Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Music Classical: 15 Things You Need to Know About the New App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If someone asks me if I like Jazz, the answer depends very strongly on what that person defines Jazz as.
This is a predictable challenge with trying to address a specialized audience. Their audience has refined tastes in this area and a clarity of meaning that others may not. A death metal fan can look at a playlist in the general music app that's labeled "classical" and know it's not for them. But when you narrow the audience you're going to find people with both knowledge and opinions...
I don't think anyone is actively calling for Apple to change the name here, but you've got to expect this kind of pedantry on this kind of subject.
Stream to discover, own to own.
This is great news, but unless they roll out a Mac app then it won't change much for me. I'll probably install the iPhone app on my MacBook Pro, but my Mac mini, which is my usual music centre, isn't Apple Silicon. :/ Still, my most normal practice is still CDs, and might always be. It's not as though Apple's collection is as big as mine. 
There have been times when I wanted to hear a piece of music, or perhaps had heard a segment of the music, and thought I might have enjoyed it. After the purchase and listening, it turned out it wasn't a piece that I would want to hear in the future, so a waste of money. With a subscription, I can listen to any piece I want to and decide if it's one I'd like to add to my permanent library and then purchase it.
Very true. Sadly, music history has a severe western bias.
Let me just say it: Anyone seriously debating the dates of the Baroque Period is too far in the Reality Distortion Field to get any help. Those are fairly set in stone. Does that mean people stopped writing motets on 1/1/1600? Certainly not! In fact, I’d be disappointed, as Renaissance (1450-1600) motets had such charm and beauty. The death of Bach just gave historians a good date to close the era.
After that, dates do get nebulous. I’ve seen some go back to 1820 (edited because I don’t want to misattribute a source). I’ve seen some go to 1830. I bridged the gap and said around 1825. It’s the same with the Romantic Era’s ending. And the 20th Century is so jumbled that it’s pure craziness.
Pre-deafness, Beethoven is firmly planted in the Classical Era. It was structured, ordered, and balanced the way that era was. Post-deafness is when the emotional aspects of his compositions/music really come out, which places him in the more emotional Romantic Era.
Just like the dates of that era, by the end of the Romantic Era, the rules as defined by what we would call western music theory began to just fall apart. Mahler is in this point of the era, when 20th Century experimental music was beginning to take hold. If I were to pick, though, he stays in Romantic.
That is because, at the time of the artist’s lifetimes, they were called Impressionists as a derisive term.
Last edited:
i share your frustration, i use an ipad with usb c out into my dac, to my stereo amplifier to my speakers.
making this iphone only hobbles the audio quality
But the point is that the nebulousness of these terms and the nebulousness of classification of individual composers' works makes it much better to use less specific terms in certain contexts. The more specific sub-genre labels are useful for internal classification by listeners and scholars and for music history, but not for the name of an app or for the characterization of the larger umbrella genre as contrasted with popular and folk music, if that is the meaning one wishes to get across. This kind of minutiae debate occurs within popular music of course, as well. Just talk to any rock fan about "post-punk", "prog rock", "new wave", or anything with "-core" in the name and you'll get a thousand different opinions and often a quite heated debate. That doesn't means these terms don't have a useful function, but it also doesn't mean it's wrong to call it all "rock" for the purposes of simplicity and communication. That is why I hold firm the idea that calling it all "classical" is perfectly fine. If one wishes to go deeper, they may, but there is often no need to (such as, in the naming of this app). My point is that "classical" as an umbrella term, is not incorrect.
Me too.
I have the best speakers connected to my Studio.
But I think it will come a Music Classical app to Mac too. It would be strange otherwise, as they already have a Music app to Mac.
Last edited:
It just winds up irking me, but I also use it to have teachable moments like this.
Most times I’ve learned to live with it.
You can AirPlay directly to your Mac from your iPhone. I have my Mac connected to 2.1 system, so I’ll play from my Mac if I’m at my desk, but otherwise I’ll AirPlay from my iPhone as I prefer the music app to the iTunes remote app.
You can also just download the iPhone app onto your Mac and run from there, if it is Apple Silica
So basically, it's not available on any of my devices. My Apple TV's, Macbook, Ipad or Android Phone. Being only on the iPhone is stupid. I hate the iPhone and refuse to ever own one.
You probably already know this, but AirPlay does support lossless at CD quality 16bit/44.1kHz.
AirPlay - Wikipedia
Same. I check out each Friday's new releases on the weekend and, if I hear something I REALLY like, I'll buy it; otherwise, I keep it in my "library" to revisit upon occasion (or simply delete it if it's REALLY execrable).
The 'iPhone only' makes sense. In terms of making money.
I would use Apple Classical on my iPad or Mac playing in the background while I do work as a lot of people would.
Nobody listens to music on their iPhone without headphones.
Apple musical classical may bring in a population of classical music enthusiast who know have to buy Apple headphones to really appreciate and listen to the music.
Apple isn't stupid. If it seems like a big "fail". It means there is monetary motivation.
I would use Apple Classical on my iPad or Mac playing in the background while I do work as a lot of people would.
Nobody listens to music on their iPhone without headphones.
Apple musical classical may bring in a population of classical music enthusiast who know have to buy Apple headphones to really appreciate and listen to the music.
Apple isn't stupid. If it seems like a big "fail". It means there is monetary motivation.
Anyone serious about music and audio quality is using an external DAC driven by a computer of some description (PC/Mac/NUC/Roon Core). 90%+ of iPhone music listeners using iPods are on Spotify streaming the latest ****** pop/rap crap. IMO Apple have misjudged their market here.