No, it's the most important factor to any music I listen to, since if it isn't on either of those services, it isn't getting listened to.

Editorial Note: So that people aren't thoroughly confused (like me). This thread is a spawn of this thread.

Again, ****ty reason.

The fact that all you can say is that it is a "****ty" reason, IMO, tells me that you don't really have a basis for it at all.

Essentially what CM is saying is that he's either lazy or cheap.

Maybe both.

Not cheap, as I pay for Grooveshark.

And laziness doesn't really make sense?

Simply put, those two applications are the only things I use for music PERIOD anymore. I do not buy music ever, as I think it is a waste of money and space. I don't like dealing with copying music all over the place, micromanaging the storage, keeping it organized, making playlists for it, etc. I've moved my music to the cloud, and I'm not turning back.

If that is somehow a "****ty" reason, then the world's gone crazy.

How can you have that view? Do you just not care? It seems like you essentially said, "Ok **** music because its a pain in the ass. Ill only listen via Internet." Does this mean you have no cd's, lp's, etc.? Do you just listen to the radio when in the car? If that is so I feel bad for you, the radio (at least in Chicago) sucks ass. I care much too deeply about all of the music I like to one day say **** it, its a waste of time, money and space. I guess ill throw away the hundreds of dollors of cd's and lp's I have. Too much space. I need room for my new ipod nano. Oh wait, you dont waste money on that kind of stuff i forgot. Yet you still spend money at grooveshark?

I can understand that you find organizing all that on a PC (edit:frustrating), but their are other ways to enjoy music. I will also agree that organizing and keeping track of that stuff can be a complete nightmare. I cannot tell you how many times ive spent wayy too much time fixing my music library. I throw my hands up in frustration and say to myself, "Why!?" But then I remember. Its because I love music. To me all that bull**** is worth it in the end.

What the hell does the medium have to do with love for music? Why would you ever want to use LPs? They sound awful unless you spend thousands on a good player, needle and cartridge and even then, an iPod nano with some lossless tracks is technically superior in every possible way. CDs are kludge, too. Downloading the music is easier.

Its ok, you obviously missed the point.



As for LP? To each his own. I immensely enjoy all my LP's and have a rather old "Turntable Stereo" (form 50's) that sounds just perfect.

You missed my point. You argued that love for music is somehow tied to a medium. I pointed out what an idiotic statement that is.


Your ears are broken.

Analog records > losless audio.

/end thread

No, for several reasons. The physical resolution of a vinyl LP is much lower than 44.1 KHz. The infinite resolution of LPs is a complete myth because the PVC material is chipped away in large chunks. Even if it were down to molecule resolution it wouldn't be as high. And you have much less dynamic range, too, around 11 or 12 bits equivalent instead of 16. Also, they wear out after each time you play them, getting progressively worse.

Spelling it out: Its not about the format. Its about his disregard for music in general. Now do you get it?

But judging by ^that^ statement, I guess you just too knowledgeable man. I guess we should all be thankful that there is someone here as smart as you to tell US what's up.

I apologize for my insolence master of the universe Emon, it will not happen again my lord. Never will I have my own opinion.

Only have a few CDs, and honestly I don't even know where they are. I haven't listened to them in years.



Not only do I not listen to the radio in the car, I don't listen to radio at all. I listen to either Pandora or Grooveshark as mentioned earlier. My phone connects to my car stereo and plays them through that. Hell of a lot more convenient than digging through CDs and crap that just get damaged, lost, or stolen.


a. I have a zune, not an iPod.
B. I never use said zune.
C. I've only got, at best, $100 invested in actual purchased music.
D. What sounds like a better deal: $3 a month to listen to as much music as I want, from an enormous selection of music, at 256kbps quality, playable from any computer, any smartphone, doesn't require me to keep a library of CDs, doesn't require me to constantly change out music on my devices, syncs my playlists everywhere, suggests new music to listen to... Or pay hundreds or even thousands a year for a relatively small collection of music?


I don't think it has anything to do with loving music at all, really. I simply don't believe that holding a CD in my hand somehow improves the music experience in any way.

As you mentioned before the band in the OP is not even available on either of the things you listen to. That seems... Limiting at best?

Limiting at worst. I can count on one hand the number of artists I've actually missed between the two services. I don't have the kind of money to just buy an album on a whim. And I refuse to buy an album when I know for a fact I will never listen to it, since it will not be in my grooveshark or pandora apps.

It'd be like buying a record when you don't have a record player.

Or you can like, steal music

I think I'm a combination of Thrawn and CM. If I can't get it hassle free, for free... I'll steal it.. And if I can't steal it, I won't listen to it.

That's not at all what you argued. You basically said, "you have no CDs and LPs, therefore you hate music."


Yeah, if you talk out of your ass, you bet I'm going to call you out on it. **** this stupid ****ing attitude of yours that willful ignorance is acceptable.


It is NOT a matter of opinion. You made a statement as false as "the sky is green."

**** you, Emon. The sky is green. And you suck.

So does your mom.

