Strange feelings looking at this... This is almost exactly the product I failed to get into YC with back in 2017... All the same ideas as far as the UX goes with one main difference: the business model. I wanted to apply the Steam business model where people would actually buy album again (and not tracks a la iTunes).
The issue is that while it's nice to have a UX tailored for classical, this won't likely help the classical industry to thrive again.
To simplify a bit, the classical music industry is composed of:
- the majors labels (Universal Music, Sony, Warner and EMI)
- A dozen large independent labels (Naxos being the largest)
- hundreds of small labels
The majors mostly care about promoting a few star performers and milking their huge existing catalog. They have no problem with putting everything on subscription services for pennies. This what you find on all subscription services.
The larger independent labels also have significant catalog and some will also put part of it on subscription services but mostly won't.
However, it is totally financially impossible for the smaller labels which are actually recording most of the interesting new records to survive on the pennies they would get from subscription services. Most of them have rejected that model and caters to the increasingly niche market of audiophile still ready to buy new high quality music.
As a classical music fan, I'm happy to see that there will finally be an offering offering a good experience and massively increasing discoverability (which is terrible in mainstream services).
But unfortunately, this wont change the fact that the classical recording industry is dying and that the sector is only surviving thanks to public and private subsidies.
I've used Idagio for 6 months. They have a reasonable interface, good performances and sound quality, but their catalog is indeed limited. There are hundreds of performances of the same well-known works, but there's not (very) much beyond it. I've discovered about 100 fairly unknown composers through YouTube that I consider quite good, but many of them are missing from Idagio, or are listed with one or two works. Their catalog also lacks discoverability. There's nothing to relate Karl Goldmark to Brahms. I also dislike the subscription model, heavily.
So, I still buy albums (mostly from prestomusic, in case someone wants to know).
> the sector is only surviving thanks to public and private subsidies.
That could never change. Streaming will make it worse, though.
The 20th century was a golden age for recorded music. Maybe there is no coming back but I don't think (or I didn't think then) that streaming services are in a very strong position in the long run: consumers like them because the current deal is that you pay a single subscription and you have access to basically all the music (a very nice proposition indeed). But the streaming services own no content, the day the content owners find a more lucrative way to sell music they will move part of their catalog out of the streaming services and at the same time, make the product less and less attractive. At least, that was the theory.
Now, I think Spotify in particular, has built a strong moat due to their ubiquity (all devices support Spotify). It's getting late for pop music. For Classical, I don't know but 6 years ago, I was convinced there was still a strong possibility to save the old model since it was still making money on the traditional channels.
> Streaming will make it worse, though.
It has been the case for a while now.
Paul Baxter from Delphian Records said it best years ago:
"There's no way that a record company could operate on the fees from streaming alone. It's absolutely impossible. There are too many zeros in front of the amount-per-stream figure."
Spotify's power comes from more than its ubiquity. Pop music, the kind that charts (and the only kind labels care about), is way more commodified than TV shows. If Sony were to make a streaming service with just their music and leave Spotify/Apple Music/Amazon/etc, their artists would simply fail to chart ever again.
The advantage of a single streaming service with all the songs is also much greater than one with all the shows or movies. Nobody puts Netflix on "shuffle" or lets it play random episodes based on what they've watched in the past, but those are some of Spotify's biggest features. Its user shareable playlists also increase lock-in, along with other network effects. It's such a huge advantage to be able to play anything (or almost anything), I don't see how a service with a limited selection could compete.
I don't see any way for the labels to get out of the streaming age beyond serious anticompetitive collusion, and even then people would go back to piracy. Frankly, it couldn't happen to a nicer group of folks.
I mostly agree with you there. If you look at pop music as a whole, it's impossible to attack them directly.
But I don't think that the moat could never be broken. You have many people that consume music as background noises. But you also have many people that are passionate about the music they listen to and would like to have another way to support their artist of choices other than going to concerts (see vinyl revival etc).
My recipe to break the moat:
- choose a genre some people care strongly about (for me, that was classical)
- make a platform that offer a better UX for that genre, and have them pay for their music (those consumer are happy because better UX and they feel they actually support the artist they like)
- progressively signup labels by showing there is more money on your platform than on streaming services, they will progressively remove more and more of their catalog from streaming services if they were on them.
- once the model is proven on that genre, move to another (jazz, serious pop etc)
- as time goes by, the value of your service increase and while the value of the streaming services is lowered due to their catalog shrinking.
While this might be a fantasy, the truth is that today system continue to reward popular artists only, niche genre artists can't make a living from streaming. If a solution arises for them, they will come progressively, and over time it will weaken the streaming service moat.
> make a platform that offer a better UX for that genre, and have them pay for their music (those consumer are happy because better UX and they feel they actually support the artist they like)
Why would consumers not just pay for physical media like CDs/Vinyl/etc. if they prefer owning things?
I also lack the vision to see what could ultimately replace streaming as the primary delivery mechanism for music. It delivers an ongoing revenue stream, the monthly nature of which beats the old "put it out in a new format every few years so everyone has to rebuy everything" in terms of cash flow, although obviously not in overall revenue.
I could definitely see streaming wars in music happening like they are in video, although so far the music labels are content to watch the video labels hurt each other. But consider: Spotify's payouts are infamously low, lower than Google's or Apple's and I can imagine some labels deciding they can do better by providing their own streaming app. Since it's only a few labels, each will believe they have enough of a library to draw subscribers, and away we'll go.
But still: aside from the margins and market share concerns, what delivers a steadier income than streaming?
Streaming doesn't mean they can't experiment with additional revenue streams, including physical media sales and licensing opportunities, but it's hard to imagine something displacing streaming as a concept to the degree which streaming has displaced physical media sales.
The idea was to create a true streaming service in term of UX. All the same features as you are used to, except you start with the empty catalog and you purchase individual albums and you get the streaming service for free forever (no subscription). The service operating cost being funded by newer purchase. That's why I'm talking about Steam as the model, it's how they operate: you have access to your library forever even if you only pay for games once. (And mostly, you never play much to most of your purchases).
The steady income of subscription service is nice for the streaming platform but it's not nice for the classical music artists: they receive nothing.
I think bandcamp shows that there are people who still want to purchase and download a digital version and contribute directly to artists (on top of purchasing physical media).
I personally, want a lossless version that I can archive, have on my offline portable music player, stream to my phone, and stream through jellyfin to my stereo.
That fits better to the style of music I listen to, and how _I_ listen to music (I don't shuffle and listen to full albums only)
> Pop music, the kind that charts (and the only kind labels care about), is way more commodified than TV shows.
> Nobody puts Netflix on "shuffle" or lets it play random episodes based on what they've watched in the past
Not convinced. People used to watch TV the way they listened to the radio - turn it on to whatever's on and mostly ignore it. It's not the current dynamic but I don't think that's an immutable law of nature.
That’s been said about almost every style and genre of art. What’s so funny, is that it’s never happened; quite the opposite. Look at the renaissance of early music, as only one example. Sadly, 99% of all music that has ever been made was not written down or recorded. I think there’s a lot of opportunities to hunt down and discover lost, unrecognized, or forgotten music and bring it back to forefront. I was just listening to Indian classical bansuri (bamboo flute) music by Ronu Majumdar and Ajeet Pathak on Naxos. The album features 12th century ragas in the Hindustani tradition. What’s amazing about it, is you can hear how this style greatly influenced rock and roll from the mid-1960s to the mid 1970s, particularly the long and winding guitar solos that were famous during that era. And if you read about that time, it turns out that rock musicians were indeed listening to this music and getting ideas from it. There isn’t any AI around that is going to make deep connections like this. We are still very much in human-driven territory. What will certainly become common, however, is for human musicians to augment their compositional skills with the help of AI, not to replace it altogether.
> I suspect that purchasing music files to own will seem increasingly strange and inconvenient to younger people, though.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
As a fan of blues, I've noticed that there are a lot of grey songs in my Spotify playlists. There's just no practical way to be able to listen to the music I want to hear besides owning it (Youtube is hit-or-miss as well).
For people who want to listen to pop, they're probably fine. But anything that's even a little niche is trouble. Or that's my experience, anyhow.
> I guess the idea is, why would you long tail when you can Pareto Principle?
IMO, that's not a great point. The music is already made - that's the hard part. It just needs to be licensed.
Maybe there are other channels that are more profitable than streaming, but I'm guessing that a lot of older/niche music is just locked away for no good reason.
At a certain point, I have to imagine that most artists would prefer their music be listened to if they aren't going to make money either way.
I got into blues via dancing, which has heavily influenced my tastes.
In no particular order:
* Will Wilde
* Sugarray Rayford
* Smokehouse
* Etta James
* Gordon Webster
* The Blue Vipers of Brooklyn
* Tin Pan
* Asylum Street Spankers
* Hugh Laurie
* Legendary Rhythm and Blues Revue
* Preservation Hall Jazz Band
* The Marsalis Family
* Katie Webster
* John Lee Hooker
* Keb Mo
* Son House
* Joe Bonamassa
* ZZ Ward
* Kevin Selfe
* Allen Toussaint
* Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown
* Bill Withers
* Nina Simone
* Buddy Guy
* Lightning Hopkins
* Howlin' Wolf
* Brother Yusef
There's probably a whole lot more - these are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. You probably know a lot of them, but I didn't want to guess which ones you know, so I just wrote out a bunch of people I like.
Yes, that's what I wanted to address and in the same way Steam address it with video games. You buy albums but you get the convenience of streaming services with no additional fees forever. Same as with Steam, I expected users to keep buying album regularity even if they didn't listen to them much. (cue seasonal sales etc...)
Mostly because the goal was to offer a premium experience targeted at the classical music enthusiast. UX was close to what you can see with Apple Classical or Idagio. On the business side, the model was really Steam and not any music store, seasonal sales included. Anyway, I only had a few month to try to raise some capital and I failed, so it's history now.
I can definitely see why they passed. In 2017, it was already clear that streaming options render any music-purchasing platform niche at best, and a shrinking niche at that. Sad, but true.
It's only true as long as the content owner play with it.
The day the content owner stop wanting to license their catalog, the platforms die. The majors let themselves go into that trap because they failed at finding a viable digital model and the streaming platform showed them a way to keep making some money. Show them a better model that works and they will follow the money.
In 2017, the classical music market was shrinking but still worth half a billion a year with 50% of that still being physical sales. I'm still convinced there was a market to capture.
For classical, streaming is not an option: most content on streaming services are old (albeit often great) records from the past coming from the majors catalog (which they don't care much about). That's 4 or 5 catalog. All the independents rejected the model because they can't make any money there.
Streaming is the death of the classical recording industry. Simply. There is no money in streaming. The sad part is that the average classical music consumer has generally a lot of disposable income available but no way to spend it on a good modern product, in a way that support that industry.
I don't know much about it, but it's probably true of Jazz too.
What are your thoughts on apps like the Berlin Phil's Digital Concert Hall, or DG's Stage+? Those are streaming services at a more premium price, with smaller catalogs, but featuring new works and newly recorded works and generally high quality recordings.
As an end consumer of classical music, a streaming app like this one or the two I named make discoverability much easier in a way that is very appealing compared to direct sales. Even if there is a smaller total library available to me, I am much more easily able to explore that library and build my tastes. I think ideally, I would want an app that allows me to explore the streaming catalog of classical music in a discoverable, personalizable way, but that offers a way to buy these direct sale-exclusive recordings you're talking about once I'm confident about what I might enjoy. My Berlin Phil membership completely changed my understanding of classical, because it was so easy to just give something a try and the performances are so well-curated, often with a spoken introduction for context.
I'm a big jazz fan, and I know that Blue Note for instance seems to have done very well selling a lot of physical media with their vinyl series, including newly recorded albums. I've probably heard as much recently recorded jazz music on vinyl as on digital - and now that I think of it, there's a discoverability element there: if Blue Note bothers to press it to wax, it's probably pretty good. Most of the newly composed jazz I hear is performed live, though, and that seems to be the best way for most performers in the genre to make some income from it.
> What are your thoughts on apps like the Berlin Phil's Digital Concert Hall, or DG's Stage+?
I can't comment too much on their content as I haven't tried any of them. You make want to check them out though.
But commercially, it's mostly about 2 of the most recognizable names in the classical industry leveraging their notoriety. It's good for them but it won't really help the industry thrive again. The Berliner Philharmoniker or DG would be the last ones to struggle, premium subscription service or not.
I don't think a service will make a dent in the industry woes unless it becomes an industry standard. That's why my target business model was Steam and video games and not any music service.
I wonder if a key element is direct connections with fans. My 13-yo daughter is obsessed with classical music and her favourite performers seem to have strong YouTube presences.
Outside the classical world, if you look at a site like Bandcamp, that idea seems core. The business model also seems exactly like what you are talking about, both for performers and for the site. I see a lot of very obscure, niche electronic stuff that is supported by hundreds of people. That may only be thousands of dollars, not tens of thousands. However, it’s an economy. And compare earning $10 for the sale of a single album to the number of streams you need to earn that much revenue. We are talking orders of magnitude difference.
I have long wanted to build a combination of: Bandcamp, GitHub, and Steam for musicians.
