# you <would> probably play...



## VicNicSor

_It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album, take it home and play it. You *would *probably play it countless times because you had spent so much money on so few songs. Over time you *would *learn to appreciate all the subtle nuances throughout the album._
Why Is Modern Pop Music So Terrible?, video by Thoughty2

I think these two are the past tense of "will" rather than "habitual actions in the past", do you agree?
Thanks.


----------



## se16teddy

VicNicSor said:


> I think these two are the past tense of "will"


What sense of "will" do you mean, then? There are lots to choose from. will - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

I think #1 overlooks the fact that_ will _can indicate a habitual action in the present just as _would _can indicate a habitual action in the past; though the nuances of the past and present usages might be a bit different sometimes.


----------



## VicNicSor

se16teddy said:


> What sense of "will" do you mean, then? There are lots to choose from. will - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


Future-in-the-past, the reference point being the moment of buying the record; and from then on, playing it and learning to appreciate are "the future". That was my reasoning.


----------



## se16teddy

"It used to be the case" strongly points to the idea that "would" refers to a past habit.

I think that even the most virulent over-users of the future-in-the past _would _would not use it here. But I may be wrong - their noxious influence is everywhere!


----------



## VicNicSor

se16teddy said:


> "It used to be the case" strongly points to the idea that "would" refers to a past habit.
> 
> I think that even the most virulent over-users of the future-in-the past _would _would not use it here. But I may be wrong - their noxious influence is everywhere!



But he already says "play it countless times", wouldn't that be superfluous then?

And besides, the habitual "would" is used with actions that could be repetitive, which "learn" is not


----------



## se16teddy

VicNicSor said:


> But he already says "play it countless times", wouldn't that be superfluous then?


"Thousands of times" refers to* each* record. The habit consist in going through the same ritual for many records.



VicNicSor said:


> And besides, the habitual "would" is used with actions that could be repetitive, which "learn" is not


Similarly, the learning process begins anew with each record.


----------



## VicNicSor

se16teddy said:


> "Thousands of times" refers to* each* record. The habit consist in going through the same ritual for many records.
> 
> 
> Similarly, the learning process begins anew with each record.



But that's the problem: I clearly see that the red references all, grammatically, refer to one album/single


> _It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album, take it home and play it. You *would *probably play it countless times because you had spent so much money on so few songs. Over time you *would *learn to appreciate all the subtle nuances throughout the album._


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> But that's the problem: I clearly see that the red references all, grammatically, refer to one album/single


But that logic indicates you think the writer only bought one song in his life.  The use of "a song" indicates that this process (of playing it many time etc.) is a general (repeated) event.


----------



## SevenDays

VicNicSor said:


> _It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album, take it home and play it. You *would *probably play it countless times because you had spent so much money on so few songs. Over time you *would *learn to appreciate all the subtle nuances throughout the album._
> Why Is Modern Pop Music So Terrible?, video by Thoughty2
> 
> I think these two are the past tense of "will" rather than "habitual actions in the past", do you agree?
> Thanks.



If you consider/believe that "would" is the past tense/form of "will" (which is what traditional grammar says), then "would" in a past context is _always _the past tense/form of "will," regardless of the "sense/meaning" of "would" (_habitual action, willingness, command,_ etc.). This is because, as "past tense," _would_ becomes a _temporal marker_, independent of its _contextual meaning_.

If you consider/believe that "would" and "will" are modal verbs, each with its own uses and syntax, then _would_ is not the past of anything; it's not a "temporal marker." As a result, you simply focus on the "meaning" of the modal verb _would_. Just keep in mind that sometimes "meanings" overlap. The two "would's" that you mention could refer to "habit" just as it could to "intent/willingness/etc." After all, you can't have a "habit" without the "intent/willingness" to do something "habitually." 

The syntax of "will" prevents its appearance in a past context; in past contexts, syntax requires "would." This doesn't mean that _would_ is the past of _will_; it simply means that _would _and_ will_ have different syntactic uses.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> But that logic indicates you think the writer only bought one song in his life.  The use of "a song" indicates that this process (of playing it many time etc.) is a general (repeated) event.


Then the "had" should have been "would have", do you agree?..
_It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you *would have *to go out and buy that one single or album, take it home and play it. You *would *probably play it countless times because you had spent so much money on so few songs. Over time you *would *learn to appreciate all the subtle nuances throughout the album._


SD, would and will are just like could/can, might/may: one is the past of teh other, and at the same time they are modal verbs, of course. 
When I say "past of "will", I mean "future in the past".


----------



## Glasguensis

No, "had to" is perfectly fine here. "Would have to" would sound much less natural. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if we use one grammatical construct in a paragraph we are obliged to use it throughout - this is exactly the opposite of what most good writers try to do.


