Recently my work playlist have been Philip Glass. The repeating structure of his work makes it unobtrusive, and he wrote such large quantity of music, that there is always more. Came to explore his music only after seeing a recent article on him, in HN.
Going back further, some electronic instrumental is also good, Boards of Canada, the first Mum album (yesterday was dramatic, today is okay), Hiroshi Yoshimura, Mort Garson
There were also a bunch of 90s/2000/ instrumental post rock acts like Do Make Say Think, Explosions in the Sky, Tortoise, Fridge, etc that can be good work music.
Nice to see other people out there with this life philosophy. Thought I was the only one.
Paying for entertainment always seemed "wrong" somehow. That includes paying for it with attention, like watching commercials or enduring sponsorships on YouTube.
Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.
I'm not sure the degree to which I want to support professional entertainers as they currently exist in most cases. As I said in another reply, I'd rather it worked more like FOSS does.
Do FOSS advocates want to support the professional developers at MS, EA, and Blizzard? Most are probably ambivalent about them at best.
“Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.”
Logically coexist with this:
“Paying for entertainment always seemed "wrong" somehow. That includes paying for it with attention, like watching commercials or enduring sponsorships on YouTube.”
I’m being serious. Stuff costs money to make, seems logical that somehow compensation can be acquired for creative work somehow.
I think they could just avoid using it and find entertainment in things that are not monetised - which sounds OK, unfortunately society isn't structured this way so you're both missing out on huge parts of it and ostracizing yourself.
But when I think about it the fact that it seems outrageous at first glance really tells me how consumerist I am, not sure that I like this.
Reduction of embodying a consumer is another positive from trying one's best to not pay for entertainment. It cuts out a large swath of entertainment outlets that are a net negative to one's life, and often, for the environment as well.
Simple example: Say you want to have fun with your children. Instead of buying an entertainment outlet, like going to an amusement park, maybe go on a hike, write some code, or tell stories. If you insist on spending money, don't pay for the entertainment as a product, but buy some supplies to build something. As a grown-up now, I look back on those events more fondly from childhood than any of the purchased activities.
The first statement acknowledges the economic reality of the entertainment industry as-is. In that, I occasionally tolerate the things I dislike about it, and pull out the wallet or reluctantly tolerate an ad.
The other statement is my ideal where creators are free to make things they actually enjoy, and that I might. Take video games, for example. I find the deepest and most rewarding experiences to be had in free games (e.g., Dwarf Fortress, ToME, and various rogue-likes), compared to the output of the for-pay video game producers, like EA.
Creating stuff does cost money, energy, and/or time. In the former example, I might be inclined to donate to the project, and if I don't, others usually will. Or, they can just give it away and not ask for donations too, which many (including me) do. Imagine the world of entertainment working similar to FOSS, as a good example we're all familiar with. Like with FOSS, it changes the nature of the product produced, arguably for the better.
To me it sounds like you're just lying to look like you're "not like the other commoners."
You're telling me your TV, computer, video game console, sound system were all free? Or that you own none of those things? If you're not willing to watch ads nor are willing to pay, but also aren't entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free (i.e., you don't engage in piracy), you just don't watch videos? At all?
Or I guess you only watch PBS and listen to NPR? (But of course those both have sponsor messages in their content sooo...)
Even if you only get books from the library or hang out in the public park you're still paying for those things with your tax dollars, right?
You don't buy gas or pay a bus/train fare to go socialize with your friends and family? When you are with friends and family you don't buy any food or drink that you wouldn't buy if you were alone? You eat purely for sustenance?
Quite literally everyone pays for entertainment, and I don't think I'm interpreting "entertainment" too broadly here.
I'm not trying to convince anyone with my post. It was more in solidarity to another person that seemed to feel the same. However, my life is inarguably better (for me) this way, and for anyone interested, I'd recommend at least pondering the concept.
I only have a computer, which I need for work and other activities, like programming. I do use it for entertainment purposes too, however. Think what you will about that.
For the rest, I do my best not to purchase entertainment as a product, i.e., exchanging money for "fun". Obviously I do buy goods and services, like everyone (except freegans, I suppose).
How does your computer entertain you? It's all free?
Do you ever travel?
What to you is better about goods compared to fun?
I always think of it as "you can't repossess a memory." Some of the best purchases I've made have been things like concerts, vacations, experiences with friends and family, while the goods and services don't stick in my memory.
I'm definitely not trying to say that your philosophy doesn't work for you, though. Spending money is a balance. You don't take it with you, but it's easy to waste too much.