Basically, a platform for musicians to produce music (and associated videos, artworks, etc), managing their assets securely, sharing and collaborating; then engagement with fans, promotion, merch, and touring support; and finally a simple platform for sales (streaming, downloads, and physical good) where the store takes a reasonable fee, but the bulk of the revenue goes to the creator.
I was kinda hoping Bandcamp would evolve in this direction, but I think that's not likely now.
> Streaming is the death of the classical recording industry.
Apple seems to disagree, so I guess we'll see. It clear that the best days are behind us, at any rate.
Bottom line: you might have been right that there was still a market to capture in 2017, but YC was also right to see that it was a shrinking market, not exactly the sort of thing in which they're most interested. It's hard to imagine a world in which the market for classical music is bigger today than it was in 2017, regardless of how well you--or anyone else--executed.
I have a Spotify Premium account and stream a lot of classical. Some of the things I've discovered that are different about that experience than other genres of music:
1/ It's hit or miss whether the major labels will put all their content on streaming platforms. Sure, you can find the most popular classic recordings, but more obscure stuff isn't there.
2/ A lot of classical music is still listened to on CD format, and some of the streaming stuff is clearly CD quality audio.
3/ I also scrobble all my music via Lastfm. But the problem with doing that with classical as opposed to pop formats is that so often the album art just isn't there. Apparently the company that sources the album art doesn't care about classical music.
Orchestral music has always depended largely on essentially donations, back to the patronage that kept many of the great composers at least fed, if not rich.
Not always, though. You had church funding and then patronage from the state.
Beethoven famously ushered in a new era with his 5th symphony when he secured am advance from the bank to produce it, being the first large work to be produced through commercial investment.
Individual patronage continued through the 19th century with notable examples like Tchaikovsky, though increasingly commercial aspects were present.
Coming the 20th century funding for academia became the norm. Older composers became teachers and younger composers secured funding for their thesis compositions.
At the same time the recording industry exploded. Even avant garde cumposers could make good money by starting their own companies to press and publish their records.
Over time interest in orchestral music has plummeted. I guess there's a mix of reasons for this. But today it will prove very difficult to gather the funds for a large scale composition, preformance or recording, never mind all three.
There are a few composers I support on Patreon who also do their own production via extensive combinations of plugins and soundfonts in applications I've barely ever heard of before. The result is hard to distinguish from a human orchestra, save in the nature of the occasional errors, which are always of composition rather than execution.
This would I think be a lot more common were it not such a niche interest. Even the composers I mention support themselves primarily through orchestration of video game music and the like, using that to subsidize their original work.
I'm not too proud to admit I enjoy the video game stuff, too; I'm no less susceptible to nostalgia than anyone, or maybe somewhat more so. But my point is that, while the technical bar appears fairly high, it is currently within the possible for a composer also to provide the orchestra. It seems likely the technical bar could be lowered, or for that matter that a new production industry could develop in support of those not able to access the more traditional one.
I'm not too proud to admit I enjoy the video game stuff
The stigma against video game music can’t go away soon enough! Composers are creating some really amazing stuff for video games and gamers themselves are an enormous audience for the wider classical music industry to draw upon.
To their credit, a lot of orchestras have recognized this and have been performing video game music for years. Along with film scores (a trend started by John Williams), video game music has breathed an incredible amount of new life into an industry that might otherwise be in far worse shape now.
1. Go find any of the text commentaries that Austin Wintory has done about the Journey soundtrack.
2. Clear an hour off your schedule, close your eyes and listen.
Edit: On second thought, keep your eyes open and enjoy the beautiful artwork by Matt Nava (taken from his book on Journey) as well as a selection of fan art which is equally stunning considering most of the people are probably not professional graphic designers.
Fuck...it's so good it makes me emotional just typing this sentence.
Also worthy of note: Tan Dun and Yo Yo Ma's recording of the Crouching Tiger soundtrack and his recordings of the Bach solos.
Alas, I must end with the complaint that the current recordings of the original Star Wars soundtracks use track listings that are out of order with their "appearances" in the films.
Thanks so much for sharing this with me! Austin's score is deeply moving. Now I can't stop thinking about it.
I think I played the game a long time ago but I believe I was visiting a friend (who had already played through it) at the time and I wasn't in the right frame of mind to experience it. Now I want to track down a PS4 and play it again.
This reminded me of another score I love: Endless Legend by Arnaud Roy. Similar instrumentation to Journey (albeit with lots of human voices). It has a different feel though, for a radically different game (a turn-based strategy game).
Film scores are so completely in the shitter and have been for going on two decades, that maybe they could stand to take some cues from video games. I miss films having memorable, distinctive music. At least for title themes. Even mid-budget films often had that, in the Olden Times of 2+ decades ago. It's one of my kids' favorite things about older movies—they noticed, without prompting, and they love it. Marvel managed, what, a single run of a half-dozen kinda-almost-memorable notes, over 40+ films? What a joke. It's so bad that their deciding halfway in to simply score everything with pop music was kinda an improvement, but is still a form of just giving up.
Where I think orchestras will continue to win out is for live performances. What amplification can do is complete crap compared to pure acoustic much less trying to record and reproduce something without a million dollar sound system.
This is also a case of good old AI automating things that a great many humans enjoy doing saving us from the drudgery of human expression.
You missed the word "dying" in the OP. The popularity of orchestral music has waned to the point where what you are loosely calling "essentially donations" gets a lot less bang for the buck these days.
Just for a single example-- the count who funded the Mannheim school got musical rockets in return, ones that became the envy of all of Europe. Of course orchestral developments were happening in other locations as well; in general this set off a kind of orchestral space race. You can track it through history all the way to Bayreuth and beyond.
Hell, there's probably a line from those orchestral crescendos to the "orchestra hit" General MIDI instrument.
At the height of all that orchestral fervor you've got, for example, an opera composer as a member of Italy's first parliament. How many people on HN can even name a living composer?
Now imagine $living_orchestral_composer at the helm of a nationalist movement in the U.S.
I've read the preceding sentence three times and brain just outright refuses to come up with imagery for that.
So while I guess you can squint and see the historical funding of orchestras as "essentially donations," there's a big difference between donating to a historical society and donating to the red cross. The 19th century funding of orchestras was much more like the latter-- funding for something that is essential to living (or at least in the U.S., essentially to being taken seriously by Europe). Today it's like building model trains for your ears.
For actual classical musicians, I'm not sure how much they would ever realistically make off of album sales. Most are funded through donations AFAIK and then through ticket sales. There's a reason why almost no one in the classical scene cares about piracy aside from maybe sheet music (even then, the photocopier is used pretty heavily).
I don't know what OP's business model looked like exactly. However, classical music is often composed and performed as full works, such as symphonies, operas, and concertos, rather than individual songs or tracks. These works are often intended to be listened to in their entirety and are structured in a way that builds upon and develops themes throughout the piece.
Another problem is that the way classical music is divided into tracks is sometimes not universal. For example, there are some recordings of Mahler's Symphony No. 5 that are divided into five separate tracks (one for each movement) while others divide it into just two tracks (one for the first three movements and another for the final two movements).
While there are many modern music albums that were intended to be listened to as full albums (e.g. "The Wall", "American Idiot" or "To Pimp a Butterfly"), I guess the track-based listening experience just won over in that part of the music world. That said, people often also just listen to a single sonata, aria, etc. in classical music too, of course, instead of always going for the 2 hour experience.
Although in many cases the album experience is annoying, eg a violin concerto followed by a couple of short pieces to fill time. I don’t usually want to listen to all of them and end up making playlists to separate them again.
The idea was to make the product "the album" again. In the past, the buying experience of a physical product was important to make it a powerful and personal experience: you had nice artwork, leaflet with information about the music you bought, bio of the performers etc. I wanted to try to recover some of that.
Given the enduring niche of physical media, why would a person choose non physical media for the artwork and leaflet experience? Would there be a UI that afforded the user thumbing through stacks, sliding the carton out, admiring the art as it is opened and an artifact unsleeved to be mated to a player?
I suppose something like that would be possible with NFC (with write durability improvements). The NFC holds a token allowing for the play of a particular album. For each non-cached play, a new token is generated and sent to the NFC. The album represented by the NFC can then be loaned or resold like the old way of physical media. Maybe even let the NFCs go bad after a few thousand token rewrites just like how vinyl and tapes wear out. It would have no improvement over old media other than having a large and fragile IT infrastructure.
Vinyl record sales outperformed CDs in the US for the first time since 1987, according to a new report. Just over 41 million vinyl records were sold in 2022, to the tune of $1.2bn (£.99bn). Only 33 million CDs were sold, amounting to $483m.
One of the plan was to offer a bundled experience to the labels: you sell a physical media and the customer gets a code to add the album to their streaming library so they can also consume it digitally.
Edit/PS: It really feels strange arguing for an idea, I've given up on so long ago...
Honestly, this is a lot of what I like about bandcamp. (I really hope that epic buying them isn't a bad sign, on that note...)
It's nice to get a cd or a cassette, with some fancy holofoil cover on it, a little artifact of a band I like, and still have it on my phone, in my browser, whenever I want to listen to it. I could dig out the actual equipment to play those things directly, but usually that's a pain, and I just want to have them as a totem or something.
To think of a totally different possible trajectory of a technology is a bit like reading counterhistorical fiction. The interesting part isn’t just the assertion of something different but in considering the various second order effects.
Classical works very often come as a whole, with 3-4 particular "tracks" marking parts of that whole. It would be like selling a books by chapter.
OTOH maybe it would work. The Moonlight sonata underwent this, and the first track of the album is well-known and iconic, the third track is also widely recognized, but the second track is much more obscure.
It's interesting how despite classical music having such a surge of listenership (thanks largely in part due to video games), they've been unable to do much about it. You contrast this with the likes of the vinyl industry, which has capitalized on its revival through packaging and branding to the point of outpacing CDs... it's a pure shock that this step by Apple is really the only thing being done.
Just like vinyl, I don't think the solution is digital!
Has the sector ever survived other than thanks to public and private subsidies? Even in its heyday it was funded by Princes and Bishops and so on. Maybe the right approach is to lean into that. There are a lot of very wealthy people in China for example and many of them love classical music.
It is sadly true however that the West increasingly appears to have no interest in maintaining its own culture.
My wife composes choral music and "new music". (what many here would consider classical) and has been using Bandcamp since 2009 with pretty good success.
But even that gets tricky, as she is not the performer for any of the recordings.
It's a strange world though, when so many people focus on centuries-old music by dead German men, that's going to be harder to market. My first glance at Apple Classical a few weeks ago suggests that it's trying to cater to that crowd.
Bandcamp is better for living composers (and preforming musicians) than a lot of other traditional options. For example, if you have a successful performance is a piece, Parma Records will reach out to you and offer to do a "professional" recording. They'll ask for $20,000 and you'll get a box of CDs (not sure if they do that last part anymore but I would not be surprised). A surprising amount of musicians go this route, because they don't know any better.
I think I see what you mean in relation to what audiences Apple is presumably trying to cater to, though I have no market knowledge as to how “classical“ music audiences truly segment. Apple Classical becomes similar to Apple Music a way to (re-) discover both old catalog and new releases. Listening to Toscanini this morning, the performance and music sounds as fresh in 2022 as it always did.
I know an artist who has a bandcamp profile, but doesn't make a lot of money over it. It's mostly a business card for getting booked. But that might apply to Spotify for not very well known artists, too.
Bandcamp isn't nearly as well organized as this new service, but its feed of new releases sorted by genre exposes me to lots of indie classical music recordings.
I love how patient classical music fans are when people ask THE SAME QUESTION over and over and over again on forums as to why there’s a need for a separate classical music app. You classical music fans rock…
I think most classical music, by virtue of having been written along time ago and having been recorded rather well already, has no need to keep being re-recorded.
I blame the nature of digital assets for this; all we gotta do is keep copying all those files into brand new digital media and we can listen to what's been already recorded forever.
> But unfortunately, this wont change the fact that the classical recording industry is dying and that the sector is only surviving thanks to public and private subsidies.
Bet $100 that all classical music will be AI generated (synthesized and composed) in just three years. Supply side will be infinite.
I would bet heavily against that any such generated music to become popular (except maybe as bad filler music for video games music etc).
The truth is that classical music fan are very very picky about what they like.
Computers have been "better" musician than human for a long time: a midi file is always played "perfectly". Yet it's sounds horrible, mechanised to our ears. The controlled imperfection of a real human musician is what makes the music beautiful.
I don't see any computer composing anything worth listening to in the foreseeable future (and I'm bullish on generative ai).
What I'm saying: take a classical score as is and input it perfectly as a midi file and you are guaranteed to have a terrible output. Yet on paper, it's perfectly rendered as the composer wrote it.
This is why the act of playing music by a human is called a "performance", an "interpretation" in some languages. The musician is not just playing a score exactly as it is written, the musician gives a part of his/her into the act and make the music his/her own to make art.
And you don't think AI can't be programmed to "interpret" too? You haven't been paying attention much, in the last few weeks in particular
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX9J4RIsvOA
So the performers are following some learned patterns of what they need to do with the written score to make it sound not-terrible to you. I disagree that's only possible for a human to achieve.
