You must log in or register to comment.
While I agree that this is stupid, why would a deaf person be using Spotify in the first place?
Deafness isn’t binary, they could be capable of hearing the music but not making out the lyrics.
And even people who cannot hear anything at all still feel the bass and stuff.
Relevant funny story from Deaf actor Daniel Durant: https://youtube.com/shorts/eYQKtwkoZOI
hissss!!!
As someone who is not deaf, this was a really helpful comment to help me understand, thank you.
To everyone else reading down here, lot of people also don’t really get this same idea with visual impairment and other handicaps.
There are a lot of people who are legally blind, but that just means they can’t make out things at certain distances, and these are why we need things like high-visibility curbs and street markers and large-type text options and other accessibility features that able-bodied people in a wide field of industries often forget about and just assume either people are blind and won’t be using their products, or will have perfect vision. When really there are far more people who are considered deaf or blind who can still enjoy many of the same things as someone with fully faculties and just need a little extra help.
I am only typing this out because we seem to entering a strange time in the developed world where more and more people are withdrawing from the social contract and not extending compassion towards others, particularly those with special needs.
When I was little I thought the future would be a bright and remarkable place where people took care of each other, because those were the messages you see on PBS shows like Mr Rogers and Sesame Street. Turns out, a LOT of people didn’t watch those shows.
Wait, are you supposed to be able to make out the lyrics?
Excuse me while I kiss this guy!
Makes sense!
Just to clarify definitions that probably wouldn’t be considered deafness, it would be an audio processing disorder. Ability to hear music but inability to process the words.
Deafness is “binary” in that it just means ones ability to hear sound or not. If you can hear sound even slightly then you just have a hearing impairment and are not deaf.
No it really isn’t. The hard of hearing are considered deaf. There’s complete deafness, much like there’s complete blindness, but the fact that you’re calling it hearing impairment instead of hard of hearing indicates you aren’t as well versed in Deafness (not to be confused with deafness) as you think
Deafness is commonly understood to include both total and partial hearing loss. Every major dictionary defines it this way. It might have a more precise meaning in some spheres (medical, etc), but in common English it is not binary the way you’re suggesting.
Similar to blindness which also isn’t an absolute yes or no. People can be blind and still see colors and shapes, but not enough to be able to tell what they are.
So I’m not deaf, not in the slightest, but I struggle to understand lyrics in music. I love music, I live and breathe it and I’m gonna dedicate my life to it, but I’ve always struggled with understanding lyrics in music. To me, the vocalist is just another instrument in the mix. Having lyrics to read helps me appreciate my favorite tunes more!
You might have a smidge of
SpeechAuditory* Processing Disorder. I do and that’s what it’s like for me. Common comorbidity with ADHD and ASD, and possibly other neurotypes.Oh almost certainly. I have ADHD, prolly autistic, and I’ve had many times where my mind stopped processing what people are saying. Which is bad when you work tourism xD
Yyuup. It’s bad in basically any job you have to listen to people during, and I always have to establish with friends that it is an honest mistake when I can’t understand them and/or spaced out.
I’m ADHD and on the spectrum more than likely, and my therapist says that the cutting edge research pertaining to this is leaning towards combining ADHD and ASD into one conglomerate of symptoms because they overlap more often than not.
For me it is certain singers that apparently everyone else understands but I cannot without knowing the words ahead of time. Not just mumbling, some voices just don’t register clearly for me if I don’t know what they are saying.
It can depend on the mixing, too. Not just in regards to volume, but also in how the vocals are edited. My recent obsession has been Dusk at Cubist Castle, shit’s absolutely amazing. The way a lot of the vocals are mixed and processed are super cool, like layering the same lines over themselves five times over with subtle delays and panning, it sounds real cool! But it makes it sound a lot more distant to me as a result.
Yeah, thst is true. But I’m talking about some popular artists like Pearl Jam and Mase who everyone around me apparently could hear clear as day but I just heard mumble mush at first and could only hear the words clearly with printed lyrics in front of me.
Long shot guess: deaf person can “listen” to vibrations of music with their hands on a speaker but this is not possible with lyrics?
So imagine you’re listening to rap. But you’re hard of hearing. The beats still slap, but the words aren’t intelligible. Hell the beats are even better because you got a subwoofer that shakes the floor. But you know it’s poetry, it’s about the words as much as the beats. So of course you’d want to read along
Is that you, Helen?