I did pay $120 for this refurb Thinkpad x230. The software on it right now, however, is all FOSS. Next time, I may try scrounging up completely free used hardware when/if this one breaks.
I'll say that if you're having a grand time exchanging money for entertainment, please continue doing so provided it's environmentally conscious (if it isn't, we all pay for your fun).
I definitely agree with your last point. I'm trying not to waste my life by earning money in the first place if I don't need it.
What % of the money youtube makes on ads goes to artists? If I pay some random goon 5€ to listen to a song they didn't make, I am technically "paying for entertainment", but that's hardly "doing the right thing" either.
Because some things shouldn't have been "services" in the first place.
The "service" label allows a business to paper over many ills. Some think the record industry is bad and has been abusing its position for too long; wait until the streaming industry grows big enough and see how they abuse their monopoly.
----
Do note that your parent said they're "anti-subscription", not anti-paying. Like people can be anti-renting without being homeless. Tell me, would you like living in a world where the only way for you to have a home is to rent?
Sure, some things shouldn’t use the subscription model. In the case of streaming services though, I think the subscription model works particularly well. I would much prefer to make a recurring payment and have new content included in my subscription than pay for each additional piece of content I want to consume.
The same can be said for SaaS products. Subscriptions are common because updates are generally frequent and a one off payment is not going to provide enough money for continual development.
Some people prefer to rent because you get a lot of benefits described above; regular maintenance at an affordable ongoing rate.
Living in a world where everyone can rent seems preferable over a world where owning is the only option, effectively meaning those that cannot afford the upfront payment are left without any option for a home.
> I think the subscription model works particularly well.
For you. And that's okay. Neither me nor your parent are asking for the abolition of subscriptions.
> I would much prefer to ...
And you're free to do that. Neither me nor your parent are asking for that option to be removed from you.
> Some people prefer to rent ...
And they're free to do that. Neither me nor your parent are asking for that option to be removed.
> ... a world where owning is the only option
You are the only one who has brought this up. Neither me nor your parent are asking for this. All we're asking for is the option to own.
----
This is like when Apple announced they're removing jacks and a bunch of people joined the conversation saying, "Hey, wireless works!". That's setting up a strawman and attacking it instead of addressing the point of the conversation.
Wireless already worked. Wireless works with or without a jack. The point was never about whether wireless works. It was always about whether wired, 3.5 mm should be an option.
I would call that being cheap, with all due respect. There’s nothing wrong with a subscription pricing model if the value is there and there’s a relatively easy way to unsubscribe.
To help, let's call it "anti-paying-for-a-subscription". Ongoing access to 70 million tracks is not without some form of recurrent payment: money, data, attention, etc. Parent's gripe, as stated, are the ads, and there's a reasonably priced alternative to dealing with them. Hence my respectful remark..
I don't doubt you're trying to be respectful, but you're still not considering what your parent might have meant, and are still claiming your own assumptions as facts for them. For example:
> Ongoing access to 70 million tracks ...
It'd be pretty difficult to go through 70 million tracks for a person. I know it will be for me. Maybe your parent also doesn't need so many tracks.
It is, after all, common for people to compile/curate their own music library. I still do it. I'm not saying your parent does it too, but maybe they have a similar reason to not need access to 70 million tracks.
And:
> Parent's gripe, as stated, are the ads ...
Even if that were the only gripe they've stated, it wouldn't mean that's the only issue they have. In fact, when I read their stated anti-subscription position without an accompanying explanation, I assumed they might have a reason for it, even if they didn't state it here and now.
For those who use Apple Music and like this genre but have yet to run into it, there's an Apple-curated playlist called "BEATstrumentals" which is mostly lofi-beats-to-whatever-to.
Lofi beats are nice and all, but honestly I’m able to focus best with black metal. It’s oddly relaxing. Just a solid wall of noise, with no chance of understanding the words. It’s what I listened to all through grad school, and back when I had to work in an office.
Certain kinds of black metal in particular can have a hypnotic or even psychedelic quality.
The songs tend to be relatively long and repetitive. Guitar riffs are often tremelo picking, drum parts are often "blast beats", and vocals might have a lot of reverb and are generally unintelligible, so it all kind of smears out into a wash of noise.
This stuff is a niche within a niche within a niche, but it's very distinctive and very different from the "aggressive" sound in most other styles of metal.
It also goes back to the early days of the style. Check out the Mayhem song "Freezing Moon" and the Darkthrone song "Transylvanian Hunger" for classic examples.