I don't have a stake in whether AI could or could not interpret a score, but it's still more than "learned patterns". Some performers imbue an interpretation depending on:
- the instrument
- the room or hall
- their personal experiences
- their personal philosophy of music (e.g., Gould and his anti-hedonistic philosophy)
- cultural norms and explicit respect paid thereof (e.g., in the interpretation of a Chopin mazurka)
- available recording technology and expertise
- available audio engineering technology and expertise
- what emotion they want to invoke or evoke to contextualize the music
- their patience
- their willingness to experiment
- etc.
It is not at all farfetched that a performer is taking most of these into account, directly or indirectly, to render a live or recorded performance.
It's not as if there's just this tradition of unwritten rules about interpreting a score that music students learn from their teachers, rather, it's that an interpretation is an amalgamation of experience, context, and on-the-spot reactive decision-making.
For an AI to successfully achieve this, they'll need the same variety of inputs and contexts to learn from.
>Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver?
Isn't that exactly how music is consumed nowadays by most people? They put something when driving, cooking, doing homework, etc. It's used mainly for mood/focus and they're not exactly paying close attention to it the same way one would to a audiobook of, say, an abstract algebra textbook. Especially considering how cheap and easy it is to steam music nowadays. I suspect focused, attentive listening only makes up a small minority of the total streams.
>I suspect focused, attentive listening only makes up a small minority of the total streams
The inverse is likely true with the classical audience. Just like with jazz, although there will be a portion of users seeking “vibey jazz” sort of playlists to use in the background while working, the majority of jazz fans consume jazz as albums and are still concerned with things like personnel and liner notes, perhaps even who mastered this recording. Classical fans are similar except I would say even more picky IME (worked in a jazz and classical CD store/venue for a number of years)
I wouldn't call myself a classical music fan, but if we're looking at Spotify stream numbers I wouldn't be surprised if a big chunk of classical is background noise too. Whenever I'm trying to get work done in a noisy environment I go for classical playlists - unless I'm doing something mindless like cleaning I find it very hard to focus with most music. Might just be that lyrics (especially in English) distract me, but classical is an easy go to for studying time IMO.
It might be useful, in both cases, to distinguish "fans" and "consumers" of those styles. Yes, the people who most consciously identify as fans of the styles are picky, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of classical play counts by volume are consumed for muzakish purposes. Mozart for babies, Vivaldi for malls, etc.
The same may be true for Jazz, though in that genre there may be a bit more of a separation between jazzy background mood music and jazz as consumed by fans. There are some overlaps ("The Girl from Ipanema", "Take Five", etc), but they may not be quite as central to the canon as their classical counterparts.
these are fair points, I suppose I was more addressing this with the "classical fan" user in mind given the context of the discussion, idea of a platform that serves these users. It definitely is true though that a huge portion of music listeners in general would rather throw a random playlist on than select an album and it would be interesting to somehow see how many classical listeners on say Spotify are doing so through playlists vs selected albums.
> I suspect focused, attentive listening only makes up a small minority of the total streams.
You haven't justified your assertion of the dichotomy between pure blind consumption and active, focussed listening. You must actually argue that the negation of one implies the other. Your comment is totally meaningless as it stands
> Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver?
I would think they would want to listen to it for the same reason they listen to human generated music.
Is your thought here that AI generated art is not art? Is it the nature of the creator that determines the listeners enjoyment? If the music generated by a computer is indistinguishable from human made music, how can this be possible? Moreover, at what point would the computer generation be sufficient to shift it from art to “screensaver”? Would it be one simulated member of an otherwise human orchestra? Would it take 50%. If you can’t draw a line, doesn’t that further indicate it’s irrelevant?
It's way less complicated than that. Music and art in general belong to the social context that produced them. A lot of our appreciation doesn't really come from the technical prowess of the artist or the music theory behind that, but from the cultural hooks we can find in it.
If you want a quick example of what I'm saying, look online for Music for Installations by Brian Eno. It's a "almost-generative-but-not-really" music album made for audiovisual installations. It's... kinda nice but it's 6 hours long and literally gets boring after less than 30 minutes.
I can't imagine listening to something even more abstracted from a human composer for more than 20 minutes. I mean, I'm pretty sure you can generate something even quite pleasant with AIs. Most people will just listen for 15 min, say "uh, cool", and go back to regular music.
Brian Eno was 100% right about ambient music, but he was just wrong about what form it would take. Basically, his music is so unintrusive to the point of being sleep-inducing for many, thus at least a little more intensity is needed. What really became the ambient music was 24/7 lofi hiphop streams. That kind of music is still very abstracted from a human composer, it just happens to have slightly different sonic qualities and sociocultural context than Eno, so it appeals to a wider audience.
EDIT: Should note that Eno's music is still very influential for a lot of people doing work. He composed Neroli after a lot of people doing intellectual work asked him for a new piece geared specifically towards it. Also, Discreet Music was historically used on many maternity wards. In general it is not as if he failed in the popular sphere, Eno is an extremely popular musician
Totally agree with this, but I think it's very likely we'll see AI-written pop hits. They've basically been churned out factory style for years anyway.
And if that does happen, expect a far more exciting backlash movement, like alternative rock in the 90s was to garbage excesses of the 80s.
Many people are so starved of any kind of creative education that they see art in purely a utilitarian point of view. It doesn't matter to them if a human made it, the outcome is the same. To them, yeah pretty much all art is like a screensaver
Relating to it as a creative process. Connecting directly with the artist, mind to mind, through the art. Being liberated from my current perspective. Story telling. Revolutionary mental states. New synergistic paradigms. All the actual reasons why people have been making art for many 1000s of years.
You should not admire artists, but I'm sad for you that art is just a product for you, and not a source of your own expression. Some people naturally gravitate to a subservient, non-creative position.
It already exists, and is known as elevator music or muzak. I can certainly see the value in generating endless copyright-free background music, because so many human effort has been put into composing it already.
Alright, but why would I actually spend time to actively listen to it? Op was specifically talking about Classic music being replaced by AI in listening events, not about staying on hold on a phone calls or waiting on a parking spot.
You wouldn't actively listening, and that's why generated muzak would be okay. "The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver", as someone in the thread called it. The idea that classical performances would be replace human composers in concert context is quite ridiculous. Maybe as a novelty, once, but that's all.
No one with enough bored capital to patronize the arts is going to go to see and be seen at a performance of a synthetic symphony - or not more than once or twice, anyway, for the sake of the thing. Philharmonics need not fear for their concert halls, or not at least for this reason.
Perhaps I should. An infinite future of the Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan, producing performances only slightly more perfectly machined, needs some antidote.
Given that you’re “building the future AI cloud production studio”, it seems you have a business interest in this coming true.
Maybe there’s more to art than business though. I bet there will still be a market for unique and novel interpretations of classical works played by real humans capable of being moved by the compositions they’re playing.
I'd have to disagree. Classical music would be the LAST thing AI could do well. Hard to but technique, nuance, opinion, interpretation, style and the greatest utterances of our troubled civilization into an algorithm. Pop, dance, rap, blaalads....maybe. Classical and Jazz? Never going to happen.
Lmao, classical and jazz are the two simplest forms of music. Without any lyrics to generate its basically just generating some simple patterns in basic instruments.
> classical and jazz are the two simplest forms of music
Uh, have you actually listened to any of it? At all?
There are some non-Western traditional types of music I'd agree can have a level of complexity not usually encountered within the Western classical or jazz genres, but it's fair to say all over forms of Western music are vastly simpler in terms of harmonic language, tonality, form/ structure, instrumentation etc.
None of which I believe would make it harder for AIs to generate, as computers can manage complexity rather well.
What I expect AIs to not be good at is to conjure a truly original and distinct sound world significantly different to anything that's come before, but that still captivates audiences. Which is arguably what the greatest human composers & musicians have generally achieved, in any genre.
The "over" was a typo for "other" (hope that was obvious!). But that primarily refers to the pop/rock/folk genres.
One point I'd agree on is that it will take longer for AI technology to produce a satisfying simulation of the human singing voice than it will for purely instrumental music. In fact despite the leaps and bounds in speech synthesis I've yet to hear any sort of convincing demonstration of synthesized singing. But I can't see why there's any real reason it won't happen sooner or later.
Classical and jazz are actually the primary Western music genres where you encounter some deep music theory.
EG: Read something like George Russell's "The Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization" (the basis from which modal jazz sprung, which includes one of the most famous jazz albums of all time, Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue"). Now add to the theory the ability to improvise around it as good as a Miles Davis level jazz performer can. It's not technically easy at all.
Even if other music genres are much technically easier, so much of music is the social experience anyways.
Take punk music. Though some parts got more technical later, much of it (particularly the late 1970s / early 1980s stuff) is, in my opinion, very technically easy; not too challenging to play, with very basic music structure (which was half the point, a return to rock's garage roots).
I'm guessing an AI can probably be developed (especially with today's fairly realistic sounding guitar VSTs) to make some "technically correct" old school punk rock, certainly much easier than it can be programmed to make "technically correct" modal jazz. An AI, however, cannot replicate the human parts, eg the social or community aspects of a music scene. Which with a lot of music is a huge portion of the point (certainly for punk it was).
You probably will be able to get imitation in the not too distant future. But a world where we just listen to imitations of 50s and 60s derivatives of bebop is a sad one. The most loved musicians are ones who are pushing things forward and don't just imitate Trane endlessly or whatever.
AI would need to be able to do something like create The Bad Plus in 1995. That's an even bigger mountain to climb.
We have the tech to be licensed (melodyne or zynaptiq for the polyphonic pitch data extraction), python libs for the analysis. Just needs the brains to execute it at this point...and someone to pay for this kind of compute
I don't think it is completely unreasonable in the future. But I'm personally good with what we've got in this style. We don't need another A Love Supreme. We've already got it. It was fun when Both Directions at Once was discovered, but it isn't like it was something that we needed in 2018.
People will still want to create their sound, and that'll lead to new music over time that isn't just imitation.
I have think you have defined the terms of battle. An improvisational jazz solo from a master vs one that is AI generated. I don't know this but I suspect that Monk had no idea where his solos were going when he started to play them. I like where they went, I'm just saying there were no directions.
It's how commerce works. As soon as AI can generate a commercially viable product, in less time and for less cost, human content ceases to have any commercial value, and as AI becomes ubiquitous it becomes normalized in pop culture. Appreciation comes with the inevitable cycle of one generation being born native to a paradigm shift rejecting the standards of the old guard.
And it won't just be classical, it will be all genres and all creative media. And it will probably take longer than three years. But it will happen.
> As soon as AI can generate a commercially viable product, in less time and for less cost, human content ceases to have any commercial value
Ever been to a craft show? An artist can sell a handmade bowl for $100 even though you can find an identical manufactured one at Target for $1.
Other examples: Chick-Fil-A markets their milkshakes as “hand spun”. Or when Dreamweaver started automating the layout of webpages, web devs started calling their websites “handmade”. It’s been possible to automate call centers for a long time now, but companies advertise the ability to speak to a human representative as a differentiating feature of their business.
There is value in having humans in the loop, despite automation. People just don’t trust robots.
We have machines that can produce clothing, yet there are people out there that buy custom tailored clothing. AI can generate images, yet people will go out there and buy something custom made. I think manufactories will become much more important and expand into more areas. Which means that hand-made music will just be much more expensive, and your "off-the-shelf"-production will be way cheaper.
Exactly - in fact, once AIs/automation are capable of achieving all the necessary production of goods/services for a universally high material standard of living, then I'd imagine choosing to handcraft works of art and share them with others (potentially in exchange for money) will become as popular as it's ever been, if not more so.
We do not have machines that produce clothing. All clothing in the entire world is handmade, which is why developing countries like Bangladesh specialize in it.
The idea that Bach composed the Well tempered clavier and similar works merely in a mechanical process is basically a fairy tale, and it's kind obvious once you read the music sheets.
No harm done. Chalk it up to appreciating the music in near perfect ignorance of its contemporary social context - I had no idea that'd been a controversial point until I went looking for why something I'd thought a harmless joke had crossed people.
Bach's oeuvre is practically inexhaustible and after a while gets to feel a bit samey in places. This led me to make a joke that, judging by a sibling comment of yours, has not landed well among Bach fans, who seem to have a history [1] of being annoyed by such badinage.
Apparently there's something about his work that's seen [2] as uniquely susceptible to automation, and I suppose I can see where the irritation would come from. Doesn't bother me any, but then I've always preferred Beethoven anyway.
I would have disagreed with you 5 years ago but actually I think you could be right. There are adjacent examples of transcendent human experiences being synthesized - eg people falling in love with that Replika chatbot.
I feel grateful that I heard the Mahler symphonies before the great flood of AI content, at least I will always have that. But perhaps AI could complete his 10th symphony…
You could make the argument that charting pop music will be AI generated, or Spotify will be pushing AI generated music through all their popular playlists to avoid paying music royalties - these don't seem to be too far from what happens currently.
