Rico
Certified Guru
...especially since they were never designed to be listened in album form, but rather performed live in front of an audience. Sigh...
Rico posted on Sep 15 2004 at 09:14 PM said:...especially since they were never designed to be listened in album form, but rather performed live in front of an audience. Sigh...
Rico posted on Sep 15 2004 at 09:52 PM said:Well you are a pretty dumb person. Hey, maybe you should use something called 'argument' to back up your claims. Mattmagoo pretty much summed it up with the skits thing. I do not want to listen to an album as if it were one giant 70 minute song.
To be fair at a music concert, they don't just randomly choose which songs they play, or which order they will do it in.Rico posted on Sep 15 2004 at 09:14 PM said:...especially since they were never designed to be listened in album form, but rather performed live in front of an audience. Sigh...
I listened to it once in order (the first time) as I usually do with albums. It was okay, nothing special. Now I just listen to the tracks in random order. Each one is enjoyable on its own and by itself. This is ideal, because I don't have to listen to the tracks in order each time. I can just pick one and it will still be enjoyable.bringoutthegimp posted on Sep 21 2004 at 12:25 PM said:think of a good album as a book. do you read a book by reading the middle, then the beginning, then reading the end? no. you fuck up the track list and you fuck up the story/concept, simple as that. i notice you said that you enjoyed black trash, the whole story is of some guy who just comes out of jail, sure you can listen to the songs in a random order but then you wont know what the fuck is going on.
raven posted on Sep 14 2004 at 10:10 PM said:I mostly play my music by album because most albums have been recorded in a certain order for a reason and IMO sound better that way, so I don't feel the need to organise my music by anything else than artist, album and track.Rico posted on Sep 14 2004 at 10:03 PM said:Well if you don't need it, agreed, iTunes isn't for you. It isn't for everyone, after all it's much more of a digital jukebox than WMP, which is just a slightly glorified version of the classic playlist.
I'm just using my computer as a cd-player with all music built-in, I navigate the old-fashioned way with a remote-control
Dozer: WMP is Windows Media Player, I don't use Winamp
jegHegy posted on Sep 21 2004 at 04:33 PM said:
oh. i posted the url because i chose the "Other" option. glad you like the player though, it's lovely.Ringo posted on Sep 21 2004 at 05:52 PM said:jegHegy posted on Sep 21 2004 at 04:33 PM said:
Thanks...
That program actually does the trick. Tou can actually notice transition, but it's nothing like the "gap" in Winamp.
I noticed you use that as I browsed your deviant page . Looks about right for the specs of this pc. iTunes is excellent for the rating and crap you can do with it, but it's pretty slow on this p2 350.jegHegy posted on Sep 21 2004 at 04:33 PM said:
Yeah, I noticed that. Doesn't worry me as I have hardware controls my desk anyway.Ringo posted on Sep 22 2004 at 02:40 PM said:One thing I just noticed about Foobar200 is that it doesn't seem to have volume control... What's that about?
preferences -> playback -> volume control :]Ringo posted on Sep 22 2004 at 03:40 PM said:One thing I just noticed about Foobar200 is that it doesn't seem to have volume control... What's that about?
jegHegy posted on Sep 22 2004 at 03:39 PM said:preferences -> playback -> volume control :]Ringo posted on Sep 22 2004 at 03:40 PM said:One thing I just noticed about Foobar200 is that it doesn't seem to have volume control... What's that about?