I had this thought.
It happened the other day, a response to one of my posts on music, on radio I think. It was a reaction to someone, it doesn't matter who, maybe it was Iggy maybe someone else. The idea was this. That with music, in this day and age, that you can kind of Choose Your Own adventure and make whatever you want out of things. With Spotify, you are your own master. I mean this is true, there is no denying this. I subscribe to Spotify, and I think if you are into music at all, you should subscribe. It's totally worth it.
The media medium we live in allows us to literally paint any picture we want. It is our adventure and not only are we allowed to choose it, we are allowed to define the bounds & limits. We define when it starts, the rules, and when it ends. But here is the thought I had. Is this always good? Is this always what we want? Is unlimited choice always a good thing? I am not so sure it is.
Imagine you were going to play a board game with your kid. Well in this new world, we can do whatever we want. So I proffer you this, the ultimate board game of freedom:
The rules are simple: Whatever, bro. See those lines? Fuck 'em.
I think sometimes when we give ourselves unlimited amounts of freedom this is what the natural outcome of that freedom is. Isn't this why we go to movies, read books, go to see Broadway shows? We go because unlimited freedom is not always a good thing. This is the thought I had the other day. I made a note of it in my Trello blog list, to discuss this at some point. When I picked up the Sunday Times this past weekend and saw an article that may or may not be about this thing (I haven't read it yet), it made me think, ok, it is time to do this blog post.
The problem with choosing my own musical adventure is that my musical adventure is stuck somewhere in time between 1985 and maybe the year 2000 or so. Of course there is more outside that narrow scope but by and large, a huge amount of the things that ended up in my "Library" playlist on Spotify was produced during those years. And to me, this presented a problem, that contrary to the total freedom that Spotify lends me, my perceived freedom tends towards a set list that was defined when I wasn't totally left to my own devices.
Of course, this is why Pandora had an edge on Spotify in the beginning and why Spotify came out with the artist stations. I think between the 2 I prefer Spotify because I don't want to give feedback to the radio. The idea that I can tell Pandora that I like or dislike something is great, in theory. But before long, all playlists pretty much end up playing the Beatles or Led Zeppelin. Look, I like those bands. They great and all. But you know what, I really don't need to hear either of them every day, or every week for that matter. Sometimes I want to hear nothing but new material. I mean, I guess I want to be challenged to like something different now & again.
This is why the WEQX feed has been great for me personally. It allows me to, well, kinda choose my own adventure. Aside from my Library playlist I also have a Starred playlist, which is just a legacy playlist from an old Spotify feature that has been turned into something else. Anyway, the Starred playlist is smaller & newer, and saved locally to my phone for emergencies...like when I am stranded in a submarine, or the 10 minutes while taking off or landing in a plane. Currently it's less than 50 songs and when something gets old, I bump it out to the Library and delete it from this list.
I know there are downsides to allowing The Man to play music for you. I really like the Decemberists song Severed. But if you listen to EQX for X hours, you will hear it played exactly X/2 times. I
really liked it. Then I just liked it. Now I like it but you know it would be great if they didn't play it so damn much. So yeah, I get it, choosing your own adventure is great, and I fully endorse it if your adventure does not land you in the same destination every time you play. But for me I need to be given options, but sometimes limited options.
NYTimes link: The Tyranny of Convenience
I did eventually read the article after writing most of this and it wasn't exactly the same idea, but it does stand as an adjacent thought set to this one. The article does touch specifically on streaming TV versus having to wait to watch something, which is a similar, yet different, thought. As someone who grew up watching stuff on network television and having to wait for it, the anticipation of the next episode, or the discussion between them, added to the show's experience. As much as I love Netflix dropping an entire season on us at once, it removes the anticipation, and it removes the discussion between the episodes when Binge Watching is now a thing. I won't lie, we binge watch too. It's wonderful.
Having the Olympics broadcast to us at a specific time and place and...imagine the horror, watching it live, does add a sense of enjoyment for me. Well, at least until the media circus does everything they can to make the athletes cry. Is it me or are they 1 step away from spraying them with mace in an effort to get them to shed tears?
There is something to be said about convenience and there is something to be said about freedom of options. I have personally thought that for years the concept of convenience is a bad excuse, that we fall back on this to explain why we don't want to do something. Stated another way, we strive for convenience because it is lazy. But answer this for me. What accomplishment in life that you truly value has been convenient? Do you have a PhD? An MBA? Have you ridden 200 miles in a day, or eaten 150 hot dogs at once? The list of things that you tell people about yourself are never convenient things.
Anyway, it was just a thought.