Not a problem at all for me - I list only artists! I hardly ever listen to specific tracks/pieces anyway, but albums or top tracks.
Tidal has many versions of albums, different formats or remixes. I find it annoying that the list doesn't show format. My subscription is Tidal Hifi and I live in Europe and I'm happy that they have practically all music from local artists too, also vintage!
Tidal has many versions of albums, different formats or remixes. I find it annoying that the list doesn't show format. My subscription is Tidal Hifi and I live in Europe and I'm happy that they have practically all music from local artists too, also vintage!
Yes, but at the height of top 20 radio in the 60s and 70s, the sheer variety of pop music genres played is, in retrospect, amazing. You can verify this yourself by looking at, among other things, Billboard’s list of top songs for each year, and in a more granular basis by week. Or, take a listen to the Time-Life series of “rock” music in the 60s by year (now out of print but can be found used online and at thrift shops). Or go to YouTube and search for top records of a year.If one only listens to the known hits one is a good client for hit radio
Over and over the same songs.....
Take a look at Wikipedia’s listing of the top hits of 1966 according to Billboard. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1966
It includes Frank Sinatra, Nancy Sinatra, Jimmy Ruffin, the Young Rascals, Bob Lind, Mamas and Papas, Four tops, Lee Dorsey, Donovan, and on and on.
It is just lazy thinking (or perhaps no thinking at all) to repeat the old saw about top 20 radio about the same songs being repeated. That was the business model. It served this listener well: my CD collection has every artist and song mentioned above. And there are many more listed on the Billboard chart that I have. Thus, I think I helped these artists and the composers as well. Not like streaming, where the recompense to the average or even hit artist is minuscule by comparison. Due some due diligence in the economics of streaming and royalty payments to artists. If you truly care about the artists, you would NEVER depend on streaming to provide access to what is your functional equivalent of a permanent record collection. Instead, you would use streaming as I did with AM and FM radio: to be exposed to new music/artists so that I could purchase their records- and later in life ultimately buy their CDs. Today, this would mean purchasing files for download and permanent storage.
Well, before Tidal I used to broaden my musical horizons by spending a $20 bill for 20 cd’s (or tapes b4 that) at the thrift stores (they were only $1 apiece back when) sometimes just because the sleeve was cool, sometimes i’d find gold…..more often they’d be hangin from fishin line in the garden to scare the critters! So, Tidal isn’t taking money out of artists pockets on my behalf, its just the opposite they’re getting money they otherwise wouldn’t have gotten. (As minute as that might be)