iTunes horse deserves further beating
I know this topic has received ample discussion elsewhere, but I absolutely MUST insist that the iTunes shuffle function is in no way random. In fact, it is maddeningly recursive in its tendency to refer back to certain artists. In today's sitting of about 50 songs, I have heard three selections from The Doors self-titled album. And the worst part is that they're not even good songs (Take It As It Comes, End of the Night, and now Soul Kitchen). The unsatisfying unrandomness of it all has me considering deleting The Doors from my hard drive. Because that's the logical solution.
Update: it's now up to four songs, but at least this is The End. Damn you Steve Jobs!!!
Update: it's now up to four songs, but at least this is The End. Damn you Steve Jobs!!!
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
posted by wae at 3:48 PM
3 Comments:
I think every shuffle function should have an algorithm built in so that it cycles through every artist before playing another track by the same artist.
(BTW, you don't have a site feed at the moment. Hi, Andy.)
once again the human brain has failed. having succumbed to the clinically debilitating need (in some) to discern patterns.
much like asking a girl "if i flip this coin, what are the chances of me getting head?" we know what answer is desired.
the ipod is made for to you collect your personal music pattern. why blame it for picking a crappy song you put on there? that's like blaming van damme for making you watch lionheart three times.
tim says it should have an algorithm. tim apparently wants to manipulate random to be his random. thanks, why don't you go manipulate your genitals instead. no offense.
we are all creatures of pattern. ipod has just made it more apparent.
as a parting note, jessica alba is an attractive young lady.
I would only blame Van Damme if he created a diabolical pattern of cycling through Lionheart, Cyborg, and Timecop in one sitting when 2 thousand other perfectly viable movies were sitting in my "random" queue.
Post a Comment
<< Home