side of the 60s" or whatever. Total tripe.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Massive Attack and Portishead were arguably more popular (or popular first) in the US.

Sorry, no.

Portishead's "Dummy" was already #2 on the UK album charts in December 1994; it didn't chart (or, in fact, debut AFAICT) in the US until March 1995, from what I can see.

Massive Attack's "Blue Lines" first singles charted in June/July 1991 in the UK; the album wasn't even released in the US until August.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Doofy is on the money with that last comment about talentless vapid idiots. Nowadays you don't need to play an instrument or be able to sing to have a hit single. This music factory approach started in the 80s with Stock, Aitkin and Waterman but it was in the 90s that it all went horribly downhill. We ended up with a raft of awful indy bands who were just as manufactured except they had learned 3 chords on a guitar and they were sold as an alternative to the pop factory for people who liked 'real musicians'. That meant that the entire british music chart (and therefore any radio station you were likely to hear - we don't have decent local radio stations in this country, not enough room for them) was filled with dreadful pop music, dance music and 'britpop/indy' music, any track of which could be knocked out by someone who used to be talented in about as much time as it took to sing the track through. If that.

What you describe has been standard modus operandi since at least the forties. Talentless, vapid nobodies cast for their fashionable hairstyles, stood in front of a completely generic playback (yeah, so it used to be orchestras, who cares?), recording generic tunes written and arranged by production teams in hope of making a quick buck.

Milli Vanilli or the Monkees — explain the difference.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Nowadays, I imagine they just have a computer which scans an image of the "artists", records them trying to sing a scale, then generates them an album and an image/brand automatically like Microsoft Songsmith on steroids.

Nope.

You have a composer (or authoring team) producer, a mixer/arranger, and possibly a recording or additional mix engineer (often enough these jobs are combined in one or two people), where you used to have a composer, a producer, an arranger, plus the engineering team and musicians.

General rule of thumb when bitching about the present vs. the past:

Even in the Olden Days, it was always better in the Olden Days.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

In that early torrid love affair phase.

I've noticed that for me you can pick any song and it's almost 60 plays on the nose.

Now I'm curious what other people's number is, and does it stay as unexpectedly consistent.

I'm not one to play a song repetitively in the early going, for fear of wearing it out (And I can't fathom people who put a song on loop for 30 plays. That's insane). I prefer variety, hell, I need it. If I'm obsessed with a song, I'll probably wake up to it stuck in my head everyday for a few weeks... and in that case you could say I'm "listening" to it most of the morning until I finally queue it up on my iPod and erase it from the mental jukebox for a few hours.

[BadKosh]

It depends on exactly how good the tune is. Most I mass listen to for about 20-30 plays. If the tune is really unusual (The Living End by hi-Fi Companions) maybe a lot many more times.

[SpaceMonkey]

I'd say between 10-15 times.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not one to play a song repetitively in the early going, for fear of wearing it out (And I can't fathom people who put a song on loop for 30 plays. That's insane). I prefer variety, hell, I need it. If I'm obsessed with a song, I'll probably wake up to it stuck in my head everyday for a few weeks... and in that case you could say I'm "listening" to it most of the morning until I finally queue it up on my iPod and erase it from the mental jukebox for a few hours.

I've obviously given in to having songs burn out quick. While I won't put something on a loop, I'll can do two or three plays before I need to cleanse the palate.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've obviously given in to having songs burn out quick. While I won't put something on a loop, I'll can do two or three plays before I need to cleanse the palate.

The only time I have been guilty of this has been particularly short songs, i.e. less than three minutes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I prefer variety, hell, I need it.

ADHD, right there.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Nope.

You have a composer (or authoring team) producer, a mixer/arranger, and possibly a recording or additional mix engineer (often enough these jobs are combined in one or two people), where you used to have a composer, a producer, an arranger, plus the engineering team and musicians

Steady on old chap - I've pumped out some Ibiza poop and there was me, a girlie and a "Microsoft Songsmith on steroids" in the room when I did it.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

General rule of thumb when bitching about the present vs. the past:

Even in the Olden Days, it was always better in the Olden Days.

Says a man who owns a Hammond B3. Ditch the nostalgia and get a copy of OmniSphere, man - it's much lighter to carry around (and we all know that's the most important thing so you don't generate more carbons than you need to).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

ADHD, right there.

Yeah, that must be why I prefer longer songs.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, that must be why I prefer longer songs.

What, like Bull Of Heaven's "The Chosen Priest and Apostle of Infinite Space"?

[The Final Dakar]

Yes.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Steady on old chap - I've pumped out some Ibiza poop and there was me, a girlie and a "Microsoft Songsmith on steroids" in the room when I did it.

Interested in that bit of software, there.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Says a man who owns a Hammond B3. Ditch the nostalgia and get a copy of OmniSphere, man - it's much lighter to carry around (and we all know that's the most important thing so you don't generate more carbons than you need to).

What's a B3 got to do with anything? I don't play a Hammond to wax nostalgic over days gone by - I play it to wax ecstatic over the here and now!

Instrument selection is about fitness to purpose. If I need an Omnisphere sound, I'll use it.

Now, if you're out to achieve nostalgia, by all means pull out that Wurlitzer sideman and set the Hammond to a Shirley Scott sound, and use that mid-sixties Les Paul with a nice slapback to get that ole-timey sound.

But that's not why you keep a mid-sixties Les Paul around. (I don't really picture you as a Les Paul guy, but bear with it for the sake of the argument.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Interested in that bit of software, there.

Well, it's more of a software, hardware and wetware combo.
Pull some BPM (or similar) presets up, set the Doepfer off, hit a key a few times and get said girlie to wail a bit... ...and job's a good 'un. Bish bash bosh, knocked it up in the shed, good to go, etc., etc., etc..

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I don't play a Hammond to wax nostalgic over days gone by - I play it to wax ecstatic over the here and now!

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

But that's not why you keep a mid-sixties Les Paul around.

For the pension fund!
Or alternatively for firewood if it's equipped with a Bigsby.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

(I don't really picture you as a Les Paul guy, but bear with it for the sake of the argument.)

I likes the odd Paul (i.e. the Supreme - pretty!) but my modified Ibanez RGs are way higher performance (they'll stay in tune, for starters), have a more classical-style board radius (which suits me since I learnt on classical) and have a board made of the correct wood (maple).

[pooka]

I've got a few with over 600 plays.