ID:189316
 Aug 19 2003, 12:21 am
|
|
I was just wondering how many songs everony has on thier computer. Mine has 724 all hip hop. I listen to most of them, there are only a few songs that suck. But there are about 100 or so doubles that I'm too lazy to delete. I wonder if anyone could beat my record. Oh and thats over 3gb if your wondering.
| |
|
Aug 19 2003, 12:25 am
|
|
Lazyboy
 |
i used to have about 5 Gb, until i deleted the ones i didnt listen to, now its down to about 774 Mb
|
9 Songs, totalling to 367 meg. Actually i joined all my mp3s together for each band, and imported them into vice city. Now ive got my own radio stations instead of the crappy 80's ones.
| |
I just updated my Winamp play list and it consists of 616 songs. No doubles and most of them are good. So my final count for now is 616.
| |
I've got about 1,200 MP3 files on my hard drive. I've also got about 7 CDs with 170-190 tracks each. Dont worry, they are all ripped from the original CDs, which I have in my room at my Dads house.
[Edit] Thats no doubles. Unless you count when a song appears on more then one album. That only really happens when the song is on a Soundtrack aswell as the bands CD. | |
3967, all legal, ripped from CDs I own. Totals about 22 GB, which fits nicely on my 30 GB iPod while leaving some room to spare for my massive wishlist of about 150 CDs I'd like to get. Weee.
| |
Why would you pay for a CD when you can just download the songs you like. There is rarely a CD where I like every song. I guess you have... what are those things called again... it's coming to me... Oh ya, a consiounce.
| |
Tokabol wrote:
Why would you pay for a CD when you can just download the songs you like. There is rarely a CD where I like every song. I guess you have... what are those things called again... it's coming to me... Oh ya, a consiounce. Aside from the spelling, you're right. I have a conscience. It is not only illegal to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, but it is morally wrong too. Period. Artists I like work hard to create music that I enjoy listening to. I'm happy to compensate them for their work and for sharing their talents for my enjoyment. Without that compensation, their music wouldn't make it much further than their garage, and they'd probably have to get "real" jobs and stop making great music. Everyone loses. As for albums containing only 1 or 2 good songs, that's fine if that's your taste. Personally, I like bands who make complete albums where every track is good (some better than others, but usually few duds). That's partly because of the bands I like - anything on MTV generally is 1 or 2 "hits" plus a bunch of filler. I don't like that stuff. But it's also partly just because of my personal taste. I find that the best tracks on many albums aren't just the popular hits, but more musically involved songs buried on the album that many consumers wouldn't "get" anyway. Often these songs take a lot of listening for me to get into them, but the rewards are great when they become my favorites of the album over time. Umm, the point? Different people have different tastes. I'm a music lover first and foremost, and I think my tastes reflect that since I don't tend to like much that is popular. Other people just like music that makes them feel good or is popular this month, and that's ok too. I'm not saying my taste is any better than anyone else's. But for me, the album format still works, and I will always compensate good musicians for their work. And if you want to legitimately buy good songs without buying full albums, the music industry is slowly changing on this front. Apple's music store was the first to get it right. Download any track for 99 cents. Others are scrambling to copy them, and soon it'll be available for Windows too. It'll be an interesting decade or so for the music industry... | |
Well, the only time i download music is when i am looking for something new, or when i am bored, i dont sell cd's of downloaded songs to friends, and i would rather go musicless than buy a cd. Really, i like the radio more than anything. It plays new songs everysooften and i get to hear funny people.
| |
Air Mapster wrote:
I'm happy to compensate them for their work and for sharing their talents for my enjoyment. Without that compensation, their music wouldn't make it much further than their garage, and they'd probably have to get "real" jobs and stop making great music. Everyone loses. Not true, some of the music that I listen to actually promotes MP3 sharing. One even has a whole song about how you should use Napster and let music be free. And I agree with that. If yopu truely are a good musician you'd like what you are doing and want to share it with the world. Music shouldn't be like a strenous task that you need compensation for your hard work. It should be something you enjoy doing and want to let everyone hear because it gives you that good feeling inside. As for getting the money to record the songs and such, truely good artists will get funded either by the public or somebody trying to promote something. I don't think music should cost beyond what it takes to produce though. Music isn't about profit, it's about art. | |
Music in its purest form is not about profit, but art yes. The problem is if someone is a career musician, they need money to live, if music is their job, then they have to get payed. If they don't get enough money to live off of their job, theyll find a different one that pays more.
| |
4
| |
Most people confuse promoting MP3 music sharing with encouraging bootleg music and downloading mass amounts of music with no intention of buying the real thing.
When an artist says "Yeah, MP3 file sharing is great", they dont mean because of the free great music. They mean it gives you a chance to search for new good music without leaving your home. They usually expect people to go, "Yeah, this band is sweet, Im going to go get there CD", not "Yeah, this band is sweet, Im going to download the rest of there stuff and burn it to CD". I know there is bound to be a couple of musicians out there who encourage bootlegging, there is always going to be someone like that. Thinking they are right and all musicians share that oppinion is like listening to the guy telling us to launch a tactical nuclear strike on Mars because there are aliens living there. He could be right, but its not likely. Music is about art foremost, but its also about paying the bills, and getting enough of a response to encourage the artist to keep releasing new sounds. Also, we are in no position to force it to be about anything. For a lot of pop artists it is solely about the money, and who are we to say they cant make it about the money. We can disagree with there motives and not listen to it, but its no excuse to take there stuff against there will. | |
Tokabol wrote:
Why would you pay for a CD when you can just download the songs you like. There is rarely a CD where I like every song. I guess you have... what are those things called again... it's coming to me... Oh ya, a consiounce. ...Actually...Its also called "Supporting A Band" by not downloading rips of their music....Which it is prettuy sad that people do that to their favorite artist /me begans to cry\! | |
I had roughly 300 songs at one point. They were mostly songs from my MP3.com station (Fool's Turlin) and were all legal. Unfortunately, I did not back them up before sending my computer in for an upgrade about ten days ago. My former power source blew up and killed my old harddrive while a second harddrive was being installed. Most of the songs are no longer offered on MP3.com... which might be good for the artists if they switched to a service with better policies.
Rant: Releasing songs on the internet can be great advertising. Most content is not interchangeable. Artists do deserve to make a profit. Music is often not just a hobby. Most artists do not make all of their money on tour. Many artists can and do make total albums worth having. Arguing about the difference between "stealing" and "theft" does not make taking works without permission okay. ... PS: Does anyone know the new site for Windows Update? (Is it even up yet?) I just got my tower back and need to reinstall a lot. | |
Same as ever, unless you're part of a corporation who use some of the services the old one provided. It's windowsupdate.microsoft.com. To the home user who clicks on the windows update link, it's always been windowsupdate.microsoft.com.
| |
Jon88 wrote:
Same as ever, unless you're part of a corporation who use some of the services the old one provided. It's windowsupdate.microsoft.com. To the home user who clicks on the windows update link, it's always been windowsupdate.microsoft.com. That domain is the target of the MSBlast virus. Here's an article on CNET. I can get to the site, but I get an error when I try to update. Supposedly, Microsoft has 10 alternative links on their main page, but those links might be for the virus patch. I need to get old Windows 98 updates. I found a list of files, but I'm looking for needles in a haystack without the update client telling me what is critical. I'm wondering if there is another way to autodetect what I need. ...Sorry for the tangent. | |
http://www.WindowsUpdate.com was taken down. Unless there's some new variant, http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com should still work. For me, it seems to.
| |