But to bet that some of the fussiest and most discerning music listeners would prefer this seems foolish.
I would love to see something like this for jazz, which has musicians constantly moving through groups and albums as musicians and composers and writers.
Like take "Take Five", one of my favorites. It was written by Paul Desmond for the Dave Brubeck Quartet, with solos by Desmond on alto sax and Joe Morello on drums. Those are all fun pieces of information that I wish I could click through to see more of.
Just like classical music, it's not impossible to represent this with a generic interface, but it would benefit by something more geared to how jazz fans like to browse.
Maybe it's just rose colored glasses but I want to say Rdio had support for things like this back in the early 2010s. I know it was the best music streaming service I've ever used for music discovery. I definitely recall it supporting things like music labels (i.e. Deutsche Grammophon) and want to say it got so granular that it provided the information (performers, conductors, etc) you are looking for. Alas, Rdio is no more :(
Yes, I’ll join you in pouring one out for Rdio. I listened to, and paid for, Rdio every day for years until Spotify killed it. Rdio allowed users to fulfill simple goals — find music you know and listen to it; find new music and listen to it. The paths to those goals were simple and clear.
Turns out it’s hard to make money that way. Thus why, I suppose, Spotify is a cornucopia of manipulative dark patterns.
I use spotify daily to listen to my playlists and find new music regularly. I have not noticed any dark patterns, apart from search on desktop being weird sometimes. What are they?
For one, all of the recommendations you receive are driven partly by sponsorship by major labels - release radar, the for you mix, and the radios you run from your playlists. This is not clearly documented online, but there is some coverage from when it was introduced in 2020. I'd be curious if anyone here has more up to date information.[0]
So one dark pattern would be the fact that the entire discovery system is partly driven by advertising incentives with no indication to the user about what recommendations are most genuine and what are being selected as the most-relevant sponsored option.
As an individual user, I think I've noticed this before. There was a span of time where every single playlist I made with hip hop on it would always bring up the same 2-3 JPEGMafia tracks in the radio mix, regardless of the playlists' individual content or the fact that I don't listen to that artist.
honestly, I don't know who to believe about anything anymore, but luckily this particular controversy is pretty low-stakes relative to a number of other current topics.
I only know of the upgrade splash screens where Dismiss is small and/or floating off of the brightly colored splash so it doesn't contrast and is harder to see. Exactly like Amazon Music.
Check out roon + quboz and/or tidal -- that's the audiophile route.
Roon is just meta-data and presentation. Quboz/Tidal hold the content. Roon's content and interface is fantastic compared to spotify and apple music. It uses third party content (wikipedia, reviews from tivo, maybe others) seemlessly. And it elevates the use of the album art. Also, it allows for album-centric approach to viewing/organizing/listening which I vastly prefer. Roon also allows deep linking. Like every album/track has a list of the people on it and you can see everything each of them has done. Same for composers/etc. Also, from each track, you can get to all the other recordings across all artists. Using this for the last month has really pointed out to me how crap apple and spotify are for discovery/learning/investigation.
Technically, this route is also superior because, as I understand it, roon tells the streamer + DAC, which may be way higher quality than the DAC in any apple device, to stream directly from TIDAL or QUBOZ. This yields higher quality because you skip the apple DAC and airplay, both of which lessen quality compared to what's possible with the other route. I'm sure the apple DACs are fine for what they are, but I'm also sure they're full of compromises. You can spend like 5K on a DAC alone.
I know audiophiles can really overdo it, but I have been using this combination for a month or so now and I think it's sooo much better. Music is way more like I remember it. It was confusing to me because spotify/apple music have everything and yet I found them very frustrating to use. My instinct was right -- they're crap products compared to what's possible. Your mileage may vary.
A DAC and an amp are two different things. It's not "worse" than dedicated amps either (it's better quality than many of those too), but it is lower powered because it's running off a phone battery, so that makes it less compatible with high-impedance headphones.
I use this and love it too. I've been using both the Dragonfly DAC/headphone amp (works with iPhones and iPads) as well as RooPiee on several raspberry pis with HifiBerry Digi digital output devices. Installation was very simple, and these add 24bit/192khz roon endpoint capability to my home theater systems.
I want that for pop music, too! I don't understand why Apple (and other companies) don't get that there are users who want to slice and dice music in this way for every genre. When I go looking for "No-one is to blame" by Howard Jones, I want the version from "Dream Into Action" not the crappy radio remake he did with Phil Collins on the drums. When I listen to "Leave it" by Yes, I may want to make the connection that it was produced by Trevor Horn who was also 1/2 of The Art of Noise. In fact, my friends and I used to play a game we called "6 Degrees of Bruford/Wakeman". You could find connections between just about any band and either Yes or Genesis in 6 or fewer steps.
One impediment is the pop industry doesn't organize it that way. Classical does, so PrimePhonic/Apple didn't have to invent a new taxonomy to make a classical service.
Apple and Spotify could use their market power to make labels backfill a more complex data format for pop.
> Although I guess that in today's world, I could just say "use AI to figure it out."
Amazon do this and it doesn't work at all well for classical music. The album reviews are full of reviews for the same piece of music but different performances, it's not always easy to tell either. I stopped buying CDs from Amazon years ago, although primarily because they'd always arrive with cracked jewel cases.
The crap data that labels provide is a big issue and it should be part of Apple’s curation process to provide us with better information.
They already did by putting singles and EPs into their own category instead of listing everything under albums. Speaking of which, those also got de-duplicated.
I don’t see how that could work without cooperation from the labels since they, the artists and producers have the authoritative data about each track and album. Even then, going back more than a number of years accurately would be challenging.
From popular genres I would think hip-hop would be the one to target; pop and rock have had pretty much for its entire existence encouraged listeners to link a recording with a band, and not to think about a producer or composer/writer, and to be generally negative about the idea of different performances (derided as covers, unless, like Joan Jett your covers become identified as the standard).
Hip-hop fans are generally much more interested in the producer, songwriters, and also sample use. They'd be a great audience for richer metadata and better presentation of same.
I second this! Couldn't agree more. In all honesty, some of the best parts of jazz lie in its history. For example listening to Clifford Brown might make you think "huh this is neat". But understanding his relationship to gillespie, early death, etc, puts his career in a unique and fascinating frame.
What aways amazes me about Brown is how much he accomplished in so little. I play trumpet, in high school was in California All State Jazz and Classical. I'm by no means a prodigy, I merely brought that up to say I know a lot of musicians.
When you ask any trumpet player to name their top 5 go-to artists if they want to sit down and listen, I'd say that 95% plus would have Brown somewhere in that list. This would be true of people ranging from myself to pro studio musicians. Heck I don't know anyone who's dedicated to the instrument that cant hum along perfectly to Jordu or Joy Spring including his solos.
In only 26 years of life, he has become one of the most iconic names in hard bop, a genre containing the likes of Freddie Hubbard and Horace Silver.
To think he did that in 26 years, one can only imagine what he'd have done if he made it to 60+!
Roon uses a database-style approach to keep track of the differences between compositions vs performances + artists vs composers. It’s peerless for Jazz.
It also has many of the “Apple Music Classical” features already like breaking out movements from tracks.
I've heard Roon mentioned a lot, and I have BluOs and my NAD amp support it natively. I've never really bothered to look into this. But this sounds like it's time for me to explore. Weird that it took an Apple product marketing sheet for me to "get" what Roon is like then....
I think the problem with separating jazz is that its boundaries are far more porous than classical.
There's virtually never a question as to whether a piece is classical or not. (Except maybe soundtrack scores which are a weird category of their own.)
But jazz tends to fuse with every other genre out there. You can find an artist at every point on the spectrum between jazz and hip-hop.
Another way of looking at it is, I never want classical tracks in a non-classical playlist. But I want jazz tracks mixed with non-jazz in my shuffle all the time.
And just one more point -- composers matter in classical just as much as artists, hence the need for special UX. But composers mostly aren't prominent that way in jazz. There are lots of standards but most people aren't aware of who actually wrote most of them.
When I tried out Tidal a while ago I noticed that it handled the liner notes type stuff much better than Spotify or anyone else.
Very much was able to do the sort of things you're alluding to, noticing you like a drummer on a track then clicking on them and finding out what else they've done. That sort of thing can't be done on Spotify.
There's a lot more potential with that sort of stuff that no one is yet doing.
That's an interesting idea, and a stone killer idea for jazz (imagine following the links from "Kind of Blue," where I think every player has their own discography to explore), but the utility wouldn't be limited to jazz.
Having prominent album personnel as links in really ANY popular music service would be great -- very often, players or producers on album A are also on album B, and that could lead to interesting discoveries for people.
I mean, this thing happens already, but only if you're motivated to read liner notes. 30+ years ago I figured out the cool atmospheric sounds I loved on THE JOSHUA TREE were probably because of U2's collaboration with Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois. When I realized both had albums of their own (and other artists with whom they collaborated) I had multiple new paths to explore.
Lanois resonated more with me than Eno, so I followed his work, which led me to artists I wouldn't have listened to otherwise for genre reasons or whatever.
It's also fun to pull on the producer thread sometimes. Lanois's track "The Maker", from his 1989 record ACADIE, shows up as a cover on several OTHER records he produced or otherwise influenced. Emmylou Harris included it (plus another of Lanois' songs) on her 1998 live album SPYBOY, which was the direct followup to the Lanois-helmed WRECKING BALL from the year before.
Willie Nelson included it on his 1998 collaboration with Lanois, TEATRO, which is an underrated and somewhat forgotten gem in his discography. It's NOT what you'd think of when someone says "country album."
(Eventually, the song became part of the Dave Matthews Band's live rep, even.)
Anyway, back then, you did it by reading liner notes, but digital music makes it less likely that you'll mull over the CD booklet while listening today. The good news is that the tech exists to make those paths more obvious now.
This is the "Take Five" variant by Val Bennett, "The Russians Are Coming", used in the show Secret Life of Machines (awesome series, now freely/legally posted on YT):
Learning Take Five on alto sax when I was 15 or so was part of what solidified my love for the instrument. Such a recognizable and timeless song; it's often my go-to suggestion for people unfamiliar with jazz.
Gets even more interesting when you look at things like b sides, alternate takes, and covers. Take 10 was a variant of Take five, released under Desmond's name.
For those asking why they "didn't just" improve the existing music app. This is the rebranded version of a service called Primephonic which they acquired last year. This is obviously way less work than trying to jam it into the existing app, so I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable decision.
From a different thread on HN about the same topic, some commenters mentioned that the information architecture and navigation required for classical music is different enough from other music to warrant its own app. I would be surprised if
Apple made a decision to cut corners on work and ship a product faster (because from their other products, they seem to be a company that believes in taking their time and delaying releases till they are done to a level that they deem satisfactory)
I have a lot of rap music which has the same problems today and would be solved by the metadata management in the Classical Music app. I dearly hope Apple will bring back some of the management from that app into the regular app, or allow non-classical music into the new app.
I have a strong feeling that they acquired Primephonic to eventually replace the primary Apple Music architecture. To your point, there’s a lot of cool functionality you can create with different performances of songs in all genres that could be a huge competitive advantage, but Apple Music currently struggles with simple metadata management.
No shade to the classical music enjoyers, I am one of them, but that is nowhere near a large enough market for the largest company in the world to acquire a niche app for the sole purpose of catering to them. It only makes sense to me if they’re after a tech stack that can be folded into their main service, and Apple almost always companies for their tech rather than their product (including Beats for Beats Music).
Rolling it out as a classical music app first is a pretty clever way to test new features and architecture at limited scale. I would 100% look to that app to see the potential future of Apple Music.
Yes, the structure is very different and having them both in one app would probably also make it confusing to users if views for the same like an "album view" look different just by clicking on different cover art associated with either Apple Music, or Apple Music Classical.
> because from their other products, they seem to be a company that believes in taking their time and delaying releases till they are done to a level that they deem satisfactory
This is definitely not the case for a long time already. Some people would probably say "Since Snow Leopard". If you use the Apple Music app on macOS, or really any recent macOS apps that was ported from iPadOS to macOS it's obvious that this is not true anymore. System Settings would be another such example.
Many types of music have additional requirements, at least for discovery. For example, how about cover songs? It would be nice to find every available version of All Along the Watchtower. This is not unique to classical so why not fix in the parent app?
There are still a ton of differences: contemporary music doesn't have the same divisions of works into movements separate from what appears on an album (you don't generally have covers of entire albums); while a cover of a particular song is a common search, it is far less common to try and find all covers by other artists from a particular artists (i.e. all piano works by Beethoven); and finally, most contemporary music has a single name meanwhile most famous classical works have many (opus/catalogue number, sonata number, nicknames, foreign language names, etc.).
As a bonus, most contemporary music probably also doesn't feature dozens of artists (while the whole orchestra usually isn't listed individually, all the soloists in an opera often are). That said, I think this is one area where apps have improved.
Maybe we'll finally get a music app where classical music isn't categorized by Album/Artist :)
Classical doesn't really fit that well into a schema, since you have composers, performers, and then under performers there's soloist, or multiple soloists, which orchestra, which conductor, and so on.