Seems like they could just Google the lyrics and read that.
But I guess Spotify lyrics do give an idea on the pace of the song.
I killed my Spotify account when they started shoveling millions of dollars at Joe Rogan, and everything they’ve done since then only confirms I made the right call.
Me too. Migrating to Tidal was extremely easy. They even imported my Spotify playlists and follows. And they are cheaper. Fuck Spotify.
Actually it wasn’t easy, they rely on a third party service that charges the customer instead of Tidal footing that bill for you. I thought that was a bit tacky.
I may have to try that again: at the time I got too many complaints from my kids. Now Spotify hugely increased prices, probably to pay for its attempt to collect Podcasts that I’m not interested in.
Unfortunately I agreed with my kids: other music services just don’t works as well
Tidal has been pretty good for me over the past 5 years. I don’t know what your criteria are, but for me it’s something like 1) is the catalog big enough to offer 90% of what I’m looking for and 2) no advertising if I’m paying for the service. It ticks those boxes. I imagine it’s only a matter of time until they introduce the bullshit tier where you’re paying and being advertised to, but for now you get what you pay for.
-
My teens like it
-
I can predictably ask for either an artist or “like an artist” and get hours of what I asked for. (Apple just segued into random stuff so I always had to get it back on track. Someone I want listen to specifically someone do if I ask for that I expect to get that)
-
This one is actually out of their hands. Lyrics aren’t free sadly and they have to pay for API calls. It’s fucking stupid but the labels are the ones at fault here.
Fuck Spotify nonetheless.
Unless there’s some agreement / licensing thing prohibiting it, and considering that lyrics don’t change, they should be able to do some caching for a total of 1 API call per song
You and I can do that but they’re not just caching they’re redistributing which requires royalties
Displaying written lyrics does not require a royalty payment to anyone.
It does unless they agree to let you redistribute the lyrics without one. Lyrics are copyrighted.
https://www.musicconnection.com/copyright-issues-scriped-entertainment-song-lyrics/
https://www.thelaw.com/law/are-song-titles-lyrics-protected-by-copyright-or-trademark-law.317/
You may get lucky and have a band that doesn’t care or won’t notice your operation, but Spotify has music from the big labels and they do care and they will notice.
Not sure why you got downvoted… storing text isn’t a lot of data, they can easily do it once per song and wrap it up.
The issue isn’t the storage, it’s the copyright holders
It is not a copyright infringement to display lyrics.
It very much is and Spotify would definitely get sued if they weren’t paying. I got a cease and desist for an app I made about a decade ago for this very thing
So confident while being completely wrong.
It does look that way, doesn’t it? I’m dumb as fuck. Everything I have ever touched in my life has failed or crumbled. My few friends are dying or already dead and I seem to be wrong about most things in life. I should put a bullet in my head and get off this worthless ride. Thanks for the confirmation of what an idiotic, worthless piece of shit I am and what a valueless, burdensome waste of resources I have been on this planet. May your ride yield better results than mine did.
… Why would the lyrics service allow that?
Surely the cost of lyrics (regardless of fetching API or royalties with caching) are miniscule compared to the other costs.
I assume they are not paying for the lyrics, but for the access to the api. The lyrics are also timed to the music and the service they use might do that for them. So, like you say, serving lyrics data costs very little, but that is not what they pay for.
And to add, I don’t really know anything about how this works behind the scenes.
I might get a bit of hate for this considering the community name, but Spotify is the one subscription I pay for and don’t feel like I’m getting ripped off. Basically every song I want is on there, they very rarely remove content, and the algorithm actually comes up with decent recommendations. I even like some of the other random features like Spotify wrapped.
But the main difference I see vs other subscriptions is that I don’t feel locked in, since there are no Spotify originals etc if they ever make the service too shit (which admittedly they might since they keep raising the price and trying to shove podcasts down everyone’s throat) I could easily switch to a different streaming service or even go back to just buying music outright
Wow, that’s hot trash. Imagine subtitles on movies and TV being stuck behind a paywall.
Prime Video - ‘hold my hat’
If it were a paid account yeah, it’d be extremely shitty. But seeing as it’s a free account, it’s their prerogative to try and get people to pay for the service. Besides, I don’t get this entitlement that spotify has to provide music for free. They’re a (admittedly greedy) middle-man that wants to get paid. If one wants free music and everything, well, time to self-host.
hiding accessibility features behind a pay wall is disgusting, because only people with disabilities have to pay for it. *edit if you’re downvoting, just let me know so I can block all of the ableists running around this community. **edit 2 - c’mon guys, why are you afraid to name yourselves?