----------



## VicNicSor

It's just there's a inconsistency. The part "_if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album_" doesn't imply any repetitive actions.  It's in a disagreement with the rest of the quote


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> It's just there's a inconsistency. The part "_if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album_" doesn't imply any repetitive actions.  It's in a disagreement with the rest of the quote


Grammatically perhaps not.  But then there's logic: you can'yt forget that when trying to understand language.



JulianStuart said:


> But that logic indicates you think the writer only bought one song in his life.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> But that logic indicates you think the writer only bought one song in his life.


Of course not.



> _It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album, take it home and play it. _


To me it sounds like one typical example of what happens occasionally. "... if you wanted to hear a song" not at all implies that you wanted to hear a song only once in your life


----------



## SevenDays

VicNicSor said:


> It's just there's a inconsistency. The part "_if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album_" doesn't imply any repetitive actions.  It's in a disagreement with the rest of the quote



There's no inconsistency or disagreement; "wanted" and "buy" are semantically governed by the construction "used to be the case" found in the main clause: 
_
It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy ..._

In other words, "used to be the case" means "repetitive/habitual," as already pointed out in post #4. Once you've established "repetitive/habitual," there's no need to do that again later in the sentence (post #11).


----------



## VicNicSor

SevenDays said:


> There's no inconsistency or disagreement; "wanted" and "buy" are semantically governed by the construction "used to be the case" found in the main clause:
> _
> It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy ..._
> 
> In other words, "used to be the case" means "repetitive/habitual," as already pointed out in post #4. Once you've established "repetitive/habitual," there's no need to do that again later in the sentence (post #11).


But "used to be the case" obviously refers to the whole quote in the OP, not only to the first sentence. Then, the both brown woulds are redundant?


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> But that logic indicates you think the writer *only bought one song in his life*.





VicNicSor said:


> Of course not.
> To me it sounds like one typical example of what happens occasionally. "... if you wanted to hear a song" not at all implies that you wanted to *hear a song only once in your life*


There's a big difference between what you wrote :"not at all implies that you wanted to hear a song only once in your life" and what I wrote
"you think the writer only bought one song in his life"


----------



## SevenDays

VicNicSor said:


> But "used to be the case" obviously refers to the whole quote in the OP, not only to the first sentence. Then, the both brown woulds are redundant?



_Redundancy _is style, not grammar. Show the original paragraph to 10 people, and you'd probably get 10 rewrites, based on personal preferences and biases. You could, for example, write it this way, using the simple past in place of the two "would's" that you have in brown, given that "used to be the case" refers, as you say, to the whole quote:
_
It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album, take it home and play it. You probably *played* it countless times because you had spent so much money on so few songs. Over time you* learned* to appreciate all the subtle nuances throughout the album._ 

Whether this version is better (or not) compared to the original (with the two brown "would's") is a stylistic judgment.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> There's a big difference between what you wrote :"not at all implies that you wanted to hear a song only once in your life" and what I wrote
> "you think the writer only bought one song in his life"


Likewise, my phrase "I clearly see that the red references all, grammatically, refer to one album/single." doesn't imply that I think "the writer only bought one song in his life"

What I wanted to say was:

_if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album
=
every time you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album
_
*Logic *tells us that one means the other_.



SevenDays said:



Redundancy is style, not grammar. Show the original paragraph to 10 people, and you'd probably get 10 rewrites, based on personal preferences and biases. You could, for example, write it this way, using the simple past in place of the two "would's" that you have in brown, given that "used to be the case" refers, as you say, to the whole quote:

It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album, take it home and play it. You probably *played* it countless times because you had spent so much money on so few songs. Over time you* learned* to appreciate all the subtle nuances throughout the album.

Whether this version is better (or not) compared to the original (with the two brown "would's") is a stylistic judgment.
		
Click to expand...

_But do you agree that the version with three woulds (the first being "would have to go), or with no woulds at all, would sound better and less ambiguous in the OP?


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> Grammatically perhaps not.  But then there's logic: you can't forget that when trying to understand language.





VicNicSor said:


> *Logic *tells us .... .


----------



## Glasguensis

VicNicSor said:


> But do you agree that the version with three woulds (the first being "would have to go), or with no woulds at all, would sound better and less ambiguous in the OP?


No, absolutely not. As I already said it sounds worse. And the OP is not in the least ambiguous. 

English often offers several grammatically correct possibilities, as in this case. It is often considered better, stylistically, to exploit this, rather than sticking to one of them.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> As I already said it sounds worse.


To me, with the third "would" it would be exactly like this instance:
meanings of would
_



			And this is crucial because importantly, the public were voting with their ears for the best, the most talented musicians, singers and songwriters. (............) And so musicians had to be really bloody talented to impress us enough to stick around and make more music. But this was risky, because many times record labels *would* pump thousands of pounds into an act that weren't destined to be and their gamble *wouldn't* pay off, losing their investment. But when they signed the really big acts it *would *balance the books.
		
