[toxican]

They also don't only cost $12/mo for access to pretty much everything I'd ever want to listen to.

[tourmalinetaco]

Is that $12/mo truly worth it? I mean, do you find 13+ new songs you genuinely enjoy every month? And would the alternative media be so expensive that you couldn’t build your library using that $12/mo, over a reasonable period of time? I know for me that it’s not worth it, I can buy 3-4 CDs for that $12, even less if I find some good deals, and I’ve had better luck finding new music at the Goodwill than I have with Spotify.

[Spivak]

Yes, are you crazy? 12 songs is such a low bar I find at least 12 new artists every month. The music scene is so huge that tiny niches in relative terms can get sustainable followings. I just went to a sold-out show last week where the headliner had 50k monthly listeners.

Did you just decide on your 30th birthday that you aren't allowed to listen to new music anymore? I can't even imagine listening to the same music collection on repeat forever.

[fragmede]

> buy 3-4 CDs

I'd wager that there's a good number of people that don't even own a CD player anymore. $12/month to have music to listen to, even if I don't have new tracks pushed on to me, seems like a reasonable deal to me to not have to deal with the hassle of hosting it on my own server and, what, ripping my CDs to mp3s? If a friend comes in and wants to hear something, Spotify is more likely to have it than my local mp3 collection.

[snvzz]

That seems expensive. Are you storing your FLACs in AWS Glacier? If so, you're doing it wrong.

e.g. mine are in a well backed up filesystem, reachable from anywhere in the world via my tailscale network.

Typically mounted read-only on whatever computer I am using, at definitely less than $12/mo.

In contrast, Spotify doesn't even have much of the music I listen to.