The one downside of black metal is just how many bands and individuals are either loosely or directly related to or affiliated with white power, neo-fascis, or just plain racism. Finding a new band (mostly from Europe) tends to be a "are these guys Nazis?" dice roll. The answer usually isn't obviously "yes", but it's less often obviously "no" than one would like. It doesn't help that there's a fine line between being "edgy" for the sake of being edgy and actually being a Nazi.
Black metal music is complex but ironically repetitive and boring. I also find it hard to get into a trance/flow state without some sort of rhythmic bass element.
Oh great point! I forgot to mention that. Is very important for coding that music should not have lyrics.
Interestingly, I found it can be fine to have some lyrics if I'm coding things that are easy to code.
I guess cognitive load is way higher when you're trying to design in your mind how to code a solution and some dude/girl is melodically whining about her little drama hahaha.
Just figured too that, for example, no lyrics but agitated guitars also won't go well. What I need is the opposite of adrenaline, some kind of serenity where the mind can expand on its own. So I'm kind of surprised that I can do that with some melodic techno. Interesting.
53 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 97.7 ms ] threadGoing back further, some electronic instrumental is also good, Boards of Canada, the first Mum album (yesterday was dramatic, today is okay), Hiroshi Yoshimura, Mort Garson
There were also a bunch of 90s/2000/ instrumental post rock acts like Do Make Say Think, Explosions in the Sky, Tortoise, Fridge, etc that can be good work music.
I'm anti-subscription. I only subscribe to basic home utilities.
Paying for entertainment always seemed "wrong" somehow. That includes paying for it with attention, like watching commercials or enduring sponsorships on YouTube.
Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.
Do FOSS advocates want to support the professional developers at MS, EA, and Blizzard? Most are probably ambivalent about them at best.
“Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.”
Logically coexist with this:
“Paying for entertainment always seemed "wrong" somehow. That includes paying for it with attention, like watching commercials or enduring sponsorships on YouTube.”
I’m being serious. Stuff costs money to make, seems logical that somehow compensation can be acquired for creative work somehow.
But when I think about it the fact that it seems outrageous at first glance really tells me how consumerist I am, not sure that I like this.
Simple example: Say you want to have fun with your children. Instead of buying an entertainment outlet, like going to an amusement park, maybe go on a hike, write some code, or tell stories. If you insist on spending money, don't pay for the entertainment as a product, but buy some supplies to build something. As a grown-up now, I look back on those events more fondly from childhood than any of the purchased activities.
The other statement is my ideal where creators are free to make things they actually enjoy, and that I might. Take video games, for example. I find the deepest and most rewarding experiences to be had in free games (e.g., Dwarf Fortress, ToME, and various rogue-likes), compared to the output of the for-pay video game producers, like EA.
Creating stuff does cost money, energy, and/or time. In the former example, I might be inclined to donate to the project, and if I don't, others usually will. Or, they can just give it away and not ask for donations too, which many (including me) do. Imagine the world of entertainment working similar to FOSS, as a good example we're all familiar with. Like with FOSS, it changes the nature of the product produced, arguably for the better.
You can read it for free, but by your logic, perhaps I should charge you a monthly service fee, or start each comment with a ad spot...
Technically this comment is costing me money to make, internet isn't free, neither is the food I eat to sustain myself.
Logically coexisting none the less.
You're telling me your TV, computer, video game console, sound system were all free? Or that you own none of those things? If you're not willing to watch ads nor are willing to pay, but also aren't entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free (i.e., you don't engage in piracy), you just don't watch videos? At all?
Or I guess you only watch PBS and listen to NPR? (But of course those both have sponsor messages in their content sooo...)
Even if you only get books from the library or hang out in the public park you're still paying for those things with your tax dollars, right?
You don't buy gas or pay a bus/train fare to go socialize with your friends and family? When you are with friends and family you don't buy any food or drink that you wouldn't buy if you were alone? You eat purely for sustenance?
Quite literally everyone pays for entertainment, and I don't think I'm interpreting "entertainment" too broadly here.
I only have a computer, which I need for work and other activities, like programming. I do use it for entertainment purposes too, however. Think what you will about that.
For the rest, I do my best not to purchase entertainment as a product, i.e., exchanging money for "fun". Obviously I do buy goods and services, like everyone (except freegans, I suppose).
Do you ever travel?
What to you is better about goods compared to fun?
I always think of it as "you can't repossess a memory." Some of the best purchases I've made have been things like concerts, vacations, experiences with friends and family, while the goods and services don't stick in my memory.
I'm definitely not trying to say that your philosophy doesn't work for you, though. Spending money is a balance. You don't take it with you, but it's easy to waste too much.