They can get Spotify but can’t Google lyrics?
so you’re cool with people with disabilities having to do more labor than you to get the same thing? go fuck yourself
If I want to get free lyrics for free Spotify, I would have to do the same labor…
Also I downvoted you, so go ahead and plug your ears and block me, like a child.
they prolly won’t be the only one lmao
Oh yes, if you want them.
Sure is nice having working ears, huh.
Just because a building has a glass elevator with a view doesn’t mean all the other elevators are making an ADA violation……….
Some places have better features, unless ADA mandates something, they’re just doing something better, fuck them eh…?
nobody’s talking about the bare minimum of federal law dude. this is a discussion about how humans are supposed to treat each other. if the way you walk around life is “well, it’s legal to be an asshole in this situation so I’ll do it” then there’s no point in having this conversation because do not have the time to make you a better person
also your example absolutely wild. the purpose of an elevator is to get you from here to there. the purpose of Spotify is to help you listen to music. people with hearing issues are required to pay extra or do extra work to get the same experience as a perfectly abled person.
nobody’s talking about the bare minimum of federal law dude. this is a discussion about how humans are supposed to treat each other. if the way you walk around life is “well, it’s legal to be an asshole in this situation so I’ll do it” then there’s no point in having this conversation because do not have the time to make you a better person
Just because someone has more money and can provide a better service doesn’t make them an asshole. The differently abled person could pay to use the other elevator, just like you and me, they just wouldn’t get to use the view, which is what the charge is for. How does this make the persons “experience” different if the only point is to move them? Anything else is an added bonus as you said.
also your example absolutely wild. the purpose of an elevator is to get you from here to there. the purpose of Spotify is to help you listen to music. people with hearing issues are required to pay extra or do extra work to get the sameexperience as a perfectly abled person.
You mean… exactly like how an elevator is to move people up and down and the added view is extra and not needed so both still have the same experience…?
Do you even know what point you’re trying to make here? Because as you’ve agreed, Spotify and elevators both are for one use, and the view, lyrics are an added bonus sometimes. But this doesn’t make someone an asshole for not spending the money on a better elevator. Fucking yeeesh……
as I said, I don’t have the time and energy to teach you how to be a better person. continuing capitalism or whatever it is
lol, just because someone has money they “need” to be a better “person”? No, everyone should be held to the same standards.
It’s you who needs the education if you think segregating “people”to different standards due to their wealth is an even remotely smart idea….
And neither of us should be “teaching” each other, you’re a narcissist if you think that’s what you “need” to be doing in a conversation. Lmfao, this a new one.
it’s their prerogative to try and get people to pay for the service.
Except that this attempt could easily be shown to largely land on folks with accessibility needs. That’s a big no-no under many laws.
An interesting comparison is pay-to-ride elevators. For most folks an elevator is a nice convenience they would not mind occasionally paying for.
But for some folks, the elevator is completely essential. This dynamic resulted in making pay-to-ride elevators illegal in most places, today.
Due to the uniquely fucked up way music licensing works, it’s likely they license the lyrics through a separate company than the music and probably don’t even directly license it themselves (Tidal for example uses Musicmatch’s lyric library and api). There’s a cost associated with this that is likely outside their control. It’s shitty, but it is plalusibly reasonable they implemented this as a cost savings measure.
That’s a good point. That might actually make the case for “undue burden”.
A court case about it could be a way for Spotify to pass the problem to their licensors, in theory.
You keep claiming this “undue burden”, can you provide a source to the exemption in the legislation that states this is possible? Multiple people have asked and you keep just screaming at them.
Prove your point or kindly fuck off and stop making the most obvious fucking lies.
employer
Is Spotify an employer to their customers…?
Radio to the general public?
An elevator in a building…?
Did you do what they did and google something and read the first two lines only….?
You asked simply what they were referring to, ya fucking dick. I gave you an answer.
You don’t need lyrics to listen to music however. If she’s deaf and can’t hear the music then I don’t know why she needs Spotify.
Much like many disabilities, deafness isn’t a hard binary between hearing Vs deaf, but a spectrum dependent on many factors. For example, someone may have hearing loss in a particular frequency range, which may affect their ability to hear lyrics. I would also expect that someone’s relationship to music may be impacted by whether they were born deaf or acquired deafness later in life.
