Comment by da_chicken

There was x11amp, which got renamed to XMMS, which was later forked into Beep Media Player, which was later forked into Audacious.

IIRC, the last time I used Audacious, the default interface was a loosely-inspired-by-itunes kinda UI, but tweaking the right knobs in the configuration screens could get it to a Winamp-like UI (or at least XMMS-like)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audacious_(software) confirms a lot of my recollection.

This is not what you wanted but it may not be far off, if it controls Spotify through an API I don’t see why you couldn’t extend it to control a background process for local audio.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49990730

> doesn't anybody just want to name their MP3 correctly and then use file management

no because sometimes I care about artist, sometimes about title, sometimes about year of release, album name, etc. Using proper metadata is important. I almost never look at a filename unless I'm moving data from one machine to another.

In an era of indexing and lightning-fast search of documents, there's little reason to care about filenames.

> Jesus, doesn't anybody just want to name their MP3 correctly and then use file management...

As an early fan of Winamp, what I have found is that most people do not want the Winamp experience these day. The problem with Winamp is it came with no music, only a JJ McKay promo.

There are many players that seek to emulate the Winamp experience but much of the audience for something like that have moved on to Spotify. Today's audiences want a fully curated experience from their "Player", which Winamp was never designed to do.

Audacious doesn't count?