And it would also be nice to have things like "show most popular recordings of Beethoven's 5th".
> Classical doesn't really fit that well into a schema, since you have composers, performers, and then under performers there's soloist, or multiple soloists, which orchestra, which conductor, and so on.
That sounds like a schema to me. Hell, even popular music can have such complexities, it’s just that they’re usually ignored e.g. if you want to correctly tag a cover featuring a rapper, that’s basically a performer (cover band), composer (the original band, or the actual composer as that’s often not the band), the soloist (the guest), there’s also the backing band and vocals which may have their own identity, and the venue may or may need a mention (e.g. a tiny desk live usually has a different feel than a concert live).
Obviously it’s not quite as bad as classical where as you mentioned there are eve more roles plus you might have hundreds or even thousands of interpretations of the same piece versus a handful.
I mentioned some of these numbers in another comment already, but for example: Search for "Don Giovanni" in the new app, and there are 1,182 "Works" that match. That's a lot of covers! The "Editor's Choice" is 79 tracks, while the five popular works listed under that one are 63, 64, 70, 38, and 59 tracks, all for the same composition.
It is true that there are complexities in pop music, especially in the modern age of "featuring" artists, but:
1. There are complexities and complexities, and classical music involves the latter.
2. If anything, much pop music seems designed to hide things like composers and session musicians as often as not. The fear seems to be that if people realized how few pop artists write their own music, they'd think less of them. I'm not sure I agree, but the point is that improved metadata is not what everybody involved in pop is looking for. Since the metadata would need be supplied by the labels, I don't think the uptake would be as high as one might hope.
The best example of non-classical music that might rise to a similar level of complexity and care is touring bands like Phish or the Grateful Dead, if all of their live recordings were available officially.
I get your point but rap was a bad example. Rappers don't "cover" songs and artists who cover rap songs are usually bedroom artists posting on YouTube.
You may want to re-read my comment. In my example there was no rap artist covering a piece, or a rap song being covered, there was a rapper guesting on a cover. Rap is not just a genre on the side.
Patching one app into another for improved UX and categorization is bonkers.
Also, my kid wanted to use Apple Music classical first thing this morning (he’s a big classical music nut), you literally have to be logged in to regular Apple Music before Classical will allow you to play anything. Weird.
I don‘t think they „patched“ stuff. Without knowing much about it I‘d guess they just took the backend, put it behind an Apple API and then built a new app based on that. The frontend there is probably the easier part and likely the reason it‘s only available on iOS at this point.
You have to be logged into Apple Music before you can play Apple Music, regardless of whether you're using the Music app, the Classical app, or the web app. I'm not sure what's weird about that?
Oh, are you saying you can't log in using the Classical app, but have to use the other one? That would be weird.
There is the slightly awkwardly-named idagio (https://www.idagio.com/), which has been doing the same kind of thing for a while.
(I'm not well placed to compare them, since I let my own idagio subscription lapse a couple of years ago due to lack of income, I never tried Primephonic before Apple bought it, and I don't have an iPhone so can't try the Apple service... aside from all that, I'm right in the target market!)
>> It's a hard firewall between my "normal" music library and classical, which means risk free shuffle play. I never want Bach and Slayer in sequence.
It's actually not. The library is shared so your classical music will still appear in Apple Music. It's just that your pop/rock etc. music will not appear in the Classical app. e.g. add a playlist or album to your Classical library then check recently added in the standard Music app - you should also see it there.
I've found interesting, creative serendipity in sequences like that.
With dynamics controlling tools such as ReplayGain (and Apple Music has something similar built-in today though less well documented) to avoid massive "loudness war" shifts it doesn't even break a flow state for me sometimes and can be really interesting to my flow.
_you_ may never want Bach and Slayer in sequence, but Randy Rhoads, Eddie Van Halen, and I would. I do love this app, though. It presents everything in such a way that makes classical music more interesting, organizable, and accessible.
> There’s no separate subscription for Apple Music Classical. It’s included at no extra cost with all Apple Music subscriptions except the Apple Music Voice Plan.
Bit of a missed opportunity here to provide a cheaper subscription just for Classical. Apple could have captured Spotify users who would be willing to pay a small premium for a nicer classical UX, but would be unwilling to take out an additional full-priced music subscription. Inevitably some Classical only users would end up migrating entirely to Apple Music to amalgamate their subscription costs.
I think if you really care about a great classical streaming experience, that probably outranks a small extra monthly fee. I sort of doubt the category of people who care about a few extra dollars a month yet really love classical music to the point of wanting a very tailored experience exists.
People who care deeply about classical music will use this even at the same or higher cost than Spotify's now-inferior product.
People who don't care at all about classical music won't use this at any price.
People who like classical sometimes but don't listen to it exclusively should be happy that neither costs extra, both are included in the normal price.
I'm not seeing any market opportunity for charging a lower amount for this service separately.
> People who care deeply about classical music will use this even at the same or higher cost than Spotify's now-inferior product
I care deeply about classical music. But I'm already in Spotify's ecosystem, and don't want to bother with the switching cost. I would absolutely pay an add-on for Classical only, but don't want to pay for the whole Apple Music bundle.
Switching cost is trivial with apps like SongShift. In any case, Apple want you whole not just bits and pieces. Before you know it you’ll upgrade to Apple One.
I am a student with not a lot of money and I really love classical music. I don't have to pay for Spotify due to Spotify family. Also, I really don't like the cliché that classical music is mostly for the well-earning élite. Classical music is just great music. Totally agree with you. Like the idea of a seperate app; when I am streaming my favorite music on Spotify, it's sometimes weird to listen to some piece of contemporary music and then a classical piece.
That's right. But what I really like at Spotify is that I can start a track on my iPhone, which is connected to my music box, and then add tracks to the waiting list or change them from my iPad. I really miss this option in Apple Music.
While not exactly the same, your school (college?) may have access to the Naxos library, which may allow you to stream that for free (requiring login through your school library).
Beyond pricing, what's their strategy here trying to unbundle music? Are they going to release a different music app for every genre? If it's just a classical app, does that mean I now have to use two apps to switch between music based on genre? What benefit is there other than slightly better UX which presumably could be bundled in an existing app.
Wildly different meta data and needs for search. With classical music, it's a standard use case to search music composed by X. For most other genres, no one ever searches for a composer. On the other hand, there will hundreds of performances of the same piece, and listeners will want to scroll though them, instead of just seeing the 1-3 most famous renditions of a song. Or you want songs from a specific conductor or with a specific solist. All of this makes classical music very distinct, while search pattern for most other genres are kind of similar.
> What benefit is there other than slightly better UX
The way people (like me) listen to classical music is different from the way they listen to other kinds of music. For example, I might want to listen to Beethoven's String Quartet No. 12. This has four movements, and I want the player to play from movement 1 through movement 4 once I touch the play button. This is very different from wanting to play (say) Price Tag by Jessie J which is one track.
Furthermore, the meta data standards for music do not work that well for classical music. It requires some thoughtful manipulation to present the meta data correctly for this genre. For example, if you search for Mozart's Don Giovanni on Apple Music, and you are looking for a particular track, you may see something like this:
"1. Mozart, Don Giovanni Act ....."
"2. Mozart, Don Giovanni Act ....."
"3. Mozart, Don Giovanni Act ....."
Now the "Track Title" meta data field for track 2 probably has something like this:
"2. Mozart, Don Giovanni Act 1: Notte e giorno faticar"
If the programmers of Apple Music had read the spec carefully, they would have learned that the part of the track title after the colon is the actual track title, so they should show that first.
There are other issues with the meta data, but I tried the Apple Classical music player last night, and it is good. Finally a music player that works for me, not against me.
> The way people (like me) listen to classical music is different from the way they listen to other kinds of music. For example, I might want to listen to Beethoven's String Quartet No. 12. This has four movements, and I want the player to play from movement 1 through movement 4 once I touch the play button. This is very different from wanting to play (say) Price Tag by Jessie J which is one track.
How is this any different from listening to an album or any other logical grouping of tracks with an order?
There may be several layers of grouping, particularly for opera. There are multiple acts per opera, multiple scenes per act, and there may be multiple songs per scene. If you try and list these as a single "album" you end up with abominations like my favorite recording of Die Walküre with 53 tracks. They try and stick everything in the track name, but on mobile this sometimes hides important information behind the "...".
It's more than a track but less than an album. If I just want to play Vivaldi's "Summer" that's typically done as 3 tracks for the 1 song. But the album it is on will almost always be the full 4 seasons suite, consisting of 4 songs / 12 movements (tracks). I can also see all the hundreds of different recordings of just those 3 movements in Summer.
Sure you could just go to the album and play track 4, and pause when track 6 finishes. But this makes that a little easier to play and easier to add to playlists and such.
There's also all the other metadata differences. Maybe I really like this composer, but apple music has it listed under the performing orchestra. Maybe I really like this conductor. This breaks all those out into different options.
I decided to check this out. I searched for "Don giovanni" and my first match was under "Works", telling me that "Don Giovanni" by W. A. Mozart (little pic of him), K. 527, is available in 1,182 tracks. Second match, amusingly, was "Don Juan" by "C. W. Gluck," Wq. 52, available in 17 tracks.
Choosing Don Giovanni, I get a link to see more by Wolgang Amadeus Mozart, and a detailed description of Don Giovanni, K. 527, KV527. There's an Editor's Choice recording by Teodor Currentzis from 2016 (79 tracks, 2 hr 50 min), or five (with See All) Popular Recordings from 1960, 1986, 1991, 1960 again, and 1966, ranging from 2 hr 38 min (Herbert von Karajan, Vienna Philharmonic) to 3 hr (Philharmonia Orchestra). I'll choose the Editor's Choice.
Album art up top, I see (in dim gray) "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart," (in large white type) "Don Giovanni, K. 527," and (in gray, but larger than the composer) "Teodor Currentzis," along with tiny type tell me that this was released in 2016 and is in Hi-Res Lossless. Then a large Play button, no Shuffle button as the normal Music app has.
The tracks are "Ouvertura" (5:12), Notte e giorno faticar (No. 1, Introduzione: Leporello) (1:30), Non sperar... you know what? You get the idea. The metadata is presented perfectly.
Last night I was listening to Rachmaninoff Symphony No. 2 by the London Symphony Orchestra, Sir Simon Rattle conducting, and it was presented perfectly as well.[0] And it sounded wonderful!
You can still listen to classical in the regular music app, all of these tracks and albums are in the main app. But if you find a recording you really like and want to check out more stuff by that composer or the conductor, or the performers... Well conventional streaming app UI and search kind of sucks for that.
For example one of my most played artists on Apple music is "Various Artists" ;p
It got me to abandon Spotify entirely and switch over to Apple Music. I’ve become more and more discontented with Spotify’s in-app experience and this was the last little nudge I needed apparently.
Actually, I think it's a good thing they've built a separate app for that. We used to think that one app that rules all of them is a good idea. Not always.
Classical music has a lot of nuances (some of which are listed on the announcement page) and from UI/UX perspective it would be quite difficult to mixed all these details in the standard Apple Music app.
I'm now wondering what Spotify thinks about this matter. Do they plan to highlight classical music like Apple did. I don't know.
Spotify has been busy shoehorning their "podcasts" (on-demand audio shows) into every nook and cranny of the app people use to listen to music. If they notice or think of classical music, one can only imagine how they'll try to "highlight" it.
It'd be foolish of them, I think, because we're a small, weird, and highly demanding audience. But they've done plenty of foolish things before in their apparent quest to own and monetize every imaginable audio waveform.
Please if someone from Apple is listening: Please pay some attention to Indian music as well. I mostly only listen to Tamil songs and when Apple came out with iTunes Match or something where they analyze your library and match it to what they have in cloud, they just incorrectly matched songs with the Telugu version and ones from other languages and totally messed up my collection. And, this day and age, why should all Indian music be clubbed under "Foreign" genre by default?
Even JioSaavn, which is focused on Indian popular film music, doesn't do anything special. It's a bit more similar to classical music than American-style pop in terms of organization. Music directors are responsible for the entire album of a film, with singers being brought on for a track or two. So one might want to slice by music director, just like looking at all Bach pieces. It's not quite the case with pop producers, who are usually behind-the-scenes. Fans of Indian popular music often follow their favorite music directors, even if they have little interest in the films the music is a part of.
However, even then, this slight difference is well papered-over by just including the music director in the list of artists who made a song.
Indian classical music, however, has a wholly separate and more intricate form of organization. You'd at least need raga and the properties of the raga (like the dominant rasa & associated time of day), along with the various singers and instrumentalists in the ensemble and their instruments. It would be great to search for "morning"-raga-based Carnatic vocal concerts with the lead singer being Sudha Ragunathan.
It’s a licensing issue. There are a whole bunch of albums missing in one language but available in another. All the latest ones are decently organised. Then there’s the nightmare where a single song is uploaded with its own album title (From XYZ…). It’s unusable. I think it’s there to tick a box.
This touches on one of my least favorite things about Apple Music: They don't have different versions of a lot of stuff. I've seen many cases where a particular track they have with an album is actually a single version (or vice versa), and somewhat like your Tamil/Telugu issue, single and album versions can be quite different.