I'll say that if you're having a grand time exchanging money for entertainment, please continue doing so provided it's environmentally conscious (if it isn't, we all pay for your fun).
I definitely agree with your last point. I'm trying not to waste my life by earning money in the first place if I don't need it.
The "service" label allows a business to paper over many ills. Some think the record industry is bad and has been abusing its position for too long; wait until the streaming industry grows big enough and see how they abuse their monopoly.
----
Do note that your parent said they're "anti-subscription", not anti-paying. Like people can be anti-renting without being homeless. Tell me, would you like living in a world where the only way for you to have a home is to rent?
The same can be said for SaaS products. Subscriptions are common because updates are generally frequent and a one off payment is not going to provide enough money for continual development.
Some people prefer to rent because you get a lot of benefits described above; regular maintenance at an affordable ongoing rate.
Living in a world where everyone can rent seems preferable over a world where owning is the only option, effectively meaning those that cannot afford the upfront payment are left without any option for a home.
For you. And that's okay. Neither me nor your parent are asking for the abolition of subscriptions.
> I would much prefer to ...
And you're free to do that. Neither me nor your parent are asking for that option to be removed from you.
> Some people prefer to rent ...
And they're free to do that. Neither me nor your parent are asking for that option to be removed.
> ... a world where owning is the only option
You are the only one who has brought this up. Neither me nor your parent are asking for this. All we're asking for is the option to own.
----
This is like when Apple announced they're removing jacks and a bunch of people joined the conversation saying, "Hey, wireless works!". That's setting up a strawman and attacking it instead of addressing the point of the conversation.
Wireless already worked. Wireless works with or without a jack. The point was never about whether wireless works. It was always about whether wired, 3.5 mm should be an option.
It's far from the biggest evil in the world though.
Personally I just vaguely try to avoid them and instead make an effort to pay people for the content I consume in lump sums here and there.
Conflating the two can lead to some really stupid conclusions, like "Oh, you don't rent? Does that mean you're homeless?"
> Ongoing access to 70 million tracks ...
It'd be pretty difficult to go through 70 million tracks for a person. I know it will be for me. Maybe your parent also doesn't need so many tracks.
It is, after all, common for people to compile/curate their own music library. I still do it. I'm not saying your parent does it too, but maybe they have a similar reason to not need access to 70 million tracks.
And:
> Parent's gripe, as stated, are the ads ...
Even if that were the only gripe they've stated, it wouldn't mean that's the only issue they have. In fact, when I read their stated anti-subscription position without an accompanying explanation, I assumed they might have a reason for it, even if they didn't state it here and now.
For Apple Music users I've duplicated this playlist here:
https://music.apple.com/us/playlist/lofi-beats/pl.u-Zm4Girz7...
Such as:
Leviathan - X (demo)
Krallice - esp first four albums
Yellow Eyes - anything
Ustalost
Judas Iscariot - Thy Dying Light
The songs tend to be relatively long and repetitive. Guitar riffs are often tremelo picking, drum parts are often "blast beats", and vocals might have a lot of reverb and are generally unintelligible, so it all kind of smears out into a wash of noise.
This stuff is a niche within a niche within a niche, but it's very distinctive and very different from the "aggressive" sound in most other styles of metal.
It also goes back to the early days of the style. Check out the Mayhem song "Freezing Moon" and the Darkthrone song "Transylvanian Hunger" for classic examples.
The one downside of black metal is just how many bands and individuals are either loosely or directly related to or affiliated with white power, neo-fascis, or just plain racism. Finding a new band (mostly from Europe) tends to be a "are these guys Nazis?" dice roll. The answer usually isn't obviously "yes", but it's less often obviously "no" than one would like. It doesn't help that there's a fine line between being "edgy" for the sake of being edgy and actually being a Nazi.
Have you heard the surf rock versions of Freezing Moon and Transylvanian Hunger? They’re great!
For truly special moments I need Michael McCann work on Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Total masterpiece.
If I have to solve really hard problems, I need no sounds. Maybe even noise cancellation with absolutely nothing but my "voice" in my mind.
Interestingly, I found it can be fine to have some lyrics if I'm coding things that are easy to code.
I guess cognitive load is way higher when you're trying to design in your mind how to code a solution and some dude/girl is melodically whining about her little drama hahaha.
Just figured too that, for example, no lyrics but agitated guitars also won't go well. What I need is the opposite of adrenaline, some kind of serenity where the mind can expand on its own. So I'm kind of surprised that I can do that with some melodic techno. Interesting.
I enjoy Faith no More, Tool, Florence and the Machine, Prince etc
https://youtu.be/FZUfiW3W1KY