The point that other are making about this as an accessibility problem is that a lot of disability or anti-discrimination has provisions for rules or policies that are, in and of themselves, neutral, but affect disabled people (or other groups protected under equality legislation) to a greater degree than people without that trait. In the UK, for example, it might be considered “indirect discrimination”.
You might not need lyrics to listen to music, but someone who is deaf or hard of hearing is likely going to experience and enjoy music differently to you, so it may well be necessary for them.
I don’t even know the lyrics to some of my favorite songs. I think the whole complaining about unlimited, free lyrics is ridiculous. Spotify isn’t a charity and just because someone can’t enjoy music as much due to not reading lyrics isn’t an accessibility thing.
Guess Spotify should just get rid of the free tier and then this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Spotify isn’t a charity
Ohh, they’re trying to be a shit-hole. Now I understand.
You guys, there’s a reason we don’t clean toilets. Toilets are supposed to be dirty.
Okay, well get back to me when you have some lived experience of deafness and maybe we can have a productive discussion then, seeing as my point seems to have gone completely over your head.
Should my free local newspaper also include everything in braille?
Listen, I don’t want to be in a pointless internet argument; I could answer your question by referencing some of the things that go into deciding what reasonable adjustments should be put in place, legally speaking (in particular, your question is getting at the “how much is reasonable” aspect of the problem"), but I only want to engage in this conversation if you’re actually interested to learn.
(On that front, I apologise for the sharp tone of my previous comment, because that certainly wasn’t conducive to conversation.)
You don’t need lyrics to listen to music however.
I also don’t need an elevator to move between floors of a building that has stairs, while some people do.
I think they were more saying you don’t need to understand the lyrics to enjoy music, which would be more like if the elevator still worked for the person in the wheelchair but the mirrors inside are hung so you can only see yourself if standing.
Yeah. I understand what they’re saying, but they’re wrong, based on past court cases.
Defining “full equal service” in a way that carves out big portions (like knowing what the lyrics are) in ways that fully able bodied people take for granted - has gone badly for companies that let it go to court.
Just because a building can afford a glass elevator so you can see the view doesn’t mean the building next door is denying full service to people who can see because they don’t have one.
You’re a fucking moron and need to shut up, every point you’ve made is easily disproved, it’s like you’ve googled a term and read 2 lines and run with it.
Think for more than 2 seconds with your lies and maybe you could see how each and everyone is just fucking retarded as shit dude….
Give your head a shake, you have zero knowledge on this subject.
Provide sources, or fuck off.
More both get elevators, but yours has the blinds closed to the view outside, while the other gets to see the most breathtaking view ever.
Yeah, that could still play in court. (Serious reply. Not sarcasm.)
On what grounds?
But for some folks, the elevator is completely essential. This dynamic resulted in making pay-to-ride elevators illegal in most places, today.
So this is absolutely fucking hilarious and shows your surface level knowledge (or just googling something and having zero knowledge…) they are only illegal if they are the only means of transportation, every single one of the buildings with one these will also have regular elevators, so they meet the code.
All the law did was prevent single elevator buildings from being able to discriminate. If a non-abled body person has another conveyance method, they can charge whatever they want. This is how amusement rides are able to charge AND have non ada accessible rides. And incase you didn’t know, elevator codes do cover amusement rides in most jurisdictions as well…
But seeing as it’s a free account, it’s their prerogative
Oh, so not charging money magically exempts companies from meeting ADA accessibility requirements for their public accommodations?
Edit: what I’m taking issue with is the notion that being on the free tier of service changes anything. Maybe Spotifiy has an obligation or maybe it doesn’t, but either way, it’s the same regardless of how much or little the customer pays. Being a second-class customer does not make you a second-class citizen who doesn’t get equal protection under the law!
ADA accessibility requirements for their public accommodations
Source that providing lyrics to songs is a requirement?
Providing a substantially inferior outcome to someone with an ADA need absolutely violates ADA rules.
When stuff like this has gone to court it hasn’t been pretty for the offending organization.
There’s a bigger question about how much of what Spotify currently provides falls under ADA. Web services used to get a free pass. They largely don’t anymore.
Source: some of this stuff is my problem, professionally. And no, I’m not going to look up a primary source for anyone. That’s Spotify’s lawyers job.
So no, just talking out of your ass then.
You can Google the lyrics to songs on any device you can view them on Spotify.