Also this is in retort to why your music listening habits are ****ty CM..

By your standards, if I owned a kindle and refused to read any book printed if it wasn't available on the kindle, that's perfectly logical.

That's why that argument is a bunch of ****. You eliminate literally thousands of bands by being snooty like that. You can't count the bands you've missed on your hand because you have NO idea what bands you are missing by completely disregarding any other method of acquiring music except for the two you use. How would you possibly be exposed to the music your missing when you have a "its not on these so it doesn't matter" attitude? Its literally just a herpderp way to go about listening to and discovering music. Just because a band isn't listed on those services does NOT mean they suck, clearly as this band defines, and by you turning your nose up at it because its not offered on your lame multimedia layout is just flat out ignorant.

yeah cm, how DARE you refuse to be mildly inconvenienced by something you are totally indifferent about

Joncey, if we were talking about news sources rather then music you'd be all over this like flies on ****.

Well I would agree its kind of a HUrRrP way of finding NEW music but it's fine for listening just regular stuff you like.

On a side note I think everyone should start using bizzarly descriptive alternatives to ****... like 'barely digested logs of partially masticated refuse' for exame.

...are you telling us that you eat ****, Darth_Alran? Or do you just chew on it?

Have I missed a whole crap load of pages/posts? Because it seems like the OP is just CM and this X dude arguing mid points.

Oh and heavy metal is the worst kind of "music". It's badly tuned guitars slamming on E strings and screaming into microphones. It's discordant noise. At least hip hop has a discernible rhythm and sometimes a melody.

THERE I SAID IT

Why do some of you guys care that CM is missing music he doesn't care not to miss? Or if you don't really care that he is, why do you argue about it so heatedly? This is ridiculous. You're arguing because he might miss some bands that he might possibly like.

You don't like that he only listens to music by streaming it online...hey guess what, some people don't buy (or steal) music, AND they don't stream it online. Think about all those bands THEY are missing, it must really piss you guys off!

Cm chopped up one thread into two. I introduced a band to those would would like it and he basically said that he didn't care because they weren't listed on Pandora and grooveshark. That's why I'm pissed.

And dalf, that's why your the forum alcoholic

I think you've confused "heavy metal" with "heaviest metal". Iron Maiden are heavy metal and they're pretty damn melodic.

Oh, ok. If you provided a link to somewhere you can listen to their music (without having to register) in the other thread, then yeah it's pretty odd that he wouldn't listen to it just because it's not on Grooveshark or Pandora.

My point exactly. I'd reccomend checking the other thread out.

Also what pissed me off is the thread title which basically insults anyones opinion besides CM's by insinuating that we are retarded for consuming music normally.

Well I guess I'm coming into this after the big battle, but I just want to say that I'm a big lover of music - all kinds, from classical to most genres of current music (and I love modern a cappella) but CM still makes a lot of sense to me. Most of my music consumption is through Pandora as well, though not necessarily all. Organizing libraries is a pain in the butt, music is expensive, and finding new music could become a full time job if you let it. I don't have that kind of energy.

Don't get me wrong, there's no reason he shouldn't check out the band if you provided a link, but then again, if those are the only ways he consumes music, why get into a group he won't be able to listen to regularly? I don't know. I'm all about being passionate about music, it just seems silly to get so upset about how CM chooses to consume it (though I may be misunderstanding the argument)

....So you guys are butthurt that he doesn't use cds or an ipod?

Define "you guys"

Yes, actually, that IS logical. Why buy something that you'll never use?


A. Please quote me, anywhere, where I said the band actually sucks. I've never, ever said the band sucks.
B. I didn't miss these thousands of bands before I started streaming music, why would I miss them now?
C. Grooveshark even has the artist you mentioned, they just don't have the album yet. So in short, you think I'm missing tons of music that simply hasn't had time to take off yet. I'm sorry, but I don't need to hear every band and cd the day they come out.
D. These services have, literally, millions of songs each. The chances that they are missing thousands of artists I care about is ridiculous.

You need to learn to accept that people have their own ways of enjoying music that differ from your own. Seriously.



They were only 30 second previews. Apologies if I refuse to judge a band on samples.

My main argument is that the bands and artists and whatnot make essentially no money from CM's streaming things, which kind of makes it kind of hard for them to make more music unless they're Radiohead.

Where this does happen (and it's not for most) it is the fault of the labels, not the services. Pandora pays quite a bit of money, as does Grooveshark, and they'd get even more if artists signed up directly instead of a label doing it. Besides, it's not just streaming, it's any digital download, even iTunes, that those bands complained about.

Yeah but most bands need a label in the first place to be able to afford to put out their first releases and market them, but by doing that they end up tied to a contract for a couple years.

Thats why I like bandcamp. The albums are priced really well and most of the money goes to the artist directly.

A. Bandcamp as mb mentioned.
B. Do you really think this problem will be fixed by just forcing everyone to continue buying CDs, simply because labels are *******s maximizing profits?
C. Digital downloads are actually beginning to outpace CD sales. If labels weren't so evil, artists should be making MORE money not less.