Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Excellent article. I love “classical” music, sometimes as background track to deep thinking and problem solving in my day job, other times front and center with the volume at concert hall levels, and still other times sitting at my piano enjoying the feel of music in my whole being.

Apple Music has an impressive catalog, but could use a more expert touch. Where are the musicologists who can share their passion for the music and guide my experience into discovery and revelation?

Aside from the wretched Digital Watermarking, I’ll still take Apple Music over XM or my local public radio station. The latter have all the emotions stripped away using dynamic compression so they sound consistent in the car. Apple Music is more like popping in a CD.
 
This is problem with ALL music. Much of pop music is written by people behind the scenes and performed by studio musicians, yet singers get first billing. As far as I'm concerned, the real musicians are the people who compose, arrange, and produce the piece.
 
[doublepost=1550393036][/doublepost]
If by “old” you mean over the age of 14, then I would have to agree.
[doublepost=1550395415][/doublepost]
Apple Music uses the same codec at the same bitrate as the iTunes Store: 256 kbps variable bitrate AAC.

I challenge you to take any of your CDs and rip it in iTunes using first a lossless codec like ALAC and then the AAC Encoder on the iTunes Plus setting (which is what Apple Music and the iTunes Store use). Then use ABX software to conduct a double-blind listening test. Use your best headphones in a quiet room, and see if you can successfully distinguish the lossless rip from the AAC-encoded 256 kbps rip.

I think you’ll be surprised.
What kind of ALAC encoding do you speak of? ALAC supports different resolutions of which 16/44 is the minimum: Apple Lossless supports up to 8 channels of audio at 16, 20, 24 and 32 bit depth with a maximum sample rate of 384kHz. The built-in iTunes ALAC Encoder for some unfathomable reason clips the frequencies down to only 44.1 kHz (that's XLD is the go-to tool for better encoding) although leaving the sample rate intact. If you compare this 16/44 which is the floor of resolution tiers with iTunes Plus then in some cases you may not notice the difference and I'm not delving deeply into such aspects as the quality of recording itself. However if we're talking about higher resolution recordings then the difference is hardly unnoticeable. Since we're talking not about "the perception of sound is different with different people" but about those calling themselves "audiophiles" then the leap in quality gets immediately recognizable and you don't have to invest in hundreds of thousands costing equipment to appreciate that. There're communities of people devoted to digital restoration making use of various compression techniques to digitize LP recordings while preserving analogue quality as close as possible: the raw digitized data outputs the resolution as high as 32 bit (which for the sake of reducing disk space is downsampled to 24 bits) and the frequencies often going over 96 kHz. That way any such recording is remarkable difference and if you happened to listen to it you'd notice the difference. Recording companies are very well aware of that and that's why notable rock, jazz groups often release LP versions of their albums reckoned with audiophiles among their fans.
Some posters mentioned how good Home Pode is at reproducing and that various experts certify that quality. I don't doubt the validity of such tests however you have to take into account that they are often conducted by living human beings and thus are susceptible to prioritization of one's subjective feel (one person likes more "bright" basses than the other and so on). Hence, it's virtually impossible to establish criteria of how good the music originally recorded is being output from a different and, very often, consumer device. Let's not forget that indeed these high end systems exist for a reason and I dare to cast a shadow of doubt on the claim that Home Pode is capable of reproducing sound on the scale the top-hi-end hardware is capable of and I believe many audiophiles would agree with me.
If you audiophile you will feel the difference anyway. That's why hi-resolution recordings top easily any typical iTunes/Apple Music recording. So, to summarize, the difference exists and is tangible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WatchFromAfar
What kind of ALAC encoding do you speak of? ALAC supports different resolutions of which 16/44 is the minimum: Apple Lossless supports up to 8 channels of audio at 16, 20, 24 and 32 bit depth with a maximum sample rate of 384kHz. The built-in iTunes ALAC Encoder for some unfathomable reason clips the frequencies down to only 44.1 kHz (that's XLD is the go-to tool for better encoding) although leaving the sample rate intact. If you compare this 16/44 which is the floor of resolution tiers with iTunes Plus then in some cases you may not notice the difference and I'm not delving deeply into such aspects as the quality of recording itself. However if we're talking about higher resolution recordings then the difference is hardly unnoticeable. Since we're talking not about "the perception of sound is different with different people" but about those calling themselves "audiophiles" then the leap in quality gets immediately recognizable and you don't have to invest in hundreds of thousands costing equipment to appreciate that. There're communities of people devoted to digital restoration making use of various compression techniques to digitize LP recordings while preserving analogue quality as close as possible: the raw digitized data outputs the resolution as high as 32 bit (which for the sake of reducing disk space is downsampled to 24 bits) and the frequencies often going over 96 kHz. That way any such recording is remarkable difference and if you happened to listen to it you'd notice the difference. Recording companies are very well aware of that and that's why notable rock, jazz groups often release LP versions of their albums reckoned with audiophiles among their fans.
Some posters mentioned how good Home Pode is at reproducing and that various experts certify that quality. I don't doubt the validity of such tests however you have to take into account that they are often conducted by living human beings and thus are susceptible to prioritization of one's subjective feel (one person likes more "bright" basses than the other and so on). Hence, it's virtually impossible to establish criteria of how good the music originally recorded is being output from a different and, very often, consumer device. Let's not forget that indeed these high end systems exist for a reason and I dare to cast a shadow of doubt on the claim that Home Pode is capable of reproducing sound on the scale the top-hi-end hardware is capable of and I believe many audiophiles would agree with me.
If you audiophile you will feel the difference anyway. That's why hi-resolution recordings top easily any typical iTunes/Apple Music recording. So, to summarize, the difference exists and is tangible.
CD Audio is uncompressed 16-bit 44.1 kHz stereo (regardless of the bit depth and sample rate at which the music was recorded or remastered). That's the bit depth and frequency at which ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) in iTunes compresses CD Audio, and it isn't clipping anything when you rip an audio CD. (Also, sample rate and frequency are not independent variables. The maximum frequency that can be captured by digital encoding is half the sample rate.)