I've noticed that soundtracks show up in this Classical music app, so some (not all) of my Tamil songs (which are songs from movies because that's how most pop/commercial music in India is released) are listed there now.
Does the Apple Classical app include non-Western traditional music?
It's interesting, what even is classical music? I bet there's music that crosses boundaries, like jazz-classical or pop-classical. Are those subgenres on the app?
They are being pretty agile and releasing something for iOS and will iterate to release a custom iPad version later, relying on the fallback mechanism that has existed for years for app scaling. Why does this upset you so much? Just because they are big doesn't mean they have to do everything all at once, all the time. They are dog-fooding their own multi-device app tech. I think it's great.
I agree, this is another indication that the app may say Apple but it’s really not developed inside Apple. Steve Jobs would have fired someone in 2023 if he saw a tiny screen on his gigantic iPad. If they’re okay with doing this then why isn’t there a phone-sized calculator available to install on iPad?
I’m still upset every time I run into a iPhone-only interface on iPad, but my anger level has gone down somewhat now that I’ve started using Stage Manager more.
> "For example, from the formal Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No. 14 to the popular byname of Moonlight Sonata, or in multiple languages, such as Mondschein Sonata in German."
"Mondschein Sonata"? WTF Apple? Not only is that factually wrong, but… that's not even German - neither as a whole, nor the "Sonata" nor the space (Deppenleerzeichen). Maybe Apple should ask someone else than Siri or a marketing intern to write texts with factual claims outside of their fields. The actual popular German sobriquet for that Sonata is "Mondscheinsonate". As for "Sonata", that's part of the (Italian) title of its first published edition: "Sonata quasi una Fantasia".
So Apple wrote this. Worse yet, their specialists in classical music wrote this. The page is littered with Apple logos and it lives on a .Apple TLD, no need to be an apologist for 2.5 trillion dollar company.
I mean, there’s also no need to freak the fuck out over a minor issue in German text on a predominantly English page. Ok, so “Mondschein Sonata” isn’t exactly the same as “mondscheinsonate”, but it’s damn close and it gets the point across: Some works have different names in different languages.
Guess what happens when I search Apple Classical for “mondscheinsonate”. In fact, don’t guess. Try it.
Oh my, 192kHz/24bit. One would expect Apple would not need snake oil to sell their product.
To those not so familiar with audio DSP: 192kHz and 24bit make perfect sense if you intend to mangle the audio a LOT afterwards. At 192kHz, you can pitch shift your audio down by two octaves and still have frequency content in the entire CD spectrum. Very useful, and common, for movie effects. And 24bit, or better even 32bit, basically eliminates any floating point errors when you have a DSP chain with lots of multiplications.
But for playback, you need around 32-40kHz sample rate and 10 or 11bits. Even 16bit is already overkill.
192kHz/24bit is definitely overkill but I wouldn't call 16/44 overkill; I'd say it's just about perfect and the engineers who decided on that standard when the CD came to market knew what they were doing.
The frequency range of human hearing does cover all the way to 20 kHz, and maybe a tiny bit beyond especially for kids and teenagers. That says 40kHz minimum sampling rate, 44.1 is enough to cover the full range, give a tiny bit for the antialiasing filter rolloff band, and the exact number was chosen IIRC because it fit well into repurposing existing 80s video recorders for digital audio.
The dynamic range of human hearing from threshold of audibility to threshold of pain is slightly wider than the theoretical 96 dB of 16-bit audio, but with dithering the effective dynamic range can be > 105 dB. Of course most popular music only uses a tiny bit of that range, but movies and even classical full-orchestral music can use 60 dB and beyond, for which 10 bits wouldn't be adequate.
192kHz is overkill of the overkill, but 10bit, seriously?! That is 1024 levels for the whole dynamic range, you are cutting it down to its 64th fraction man! With classical music where it is not filled up to the level of clipping but silent parts contain plenty of details you really must be joking with 10 bits or perhaps rely on listening experience of rap with through the roof bass and inarticulate jabber, there even 6bits may be too much, I give you that.
Also the standard 44.1kHz is good to have so the waves could be followed with little deviation and for the sake of reproduction. 192kHz is really snake oil but please do not jump over the horse to the other side in the frenzy of compensating.
> With classical music where it is not filled up to the level of clipping but silent parts contain plenty of details […]
And just because the music is silent doesn't mean the recording is: there's one album I have where there is a short rest in the musical work, but they recorded in a church in the country/rural area and seem to have have left the window(s) open, so during the musical stop you can hear birds chirping in the recording (if you have decent headphones).
On Pat Metheny's Travels album, there's a live recording of Farmer's Trust. It has birdsong added in by one of his band members (the name escapes me)
For a long time the version in Spotify didn't have these.
In a similar vein, in Vince Guaraldi's Live from Grace Cathedral album, you can hear coughing from the congregants in the background of some songs, notably Theme to Grace. Crush the dynamic range and it disappears
Even in "loud" music 10 or 12 bit is definitely noticeable. Many modern samplers include a legacy mode meant to mimic the grungy sound of old 10 or 12 bit sampling hardware. It might not be noticeable to non-musicians, but anyone who makes music will hear the difference. Even if you turn off other features that are usually included in tandem, like dac emulators.
That's when it's used as a "bit crusher" effect by converting to 10/12 bit samples by simple truncation, rather than dithering (randomized rounding up or down to the nearest quantization value, with P(round_up) = the relative closeness of the sample to the upper quantization value).
With dithering, the only difference a smaller bit depth makes is a higher noise floor, with the noise being just background white noise (like tape hiss). With most pop music a 10 bit depth with dithering would likely not be audibly worse, since pop music is usually compressed into like the top 10dB of the dynamic range.
>perhaps rely on listening experience of rap with through the roof bass and inarticulate jabber, there even 6bits may be too much, I give you that.
I think you made a great recap on why this is good and especially good for classical music listeners. But I can't fathom why so many music lovers online are only able to communicate about their love of music while trashing a specific genre. I think more people should be exposed to high quality audio and know how to appreciate it, theorizing to the ignorant that their tastes are wrong because their preferred music is bad probably doesn't move the needle in that direction, and IMO, reflects a different ignorance.
It wasn't about the genre or taste at all but about people accustomed to only less demanding settings drawing wrong conclusion based on that, projecting it on else. The situation looked like that.
Have you personally tested this in a blind study? I have, and the higher quality made a noticeable difference and I was able to identify it and prefer it across all test cases. The others I tested with did not notice any difference. It could be one of those cilantro things idk. But other accounts are in line with my experience: https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-music/yes-19224-file...
You probably didn't blind it correctly, eg if you converted 24-bit to 16-bit then it has two levels of dithering and would naturally sound different.
This guy seems to be doing an unblinded comparison between 16-bit, 24-bit, and DSD which is 2.8 MHz 1-bit. IIRC DSD converts to PCM at around 96KHz/20-bit, so comparing it to 192/24 is kind of funny.
But you can just look up dynamic range - 16-bit dithered audio is enough to record someone whispering in your ear while using a jackhammer without protection. That should be enough for music.
Is 192/24 discernible to most people with mostly common listening equipment? No.
Should we be complaining that an audio streaming service is offering the highest quality audio? No. Especially because they're not charging a premium for it.
Apple was one of the last streaming providers to adopt lossless audio. Even then, the "high res" part is optional. You can disable it and stream normal 44.1/16
This looks ok, but I can't be the only person suffering Content Fatigue.
Between access to infinite music, infinite movies and TV, infinite gaming, and infinite news - and that's just leisure - I'm not sure how much time I have left for a finite life.
I've noticed this feeling myself in the last year, and, honestly I've found it somewhat freeing by following this logic:
1. There is infinite content for me to consume.
2. I have a finite life.
3. Even if I spend my entire life trying, I cannot consume all content.
4. Since I cannot consume all content, there will be content that I will not consume that I would have enjoyed.
5. I want to spend my life doing some things other than consuming media.
6. Given 4 & 5, "I would enjoy it" is no longer a sufficient condition for me to consume some media.
7. Given 6, my feelings of FOMO have gone down considerably. What's to be afraid of, when there's always another product to fill the same "mild enjoyment" void?
I'm enjoying it in moderation; the danger of all this is FOMO, thinking you have to keep on top on watching all the latest TV shows and whatnot. But for me personally, this has reduced by a lot in recent years, I'm like, I'll watch something when inspiration strikes me.
Especially in recent years, it feels like the market is being flooded with content (especially TV shows) that SHOULD be hits, but just fall flat; a recent example is the LotR TV show, which, while pretty, doesn't seem to be the runaway success they were hoping for.
To make things worse, they flood you with constant new content while you browse. It feels overwhelming to me. It's sort of an ADHD nightmare.
With Apple Music, at least, I keep a clear distinction between my personal library and the rest of their offerings. That at least gives me a sense of shape and dimension to my library. To be clear, my personal library is a mixture of music I have bought and music I added from the AM library.
To do this, I unchecked "Add songs to library when adding to playlists." This makes Apple Music not add every single song in every playlist you follow to your library.
Now, I can browse my curated selection of music and playlists, OR I can play music from Apple's playlists, etc. When I discover an artist I like, I can then purposely add it to my library.
I wish I could do this type of curation with Apple News and Apple TV.
Run with the assumption that everything is always infinitely available, and become judicious with your attention. Boring podcast? Don't think twice, delete it. Good TV show, but not amazing? Move on, there's better out there. You won't even remember its name in a year. Book dragging on in the middle? Skip ahead.
Every now and again you'll find something you want to give a chance to, and for those things do slow down, take it in. But don't waste that on any random thing just because it's new and being pushed hard by some giant media conglomerate.
Or alternatively give it five-ten years before you engage with any cultural product. Time is a very effective filter for quality.
Back when scarcity was a thing, the act of powering through with media you didn’t initially like was one of the primary ways of maturing your taste and learning to like new things.
Only consuming media which hooks you instantly is a good way to achieve the media equivalent of a sugar-only diet.
I don’t have an answer for this to be honest, it’s just an observation.
I had typed out a response where I refer to the second two paragraphs of my reply above and elaborated on them, but a more interesting thought occurs: what is a sugar-only media diet? How does it differ from any other 'media diet'?
Let's say you'll only ever keep watching if a film begins with an explosion. Surely, if this how the audience behaves, then every film produced will quickly converge on beginning with explosions.
But if every film begins with explosions, maybe you become tired of all the explosions. Eventually you'll come to associate an explosion-heavy start with mediocre formulaic films, and your behaviour will reverse: maybe you'll now refuse to watch any film that begins with explosions.
Surely it's all just an endless cycle of fashions and counter-fashions, culture and counter-culture? The studio gives us what we crave, and we eat it all up until we're sick and want something else, and then some avant garde artist gives us something else, and if it works and is popular then all the studios steal it and the cycle repeats?
In as far as art isn't 'productive' per se - ars gratia artis and all that - to what end should you suffer through art you don't enjoy?
That's certainly one way to look at it. I see it a little differently. With video games, for example, when I had to buy a game to see if I liked it, I'd mostly just buy the big hits that a lot of people liked or smaller games that got wide critical acclaim. But with a subscription gaming service, I can try out any game on the service without paying an additional fee, so I'm trying a wider range of games in genres I don't normally play. I've found some real gems I wouldn't have even considered previously if I'd had to buy them first to really get to know them.
The radio was like that before streaming services. Don't know if you like country music? Just pop on the country station when you're alone in your car and try it out. If it doesn't work out, switch to hip hop or classical, or alternative. Worst case, you wasted 5 minutes of your time while you were driving anyway. Best case, you have a new genre of music to explore!
That said, I'm don't have ADHD and am heavily skeptical of anything coming from big corps, so I already aggressively tune out most things, so maybe it's not that easy for others.
See, were this true, my mother (who didn’t have the internet at all) would have a fine appreciation for country music and dancing. Because those were mostly all she had while growing up; she had plenty of time to learn appreciation for both.
Obviously she didn’t. My father in turn never picked up a love for the beetles nor reading. So, while appealing to our lamentations about “kids these days”, your hypothesis is flawed.
People, even in times of media scarcity, still developed loves and hates. Evolving your tastes is much more intentional than just not having a choice.
I’m not saying: You’ll like anything if you give it time.
I’m saying: There are things that you may not initially like, which you will like if you give it time. Which means that if you never give anything its proper time, you’re likely missing out on things you may have otherwise learned to appreciate.
how much time dk you soend actively listening to new music? not having music on while youre doing something else but actively listening as your primary activity?
most streaming music use is background noise. having somr music on, classical or otherwise, while im something else, doesnt lead to anu sort of content fatigue.
There are 1,182 recordings of Mozart's "Don Giovanni" alone, each running close to three hours. If you listen for 16 hours every day, you can cover this one in under a year, on to work number two! :D
This actually sounds pretty cool, I was actually thinking of this the other day: classical music is an entirely different beast of finding things to listen to, you can't just "pick a band and album in a genre".
For example: if I want to listen to Mozart, and I've never listen to any of his compositions before where do I even start to look to find a "good interpretation". You can't just search for Album/Artist.
