Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The way Apple treats classical albums is ridiculous and I don't expect it to be better than Idagio or comparable dedicated streaming apps. Apple Music sorting in "Composer" view lets Beethoven show up under "L" as it sorts by the first name. I often get in my library the booklet as a separate album from the actual album. Or it provides tracks but than puts part of the tracks into another "album". Need to see reports first before considering this.
This is based on the Primephonic classical music service/app they purchased a couple years ago. I'm sure it will be closer to the metadata and sorting options in something like Idagio, which is why it gets a separate app. I also imagine it will group "tracks" by composition, when those compositions have multiple tracks. I also hope it will be able to understand spellings in different languages (searching for "Symphony" should also return metadata called "Symphonie", ditto for "Rite of Spring" and "Sacre du Printemps").
 
Yes it is. Because the sound quality of newer mobile phones is lower than a decent sound card.
Moreover, there are no iOS devices that can be connected to the mixer without an adapter.
An iOS device can only be a remote control desk.
It isn't going to be iOS only. It will also be on android.
 
Around New Year's I splashed on a box set of about 120 recordings the guy in my avatar made for Deutsche Grammophon. I still haven't ripped them to put them into my iTunes library, because I haven't talked myself into the many, many hours of metadata editing I'd need to do to make it work.

I haven't subscribed to Apple Music because its preference for its own crap metadata over my curated metadata simply makes classical unusable until I sign out.

I think the cure might finally be in sight.
No, The Cure are definitely 'pop'.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tubular
I have to ask: Why do you need an Apple Music sub for this? This is just classical music, music that is free since classical music is public domain. So why should you need a subscription just to listen to public domain music you can get for free from archive.org?
In addition to the recordings not being public domain, many classical compositions have been written and recorded in the last 100 years. Many of the compositions are still very much under copyright. Composers (like me!) are still writing classical music today! It is an ongoing musical tradition.
 
Doesn't show upp when I search for it in the macOS App Store.
I had to scroll pretty far in the search results. Nice to know that App Store search even sucks for first party apps…

Edit: NM: I see you wrote macOS App Store. I don't think it's available there. I forget the macOS App Store is a thing sometimes (and so, it seems, does Apple).
 
My theory: Separate App because the Music app for macOS is a pile of dung and they are likely trailing a new code base for a new app, like they did for Messages on iOS and then brought it to the Mac.
 
This is nice. Classical music is such a different and weighty genre that it deserves its own app. I hope it keeps classical music alive since it’s slowly dying and becomes less and less popular.
 
Read the article
I did. And I have also read the dozens of articles MR has posted in the past couple of years regarding this topic. I still think the features mentioned here could be implemented in Apple Music app directly.
They already suck at maintaining the Apple Music app (which is stilllllll riddled with bug and crashes), and by creating a second app, I'm sure they won't improve their chances of handling them better.
 
Then why wouldn’t they have announced the app then?
ok, should be noted that I’m playing very fast and loose with the word “event”.
It’ll more than likely be one of those 15-20 minute video/mini events like they had last October for the new iPads and Apple TV, or in January for the new MacBook pros and Mac mini.
They probably didn’t announce it then for the same reason they didn’t even update their newsroom website, it’s just a very small app made for a very small market.
They also didn’t announce lossless audio streaming at an event either, despite there being one literally three weeks after it was announced.
 
I have to ask: Why do you need an Apple Music sub for this? This is just classical music, music that is free since classical music is public domain. So why should you need a subscription just to listen to public domain music you can get for free from archive.org?
Because "classical" doesn't necessarily mean old. I have friends who are opera singers and record and sell music. I assume their classical music catalog can be featured on this app, and they deserve to get paid too.
 
I'm glad Apple is doing this and I'll check it out to see if it's a meaningful improvement over Qobuz, but ...

they'll need to move beyond iOS quickly, and

file quality will be key, even if search is improved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
I'll wait to read the reviews, mainly to see how it compares to iDagio, which is my favorite classical music app.
 
What I see in these comments is a general unwillingness to read anything beyond a headline; most people's utter lack of knowledge about Western art music (which continues to be written, by the way, it's not just something "in the past"); near-total ignorance about copyright law; and an enthusiasm for showing off one's lack of comprehension to the world as if it redounds to one's credit. Truly depressing.

The only observation you forgot to add was people's apparent complete inability to suppress their narcissism long enough not to make a churlish one-line comment dismissing something as immediately unnecessary.

Streaming music is still in its infancy, relatively speaking. Experimenting with different organizational and delivery schemes I think is perfectly reasonable, whether or not it's something I would personally lobby for. That there are people like me who find Apple Music's UX so awful that I wouldn't even use it for free and prefer Spotify (as there are, I'm sure, many people who feel the opposite) is justification enough that a genre of music with very different inherent organizational structure might justify a completely separate app. Or maybe its only justification is for Apple's marketing goals, as a way of drawing an audience into Apple Music who might not otherwise consider a streaming service for whatever reason.

There's zero need to be dismissive as a means to an end.
 
It isn't going to be iOS only. It will also be on android.
You know, I think as bad about Android as I do about iOS, although Android has many times more compatibility than iOS. You shouldn't expect a musical experience from them. Unless you are using a device that came before 2008.
 
The only observation you forgot to add was people's apparent complete inability to suppress their narcissism long enough not to make a churlish one-line comment dismissing something as immediately unnecessary.

Streaming music is still in its infancy, relatively speaking. Experimenting with different organizational and delivery schemes I think is perfectly reasonable, whether or not it personally affects me. That there are people like me who find Apple Music's UX so awful that I wouldn't even use it for free and prefer Spotify (as there are, I'm sure, many people who feel the opposite) is justification enough that a genre of music with very different inherent organizational structure might justify a completely separate app. Or maybe its only justification is for Apple's marketing goals, as a way of drawing an audience into Apple Music who might not otherwise consider a streaming service for whatever reason.

There's zero need to be dismissive as a means to an end.
Right? The comment-warrior assumption seems to be "If it's not for me, it's not for anyone. How stupid could someone be to care about something that I don't care about?"
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.