Click to expand...

_I had a similar question about the third "would", and it's even put in an when/if clause, just like in the OP.

Do you mean if we remove the last would in this quote it would make the quote better?


----------



## Glasguensis

I'm fine with the third would, and would also be fine with the simple past. The two options are equally good in my opinion.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> I'm fine with the third would, and would also be fine with the simple past. The two options are equally good in my opinion.



Why would the third would in the OP (would have to go) be bad then?...


----------



## Glasguensis

Thr original is a conditional sentence - if you wanted x you had to y. Adding "would" is confusing because it makes it sound as if you're misconstructing the conditional and it requires some thought to work out that it's a "habitual" would. The other example has no such complications.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> Thr original is a conditional sentence - if you wanted x you had to y. Adding "would" is confusing because it makes it sound as if you're misconstructing the conditional and it requires some thought to work out that it's a "habitual" would. The other example has no such complications.


In the OP and in the quoted sentence, "when" and "if" have the same meaning, and are interchangeable:

_But when they signed the really big acts it would balance the books.
if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album
_


----------



## Glasguensis

I disagree that they are interchangeable- if implies that the condition may or may not have occurred, whereas when implies that it definitely did sometimes occur. The other difference is that the signing big acts sentence is the third reference and it's already clear that it's the habitual would.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> I disagree that they are interchangeable- if implies that the condition may or may not have occurred, whereas when implies that it definitely did sometimes occur.


It's just one of the meanings of "if":


> IF
> when; whenever; every time
> • If metal gets hot it expands.
> • She glares at me if I go near her desk.


OALD


Glasguensis said:


> The other difference is that the signing big acts sentence is the third reference and it's already clear that it's the habitual would.


In the OP, the phrase "_It used to be the case that_" also points to repetitive actions...


----------



## Glasguensis

Please do not try to school native speakers on the definition of words.

I meant that *in your sentences* they are not interchangeable.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> I meant that *in your sentences* they are not interchangeable.


Sorry, but I disagree. I do think they mean exactly the same thing and are interchangeable.

Obviously, the speaker didn't mean that "the condition" of wanting to hear a song may not have occured. Everyone wants to listen to music.

It's not like "If it rains, we will stay home.", where the condition of raining indeed may or may not occur.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Obviously, the speaker didn't mean that "the condition" of wanting to hear a song may not have occured. *Everyone wants to listen to music*.


Rather strong, and inaccurate, statement there Vic.  Many of my parents' and grandparents' generations would be horrified by the thought of buying a "song" as the new "music" was called.  And no-one wanted to hear all possible songs so the buying of _a song_ would (  ) be (or "have been") conditional on wanting to buy _that particular song_.


----------



## Glasguensis

This is patently untrue - not all people wanted to listen to music and not all people bought records. It would also be entirely possible for record companies not to sign any big acts - the use of "when" is adding extra information by telling us that in fact they all did (or all the ones which didn't go bust anyway). 

It would be possible to use both if and when in both examples, but they are not "interchangeable", because the meaning changes. If "when" had been used in the OP rather than "if", a "would" would not sound strange. With "if", it does.


----------



## VicNicSor

The fact that not all people may want to hear and buy music records is just *irrelevant *here. He only considers the category of people who do want to listen to pop music and so had to buy it then. He is comparing those times with these days when modern technologies and devices allow us to have lots and lots of different songs on our devices just by a click


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> The fact that not all people may want to hear and buy music records is just irrelevant here.


But it _seemed_ to part of your grammar argument in #30.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> But it _seemed_ to part of your grammar argument in #30.


Why, in #30 I said the same thing...


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Why, in #30 I said the same thing...


Um yes - you (inaccurately) said "everyone wants to listen to music" to justify the lack of conditionality and then in #33 you said that that was irrelevant.  I was just confused (still am) but I'm sure you'll teach me better


----------



## VicNicSor

The next sentence in #33 was:


> He only considers the category of people who do want to listen to pop music and so had to buy it then.


The others who may not want don't matter. That's why I think it means "whenever".

Compare:
"If it rains, we will stay home."
Here you can't replace "if" with "whenever", because fulfilling the condition is the thing that really matters. It may rain, or may not. We don't know
And it's about one single event.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thank you teacher, I'm sure I'll get the hang of this language one day.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Thank you teacher, I'm sure I'll get the hang of this language one day.



You said I contradicted myself, and I just said that in my version/opinion I didn't


----------



## Glasguensis

If you're not going to listen to the interpretation of native speakers I don't understand why you use this forum. You are asserting that you are correct here in the face of native speakers who say you're not.


----------



## VicNicSor

I don't think we really need sarcasm like "thank you teacher", and shifting to personalities like "what are you doing on this forum". 

Thank you, everybody!


----------