I'd like that as well. For a while I thought https://jazzed.com/ would eventually be this, even thought it was just available in the UK. But now they seem like they've moved to focusing on live performances.
If the app is only half as good as the Primephonic service that Apple acquired and shuttered and on which it is probably based, it will already be an asset for classical music lovers worldwide. Apps like Spotify are hugely inadequate for browsing classical music. Hell, in those you often even cannot read the entire title of a track because it is overstuffed with (meta) info.
Looks nice but I have to play with it more. It has certainly been "Appleinzed". Playlists feature single movements of pieces that make little musical sense outside of the context of the whole composition they were meant to be a part of. For new users looking to dop their toes in the Classical world the absolute first, featured piece you see is Mahler's 9th symphony. Certainly not something new listeners would likely enjoy as a starter piece. Search looks good and the browse part offers good choices of the various genres. It imported all my classical albums and only my classical albums from Apple music. Good start
Playlists feature single movements of pieces that make little musical sense outside of the context of the whole composition they were meant to be a part of.
That's a fundamental flaw of playlists, and not unique to this app or to any music created before the streaming era.
I was skeptical of the idea when it was announced a few weeks ago but I like what I see. Music discovery on the classical side is different from popular genres. Often I’m trying to discover new/different recordings of works I’m already familiar with. Different players, conductors, etc. Here, it’s a success.
For example I’m playing the Beethoven Op. 97 at a festival this summer. I have my go-to recordings but I’m curious what’s out there. The search here yields complete works; rather than a movement here and a movement there, album here and and album there. This is priceless compared to the classically-oriented search elsewhere.
How is Apple Music playback on Amazon Echo devices? Does Apple have anything as nice as Spotify Connect?
My current setup is that I have an Echo Dot connected by the line out to my A/V receiver, with the microphone turned off. With Spotify Connect the Spotify on my computer or phone can tell the Spotify on the Dot to play a song, album, or playlist. The Spotify on the Dot then streams that music from Spotify. I can turn the computer or phone off and the music keeps playing. Spotify on my computer or phone will show what is playing on the Dot and let me control it.
This works really well. (In fact, it works way better than Amazon Music from my computer or phone works with the Dot. I just finished a 90 day free trial of Amazon Music and one of the reasons I did not subscribe was how poorly Amazon Music works with Echo devices. Spotify completely blows Amazon out of the water there).
What I really like with this is that once I start playback the computer or phone no longer needs to be involved.
I know that there is an Apple Music app for Echo that lets Apple Music be a source for Echo, so that I could say "Play Foo on Apple Music" and Alexa would use Apple Music do do that, but I don't want to choose my music by voice. I want to do the choosing on my Mac or phone/tablet.
>Does Apple have anything as nice as Spotify Connect
It sure doesn't. I generally love Apple Music, but you can really feel the neglect Apple pays to its non-preferred platforms once you attempt to use it on 3rd party hardware.
Listening to Apple Music on the PS5 while playing a videogame is way more kludgy than it needs to be. The little pop-up card in the dashboard never seems to completely match the recently played on my phone, and only provides about a dozen shortcuts to recent plays and albums apparently randomly selected from my library. Launching the full app will often close the game or disconnect it from the internet and send it back to the homescreen. Attempting to use Airplay will, of course, completely exit the game and take over the entire PS5 with Apple TV.
By comparison, the Spotify experience was: Start game. Open spotify, tap Connect. Tap PS5. Play whatever I want, done. This feature was the single biggest factor keeping me on Spotify but after getting an AVR with Atmos support I just couldn't stay on that platform, which seems to get less investment into music related features relative to everything else every year.
This is a very niche and very specific workflow you have. Spotify is the only thing that can do what you want as far as I know.
Ironically Apple used to offer a product to do this more than a decade ago, the Apple Airport Express. It's a wifi access point with a line out. You can still pick one up for ~$20 on eBay and I believe it will still work with Apple music as a target device.
> I know that there is an Apple Music app for Echo that lets Apple Music be a source for Echo, so that I could say "Play Foo on Apple Music" and Alexa would use Apple Music [to] do that…
Yes, this works great.
> …but I don't want to choose my music by voice. I want to do the choosing on my Mac or phone/tablet.
This also works but requires using Bluetooth. There's no way to "hand off" from an iPhone/iPad to Alexa as you can with a HomePod.
This might be the thing that makes me jump ship from Spotify. Catalog there is not great and the track listings are all useless, you need to wait 30 second for the text to scroll before you get to the useful piece of information.
It’s definitely not perfect, but I’m enjoying it, as someone who has been unhappy with Spotify’s haphazard approach to classical music.
I was exploring the “Harpsichord“ category and Bach’s Toccata No. 6 in G Minor, and saw a performance by Glenn Gould: “Glen Gould on the harpsichord? Oh, how interesting! [listens] How...not a harpsichord.”
Same on YouTube. Even when I'm searching specifically for harpsichord music, the first result is harpsichord music played on piano. That's not the instrument the music was composed for.
It's surely interesting to hear what a piece sounds like when played on an other instrument, but it should't be the norm in my opinion.
192kHz/24 bit, what a wonderful piece of snakeoil... What do they actually record with this frequency, bats talking to each other about classical music?
That number is common in professional contexts, Apple is just publishing the highest “quality” available. Whether this is useful is up to the listener, who can just as well decide to listen to 192kbps AAC instead.
In a world where videos and photos are still shared at laughable resolutions, let’s not scorn decisions to preserve media in the highest possible quality.
The idea that there's a noticeable benefit to having a sample rate higher than twice the highest frequency is the snake oil here. Many audiophiles seem to believe this but it's not supported by the mainstream understanding of digital signal processing.
By lossless they mean “losslessly compressed from source” (FLAC, or likely in Apple’s case ALAC) as opposed to “lossy compressed” like MP3 or AAC streaming services usually use.
Wether or not the original recording was done/mastered in 24/192 or higher/lower is a whole other question. In the grand scheme of things all ADC involves “compression” in the form of quantization.
It means that the audio is sampled at 192khz and each sample is 24bit, not that the audio is recorded with hardware capable of recording sounds up to 192KHz
I know about nyquest, do you? 192kHz sampling rate means the highest tone representable is 96kHz, which is roughly 80kHz more then what the average human can actually (still) perceive.
For audio-postprocessing, I might be convinced that there is a benefit of raising the sampling frequency that high, but for pure hi-fi consumers? No way. This is snakeoil.
That's an unconvincing argument because the presence of ultrasonic sounds can affect human perception. It is just not perceptible via the exact same mechanism that ordinary sound is.
The argument you should be going with is that the speakers and headphones that people will be playing the music on doesn't do ultrasonic sound.
A higher bit rate lets you digitally process audio without introducing artifacts. It's very common to record, mix, and master audio at 192/24 and even oversample well above 192k.
It has nothing to do with snake oil or hearing things above 22k it's about not introducing aliasing and other digital artifacts, and on highly dynamic content like classical can definitely be heard in the audible spectrum.
It’s not that high- some music streams with higher sampling frequencies and bit depths.
The main snake oil phenomenon that goes on is up sampling cd quality recordings to these levels. That doesn’t accomplish much other than confusion.
Certainly the majority of systems out there are not high end enough to appreciate higher quality recordings unless they are wired headphones (a quality setup there doesn’t cost too much).
There is no system high-end enough to allow your ears to magically hear 96kHz, or even 48kHz. Unless you’re very young with golden ears it’s extremely doubtful that you can hear a 24kHz tone. It is absolutely snake oil.
Thanks, I really appreciate those references. There are still subtleties in a real world setup that may be missed in those explanations though. A bit depth of 16 would be enough if everything in the system from recording to speaker was working properly. But for example with digital volume control there is effectively a loss of bit depth. Starting with 24 bits might help here. This isn't necessary if you control the volume in the DAC and the DAC has a larger bit depth, but this doesn't always correspond to what exists and is convenient in every setup.
On the sampling side there is
quality scientific evidence that cd level sampling can lead to audible ringing. The theory here in that more room is needed for a gentler rolloff in filtering. 192 kHz is overkill but this might suggest that 96 makes sense.
"Classical fans who want to listen on their MacBook, iPad, or in their car can open Apple Music to enjoy the tracks, albums, and playlists they saved in Apple Music Classical, thanks to the shared music library."
Which does not help me as I share from my mac - so hoiw do you do this?
Yes I ran into the same thing - It's disappointing, though maybe understandable as this is an iteration on the Primephonic app they acquired a while ago. And though I cannot find any reference to it anymore, if memory serves right, that was mobile only too?
I hope that over time Classical will make it onto the Mac as well. I listen to a lot of classical music while I work and it's more than a bit annoying that the play/volume controls on my Mac don't work...
Is the app bug free and good? I thought to switch from Spotify to Apple music recently and started a trial with Apple music. The music selection is good and the sound quality is good but the client Apple music client for Mac is unbelievably buggy for first-party software. I had to get onto Apple support just to get my account going as it would just sit there constantly syncing. It feels sluggish doing things like adding to playlists, and there are numerous little quality of life bugs like the search box not focussing properly sometimes.
I'm on the fence about the idea of switching now. I guess part of it was that the apps would be significantly better than Spotify.
Now make one for Indian classical music. Indian classical is as rich as European, with it's ragas and talas and so many instruments (tabla, sitar, sarangi... )
Not sure if this fixes a problem that has plagued Apple music products since probably day one:
You cannot play an album as it was recorded.
Not sure if this has changed in any way. I abandoned Apple music offerings a long time ago (iPhone 3 time scale).
You can't play "The Wall" or "Dark Side of the Moon" or the "Brandenburg Concertos" as a unified piece of work and listen to each in order from start to finish. Apple thinks in terms of songs, not albums.
Albums exist in classical and popular music. Not sure why Apple thinks this way. In a sense, it represents total lack of respect for the artist and their work.
It's like a book reading app not having a way to read a book from start to finish. Imagine if it showed you a massive list of chapters from different books and you had to manually find and order chapters to make-up a unified book.
Windows Media understands albums. My entire CD collection is digitized under WM. I can create playlists that consist of of them and play them that way. To continue with the example, I can add Pink Floyd's albums into a playlist and play them one-by-one, in the order they were recorded.
>>Only a brand-new app — with specialized features and a beautiful interface designed for the genre — could remove the complexity and make classical music easily searchable, browsable, and accessible for beginners and experts alike.
Just thinking out loud. Was there a need for a separate app music? Instead add a "classical mode" to the traditional apple music app that enables features for classical music lovers.
I understand the concern about this being rather useless fluff with no real differentiation beyond a cute and UX. However, as someone who grew up playing music, I truly believe that listening to "difficult" music exercises the brain in a way similar to reading a good book. Because of that, I am all for any lipstick on a pig that might bring the general public deeper into classical music.
I'm really keen to dive into this however as someone knee deep in the ecosystem it's baffling that it doesn't have proper native integration with Apple TV/HomePod. You can Airplay with your phone as the source, but not with the receiving device being the source (which is typically a nicer and more reliable approach as some phone applications can interrupt the streamed audio).
I was also really excited for this, coming from the angle of someone who's never really got into classical music. It seemed like a nice opportunity to dig into it a bit with some (hopefully) good curation. The lack of a macOS app is baffling to me, most of my music listening is done while working, using the nice pair of wired headphones I have connected to the dock on my desk, but apparently Apple think I'll only want to listen to classical music on a pair of AirPods, which while alright are not the best.
At the very least make a slight nod to the fact you own the entire stack from hardware to app and allow me to install the iPad app on my laptop.
Funny, you recognize sometimes that they took tracks from Youtube: https://classical.music.apple.com/de/album/1553740049
Here, look at "J.S. Bach: Cellosuite Nr. 1 in G-Dur, BWV1007: I. Prelude (Transc. for Guitar), which is recorded by Ana Vidovic. At 1:28, she is making a small error, which she is also making at this YT video at 1:40: https://youtu.be/zBdK-ailioA
There seem to be some extra notes from the implied counterpoint, which I think pretty much every Bach interpreter make of their own, but it made me think it would be nice if Apple would credit arrangements as well.
How does this compare with Concertmaster? It's basically a skin on top of Spotify for browsing classical music. It's free and pretty good. (There's also an app.) And I believe there is a version for Apple Music already?
Pretty irritating that for the last week or so, when I search classical music on my iPhone, the first result was an empty playlist that told me there is a classical music app coming.
Great. I have an app for listening to music from Apple called Music. I don’t really want yet another app and the mental overhead that comes with it.
Three repetitions of "apple"! And the learn subdomain is meaningless. I like that they're using their .brand TLD but their URL strategy still needs some work.
Interestingly, the enforcement is through App Store and not through Apple Music account or ip address locality.
So, users from these countries can simply sign in with an Apple account from any other country, install the app, switch back to the actual account and use it just fine.
On any other service, including Apple TV plus, it's the other way around: You can access the app or the website but the content will be limited to your current physical location(ip address actually).
Which makes me believe that it's not about licensing. I haven't checked but probably the same songs are available on Apple Music anyway.
It's a mystery why Apple wouldn't release the UI for classical music in countries where they do offer the music catalog already.
