h a l f b a k e r yCogito, ergo sumthin'
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Jukeboxes now play songs according to the order in which "votes" were received. This is inflexible in that if you really really want to hear your song NOW there's nothing you can do. Everybody has to wait forever for their song. Also, the songs that end up playing are often only liked by one person
in the bar (and sometimes only one person in the universe). All this discourages people from spending $ on the jukebox. I say the jukebox should simply tally the votes for all songs and play the one with the most votes no matter when it was chosen. If several songs have the same number of votes, then it could pick one of them by reverting to the current chronolgical system. (After a song plays, it reverts to zero votes.) The plutocratic jukebox would enable you to force your song to the top of the list by picking it several times. Or you could vote for popular songs in order to be more likely to hear them. I think having the popular (or lowest common denominator ) songs play more would be ok in this case, because if you wanted good music, you'd have the bartender/manager/dj picking the music annyway instead of the people. Not only would the plutocratic jukebox put a more accurate price on hearing your song, it would also make more money for the bar.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
life'stooShort to listen to bad "music". |
|
| |
No and no again. This isn't fair. Ya pays yer quarter jes like ever'one else... why shouldn't ya hears yer song? |
|
| |
This would work against my own personal juke box strategy. I like to pick out the two or three absolute worst songs in the box and play 'em. |
|
| |
Every (chosen) song would eventually play, no? Just the ones for which more money (votes) were received would be played first. |
|
| |
I can see evil bar owners stacking the deck by selecting a large number of bad songs just prior to happy hour. |
|
| |
//Also, the songs that end up playing are often only liked by one person in the bar (and sometimes only one person in the universe) ... discourages people from spending $ on the jukebox. |
|
| |
I disagree. I have often observed that my choices on jukeboxes have the effect of hurrying more people to the machine to select tunes that they don't hate. There is no sight better than watching a black-clad heavy-metaller type run to the record player, fumbling for change as Destiny's Child come on. I must fishbone this idea because it would limit my schadenfreude. "Ladies leave your men at home..." |
|
| |
phoenix, I cannot see any evil bar owner doing that. Forcing oneself to spend a couple of hours in an empty bar with nothing to do but listen to REO Speedwagon or somesuch is masochism of the highest order. |
|
| |
[calum] "...just prior to happy hour." |
|
| |
phoenix, yeah. In the bars/pubs/hotels I've worked in, happy hour has always been timed to coincide with the quietest times so that (a) more people will come in when it is quiet and (b) to minimise the losses from selling drink below cost. Anyway, forcing oneself to spend a couple of hours in an busy bar listenening to REO Speedwagon or somesuch is still masochism of the highest order. |
|
| |
Not much of a happy hour if it's the quietest time of the day. |
|
| |
If there's a tie vote, does it play the winning songs simultaneously? Perhaps... alternating 100 millisecond samples... |
|
| |