If you could google the subtitles to any film or tv show, should that absolve Netflix of the responsibility to provide them?
Do lyrics fall under the same regulation as subtitles? If Netflix were free, would it still be subject to those requirements?
Perhaps they should. Let’s join hands, friend. I believe we can change things for the better.
I never said it was. I said that the requirement is the same whether it’s a free account or a paid one. It’s either always required or it’s never required, but it sure as Hell is not “their prerogative” based on how much they get paid.
Think about it for a second: what the parent commenter is suggesting is that it’s somehow okay for a company to use compliance with legal requirements as an upselling opportunity! You do see the problem with that line of thinking, right?!
I never said it was. I said that the requirement is the same whether it’s a free account or a paid one.
Which is completely irrelevant if its not actually a requirement. So I’m asking you to prove that it is.
What’s relevant is that the commenter I replied to suggested that it’s Spotify’s “prerogative” whether to comply with the law or not. It isn’t.
This issue here is people spouting dangerous late-stage-capitalist nonsense, not the content of the ADA rule. Your demand is actually just a derailment tactic.
The person agreeing with you has literally said they can claim they don’t make enough and not need to comply with ADA laws…. Apparantly…. So yeah they can just choose to not comply. This is from someone working directly with them, so we have to accept this is true I guess.
Do radio stations provide lyrics?
Some do. It’s pretty rare, but stations that are more talk-show or interview style shows might have transcripts on their site afterwards. (The Final Straw Radio, my beloved)
Music stations? Probably not. At least I’m not aware of any that do. But I also don’t like hearing the disk jockey chat between music so I don’t listen to that type of radio ever.
Most just provide links to other places actually if they do, the point is, it’s nothing to do with ADA and if it was, radio would be required to too.
The
factpossibility that they’re unable to provide lyrics gives radio stations a free pass on this, under ADA (and most similar laws).Edit: Correction, per correction below - options for providing radio captions do exist.
Edit 2: For anyone reading along to learn - a radio station without captioning technology is unlikely to be required to add captioning under any accessibility law I’m aware of. But a station that provides captioning is unlikely to be able to charge extra for that captioning under current accessibility laws.
Businesses are typically accountable to provide equitable accommodations at no additional charge.
A comparison that may help: a storefront with no dedicated parking whatsoever is typically not required to provide the usual required percentage of reserved accessible parking. Or rather, their zero reserved spaces meets the required percentage automatically, at it’s whatever percentage of zero total spaces.
deleted by creator
You are technically correct - the best kind of correct! (Futurama quote, meaning I appreciate your correction.)
It’s probably not an issue for a station that simply doesn’t have that level of captioning, yet.
But I take your point - it would likely be a violation if they had that captioning and tried to monetize it. (In my far more informed opinion than that of a couple of asshats who were replying to me in this thread.)
So why does that apply to OTA, but not their website or other delivery methods…?
Your “laws” seem to have lots of exceptions when you need them to. But also, not surprisingly, very easy to find the flaws since they don’t exist and you’re not smart enough to think of these yourself apparently….
They can provide lyrics, most have websites, they can print a pamphlet, that’s just excuses to justify crying out against one and not the other.
What makes them unable to, but Spotify able to?
Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in (can no longer be evaded during a court case or an audit) dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.
As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under (no longer receive any exemption under) the same laws about how they managed those captions.
Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of “undo burden” would probably not hold up in court, anyway.
While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.
Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.
What…? The laws applies to everyone, you can’t just claim I can’t afford it. Got a source please?
As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under the same laws about how they managed those captions.
Where was this pointed out? Most don’t, and the few that do just link to other places, something Spotify could do to with what you’re claiming. Why do they need to provide the actual words when radios don’t? Another source on this would be great. You’re already saying the laws apply differently, but are the same? You’ve contradicted yourself multiple times already….
Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of “undue burden” would probably not hold up in court, anyway.
Source that’s a thing.
While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.
So I can just claim I don’t make enough and not need to follow any ADA laws? That doesn’t sound right, even non-profits get riddled with ads claims, so again, source please!
We all know you’re talking out of your ass, so yeah I don’t expect any actual response, so enjoy your weekend troll!
Or borrow CDs from friends or the library. Or turn on the fucking radio. There’s plenty of music for free out there.
I didn’t even know they did that, Glad I don’t have an account with them. I’m partially deaf, most music I can’t understand what someone singing. Those fun things people do of like “most common misheard lyrics” is basically my life. On the plus side I enjoy music from around the world because unintelligible music is unintelligible no matter where it’s from. They’re very few artists I feel like I can understand, and realistically I’m probably wrong.