Most likely licensing and not technical - we were one of the only classical music apps which streamed high quality audio through The Great Firewall of China, and as such was praised by a few magazines. That was back in 2018/19 though and the delivery infrastructure may have changed since being acqhired.
Sounds tempting, but Apple Music has been a terrible experience for me.
I recently signed up for the Apple Music subscription and was asked to 'sync my music with the Cloud Music Library" before I could create any playlists.
Shortly afterwards, I noticed that most of my music, which I had bought for over 10 years, just disappeared from iTunes with no explanation. I am still trying to figure out how to get it back, and regretting I just didn't stick with Spotify.
I'm glad that Apple is working on these new features, but I'm going to have a hard time trusting them with any new music related products until this gets fixed.
I am most probably going to cancel my Apple Music subscription, although I have no idea how I'm going to get my music back.
I'm liking this app generally, but man, I was listening to St. Matthew Passion (~ 3 hour piece) this afternoon and the app crashed. It relaunched immediately, but started playing at the beginning. I couldn't find a play history so I could at least start at the track I left off.
Also one little fiddly bit... when I searched for SMP it lets me view all the albums, but includes a bunch of albums that include a single track from the work, which I get why they included them, but it'd be nice to sort them to the end or something. I'm usually interested in listening to an entire work.
On an iPhone the app is just called Music (similarly Google Maps is labelled just Maps on Android). This is exactly as weird as google maps domain being googlemaps.google.com
The iPhone Music app can play music from Apple Music, amongst others. It is not synonymous for Apple Music. You can still have your local library without subscribing to Apple Music.
I worked on a project for Sony Music called "Ariama" a little over ten years ago that addressed this very problem w/ metadata, and organizing classical music differently than the artist/album/track way. I worked on the search piece! We also offered FLAC downloads.
I don’t really listen to classical but this app gets me interested a bit especially with the instruments feature, also the era selection. You can also choose by conductors but that’s something fanatics would be able to hear lmao, it’s the same song, but conducting is supposed to make a difference?
Wow. I will try this product today as I am exactly in the target group. I often listen to different recordings of the same music to find the best one, I want to dive into certain artists or genres and indeed - with Apple Music and Spotify, this is not easy.
I'm finding that very easy so far. This is the best discovery tool I've yet used, which is almost frustrating given that if I'd found anything like it in the last decade, I wouldn't need it.
Have TV and cinema solved the cataloging issue or at least the categorization issue? If so, why can’t music adapt it and serve all genres? We can easily analogize to studios, seasons, episodes, years, directors, actors and so forth.
I installed this last night and i immediately found it a much better experience. Apple did the right thing by using a separate app (and by buying it, as they did with iTunes— somehow this isn’t in their DNA).
The banner image they have showing a collection of album covers is ≥58% Goldberg variations. I wonder how large a catalogue they have, or whether perhaps the creators of this are just big Bach boys.
There is different licensing and clearing for promotional use. For example Apple can display album art beside a song while it is playing or in a search listing under their streaming rights license, but they need to pay more to feature it in a TV ad or a promotional website.
A little bit off-topic perhaps but.. does the domain applemusic.apple look funny to anyone else? Like, why not just music.apple or applemusic.com or apple.com/music or music.apple.com lol
This has to be a joke, right? Given Apple's enmity towards headphone cables, I don't see the point. Their Bluetooth EarPods can never ever render the necessary sound quality.
Those who want and appreciate the sound quality already using better than Apple speakers or headphones. If you read carefully the footnotes referenced state the need of proper external DAC. They know it is not for everyone and not forcing it on everyone unnecessarily, still allowing those in need to have it.
First, surely you grasp that many people use these things called "speakers" to listen to music. Not all consumption is done with headphones.
Second, even if we narrow the question to headphone listening, the "failure" or "unsuitability" of Bluetooth for headphones is profoundly overblown. In 2023, gGood headphones, wired or wireless, sound fine if given a decent source.
I was definitely a skeptic, and while I couldn't set up anything like ABX testing, I have spent time trying to honestly compare my AirPods MAX to my price-peer wired Sennheisers run through a FiiO headphone amp.
The tl;dr is that it's POSSIBLE the traditional wired setup might sound a tiny bit better, but both sound REALLY REALLY GREAT. Any edge possibly enjoyed by the traditional setup was thin, and only evident in fairly narrow cases.
I was pretty surprised given my original bias against wireless headphones for critical listening, but here we are.
I get it, but I also wish they could make one app that gets all of this stuff right. They could start by improving on the data model. "Unknown Artist" would never pass code review!
For a while a long time ago, I had a Naxos subscription ($20 a year) where I could listen to anything in their catalog. It was great for headphones at work. This might be, too.
Just want to point out that the human hearing range goes up to 28khz, not 20khz as is commonly claimed.
I can still notice a very subtle difference when I downsample 96khz to 48khz. It used to be more pronounced when I was younger, but I always thought that was the placebo effect. It wasn't until I went and read the Wikipedia article on the human hearing range that I realized that I wasn't imagining it.
Basically, music that correctly reproduces up to 28khz has a sparkle effect that's also very noticeable in a live concert hall.
That is true, but what is also true is that the iPhone version works just fine on iPad, albeit a little skinny. But I'm currently listening to it and it works just fine, Spatial Audio and all.
My main hope for this was that it would be as wide and deep as possible. We can then apply our own Dolby compression filter if we want to, in our listening hardware.
On the one hand: Apple has released (at least) two new "major" consumer "apps" over the past year (Freeform and this). This gives me positive echos of "old Apple"; a company that took the software as seriously as the hardware, that apps like Aperture and Logic were critical to the Mac becoming what it is, and that they should have a hand in creating not just the platform and technologies, but the actual experiences that drive productivity (and now entertainment) for the people who join their platforms. This can solve a real problem for a lot of customers; I am not one of them, so I'm unqualified to say if it actually does solve those problems, but I'm really happy that it exists.
On the other hand; release is step 1, and given this is based on an acquisition I think its totally fair to be skeptical. I shared this with my dad this morning, who is an old classical music nerd and pianist for the symphony orchestra in town. His first reaction: Does it have a Mac app? (It doesn't). And see, that gap is actually really significant when you think about it, because people like him, in that niche; they are appreciators, for better or worse, of audio quality. Hi-Res lossless, awesome, that's table stakes. He has a Mac Mini wired up to a Schiit Yggdrassil and some amp that weighs 50 pounds and a set of speakers that he drove 300 miles away to "get a deal" on (he paid $18,000 for them. that was a "deal". my mother was not happy about it). Using an iPhone is a complete non-starter. He uses Qobuz primarily, alongside an obscene collection of SA-CDs, and despite this app being 90% there toward being something awesome he could use; he won't.
So I think that's what I mean by Step 1; developing "niche" software like Freeform or Apple Music Classical isn't an obvious step for Apple. They won't get insane metrics for these apps. They won't drive measurable revenue. But I really deeply believe that this kind of niche investment is what separates companies like Microsoft and Apple from companies like Google; as they say about Google, if its not a billion dollar business it won't even get a team. Microsoft and Apple do understand the insane power of network effects, and the power that solving one niche really freakin well can have on bringing customers into the fold of their platforms, and keeping them there. Microsoft for M365 and Apple for their consumer software.
I think that's the era we're entering in software; we've solved a ton of the problems that have "100M users" as their TAM. As an example: note taking. Its solved. It can be iteratively improved, but everyone has their favorite app, we switch every once in a while, and its best for me that that improvement happens within the context of a platform I've already adopted. Large software companies should really be open to moving down the TAM ladder; what problems do 10M people have? 1M? Freeform is one stab at that: diagramming and flowcharts. But we also can't accept these apps having 10x fewer features or 10x less quality just because they have a 10x smaller TAM; software is multiplicative, and potentially exponential now that we have generative AI capable of helping out.
Because that's already a redirect for the standard Music app?
My guess is that the team developed the site without knowing whether they'd have permission to deploy it on *.apple or not, so they put apple in the domain basename and it was deemed not worth it to take it out once they knew the deploy target. Just guessing, though.
It's perfectly reasonable for Western people to use "Classical" as a shorthand for "Western Classical". It's easy enough to apply a modifier if we want to talk about Indian Classical or Persian Classical or whatever. It doesn't mean we don't care about music from other areas, just that the default is to refer to our own musical traditions. The same is true of people from India and Iran—Indians are usually India-centric etc.
Yes but it hasn't traveled all that well for whatever reason while Western Classical music (WCM) has been adopted on a massive scale by China, Korea and other countries in Asia, to such an extent that considering the numerous cutbacks for orchestras and classical music generally in the West, WCM itself is being kept alive by these communities. Some argue that Lang Lang lit a fuse.
"Today China is experiencing piano frenzy with an estimated 40m children now learning to play. The instrument is increasingly in vogue among China’s burgeoning middle classes, who have the money to splurge on steep lessons and expensive fixtures. Spurring them on is the phenomenal success of the Chinese superstar concert pianists Lang Lang and Li Yundi"
"With direct government involvement, the Chinese strategy to conquer the world of classical music includes a coherent strategy that operates from the ground up, including building the infrastructure for their booming classical musical sector. There are stunning new concert halls in Shanghai, Beijing, and Harbin to showcase classical music."
Perhaps no need to say that I am here referring only to the relative extent of the universal appeal of very different musical genres not to their intrinsic aesthetic rewards for fans.
> Classical music often involves multiple musicians recording works that have been recorded many times before and are referred to by different names. For example, from the formal Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No. 14 to the popular byname of Moonlight Sonata, or in multiple languages, such as Mondschein Sonata in German. Such complexities mean that classical music fans have been ill-served by streaming platforms. Until now. A distinct app, included with an Apple Music subscription, gives these classical music lovers the editorial and catalog content they’ve been missing.
> Only a brand-new app — with specialized features and a beautiful interface designed for the genre — could remove the complexity and make classical music easily searchable, browsable, and accessible for beginners and experts alike.
Off topic but the careful choice of rationale here kinda reminds me of the choices the Rust language designers made; addressing actual issues that have caused inconvenience. I love it. Something about an honest desire and attempt to fix a demonstrated issue; not sure if I'm articulating it properly.
This would be the opposite of what is often referred to as "user hostility", but which I think is more aptly described as "user indifference": stuff like a programming language silently allowing you to crash while accessing null pointers, or every single music app UI showing stuff like
1. Tchaikovsky Symphonies and Concertos - London Symphony Orchestra - I. S ...
2. Tchaikovsky Symphonies and Concertos - London Symphony Orchestra - II. S ...
3. Tchaikovsky Symphonies and Concertos - London Symphony Orchestra - III. S ...
4. Tchaikovsky Symphonies and Concertos - London Symphony Orchestra - I. C ...
Classical music isn't the only category that is not well served by a library of audio files though. Many types of folkloric music and rap has similar problems. Actually, pushing many audio files to clients with just album context only serves the pop music well, perhaps.
On the other hand, limiting it to classical music hits that "do one thing well" spot, and would be hopefully a good testing ground for more such individualized apps.
Even in pop it could be a lot better. Like, for instance it would be neat when listening to a song to have easy access to cover versions by other bands.
>Classical music often involves multiple musicians recording works that have been recorded many times before and are referred to by different names.
All of those things are true in the Polka world.
And of course all of those things could be a mode in a "classical genre section" of the standard music app (and similar for polka, latin, folk, and other cases where the same things hold).
Though my comment wasn't about the implementation, but about the niche-ness of it. Meanwhile major features awaited by huge customer bases still play the sound of crickets...
Polka music often involves multiple musicians recording works that have been recorded many times before and are referred to by different names. For example, from the formal The Buffalo Touch’s Pani Mloda Polka to the popular byname of Bridal Dance, or in multiple languages, such as Säkkijärven polkka in Finnish. Such complexities mean that polka fans have been ill-served by streaming platforms. Until now. A distinct app, included with an Apple Music subscription, gives these polka music lovers the editorial and catalog content they’ve been missing.
Only a brand-new app — with specialized features and a beautiful interface designed for the genre — could remove the complexity and make polka music easily searchable, browsable, and accessible for beginners and experts alike."
The issue is that while it's nice to have a UX tailored for classical, this won't likely help the classical industry to thrive again.
To simplify a bit, the classical music industry is composed of:
- the majors labels (Universal Music, Sony, Warner and EMI)
- A dozen large independent labels (Naxos being the largest)
- hundreds of small labels
The majors mostly care about promoting a few star performers and milking their huge existing catalog. They have no problem with putting everything on subscription services for pennies. This what you find on all subscription services.
The larger independent labels also have significant catalog and some will also put part of it on subscription services but mostly won't.
However, it is totally financially impossible for the smaller labels which are actually recording most of the interesting new records to survive on the pennies they would get from subscription services. Most of them have rejected that model and caters to the increasingly niche market of audiophile still ready to buy new high quality music.
As a classical music fan, I'm happy to see that there will finally be an offering offering a good experience and massively increasing discoverability (which is terrible in mainstream services).
But unfortunately, this wont change the fact that the classical recording industry is dying and that the sector is only surviving thanks to public and private subsidies.