In real life, I read lips to help augment my terrible hearing. Fun fact during the mask man dates during COVID, was probably the worst time for me. A lot of people I could hear talking as I could hear noise but I could not make out what it was. Leading to a lot of awkward conversations.
Anyhoo, that’s all to say that for music that I do like I do have to see the lyrics. It’s what converts the noise into words.
So, fuck you Spotify, My life’s difficult enough already, I’m not paying your shitty service so you can charge me for my impairment.
Everyone is going on about this as anti disability, but why does a disability entitle you to a service that’s paid?
Unpaid Spotify sucks, full stop, no matter what part of you works or doesn’t.
but why does a disability entitle you to a service that’s paid?
why would you limit the ability to use lyrics though? It’s the same shit that every big article tabloid is doing “pay us five dollar a month and we will show you our articles, that we think are good” after showing you like three, in four months for free.
Either give people access to the service, or don’t, don’t play the bullshit of “well actually, here’s a free sample”
Same reason any tech company limit the ability to do anything - bandwidth, ownership etc.
Even if ‘lyrics’ are free, they still need to be written and proof read. You’re either going to have to pay other companies to provide you the lyrics or pay your staff to write them down.
There’s so many levels to this, Spotify still sucks, but you have to look at it realistically .
yeah but that still begs the question of why even give limited access. Just put it behind the paywall, it’s not like people don’t understand what spotify is, and it gives them a better excuse for selling a service anyway.
They’re lyrics, intentionally making the service worse for people with hearing disabilities is ableist.
most music I can’t understand what someone singing
Just like the rest of us, tbh.
Wit-ta burrdsahl sheardis-a loooooneleeeevieuuuuuuuuuuaaaand
-Red Hot Chilli Peppers
With the birds I share this lonely view?
Should have used Pearl Jam as the example.
damn thats crazy, i’m out here with my 300GB collection of music that i own and control and i can just, add lyrics to shit if i want to.
I don’t because i’m not deaf and i don’t really care for lyrics all that much, but it’s also just, automated.
Agreed.
I spent the last month converting all of my Spotify likes to MP3 files and ended my subscription in Mid-June.
Their greedy, shrinkflating, enshittifying asshole CEO can go fuck himself.
How would one go about this? So I can avoid doing it accidentally, of course.
Well, I’m not advising that you do this, but I’ve read that there are tools on the Internet for converting Youtube links into MP3 files, and even better, I’ve read that the quality is a jump up from what Spotify streams to your device.
Interesting reading.
I’m so confused by people under this post defending a company’s scheme to make more money that disproportionately affects disabled people.
I pay for spoofie premium because it’s convenient
But I’m not defending this money-grubbing behavior
I’m a bit confused. Do deaf people listen to music? Lyrics are generally freely available via Google.
Edit: see reply for a good explanation.
Deafness covers a broad spectrum of hearing difficulty, not just completely deaf. Most people that identify as deaf still have some hearing. I always forget that and had the same question as you until I read a comment further down.
It’s likely that the person isn’t fully deaf and so can still hear some music, but deaf enough that they can’t understand the lyrics. Having the ability to view the lyrics in real time is handy rather than having to search them up all the time. Spotify also shows what lyric is currently being sung in real time, whereas you can’t get that with a Google search.
I guess deaf people aren’t allowed to enjoy music like the rest of y’all.
I’m so sorry but this is the absolute funniest shit I have ever read. 😂
Being deaf is a spectrum. There are plenty of people who still have some hearing, and are “hard of hearing”. There’s deaf people who can enjoy music through the use of hearing aids as well. There’s also totally deaf people who can enjoy music because of the vibrations. There’s people whose hearing is just bad enough that they don’t understand what anyone is saying without subtitles/lyrics. Deaf in only one ear, etc.
Spotube.
why the FUCK does anyone still use spotify, it’s a fucking joke. Unusable without paying for it.
you can just crack the APK to use it for free.
I’ll just get right on that thanks. So simple
it’s incredibly simple. you use the revanced manager, check the boxes you want, and it does it for you. I don’t know how to write a patch, they’ve all been written for me. here’s their website, and here’s their GitHub. only works on Android. I personally used it to crack YouTube music instead, but you can do Spotify
Thank you, much appreciated