I was addressing only nt5672’s remark that “Compressed classical music is not very pleasant most of the time. Can't imagine listening to it on an Apple device, let alone Apple's low res streaming service.” Apple Music is not lower-res than CD Audio, nor is it lower-bitrate than the iTunes Store. Any audiophile who performs a double-blind listening test will discover (possibly much to his or her surprise) that in almost all cases, losslessly-compressed CD Audio and 256-kbps VBR AAC-compressed CD Audio are completely indistinguishable.

Comparing analog LPs with audio CDs is a different matter entirely. If nt5672 had written, “Classical music on audio CD is not very pleasant most of the time,” it would have been pointless to argue with his subjective experience. It would simply have been up to each listener to judge the truth of it for him- or herself.
 
CD Audio is uncompressed 16-bit 44.1 kHz stereo (regardless of the bit depth and sample rate at which the music was recorded or remastered). That's the bit depth and frequency at which ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) in iTunes compresses CD Audio, and it isn't clipping anything when you rip an audio CD. (Also, sample rate and frequency are not independent variables. The maximum frequency that can be captured by digital encoding is half the sample rate.)

I was not talking about ripping a CD-Audio. You missed my point. I was talking that iTunes ALAC Encoder can't process at higher rates than 44 kHz converting any audio even hi-res one. I spoke about hi-res audio for the obvious reason which is that the majority of audiophiles, including me, won't listen to anything lower than 24/96 if only there's slightest chance of technically legit option to have such quality (legit - because many pre-stereo era recordings don't benefit from converting to hi-res) which iTunes Encoder fails to preserve in any scenario, you have to use 3rd party tools to achieve that. If you want to convert hi-res FLAC preserving the source bitrate and the frequency by a value of 96, 192 and higher you have to choose AIFF format that's designed to hold uncompressed data as pulse-code modulation which runs circles around the built-in iTunes conversion engine. iTunes Store doesn't offer AIFF uncompressed contrary to HDtracks and other such places. Not much of a joy.

I was addressing only nt5672’s remark that “Compressed classical music is not very pleasant most of the time. Can't imagine listening to it on an Apple device, let alone Apple's low res streaming service.”
Apple Music is not lower-res than CD Audio, nor is it lower-bitrate than the iTunes Store. Any audiophile who performs a double-blind listening test will discover (possibly much to his or her surprise) that in almost all cases, losslessly-compressed CD Audio and 256-kbps VBR AAC-compressed CD Audio are completely indistinguishable.

His impression that is common impression among vast number of audiophiles: check the forums to see how many people think like that. I have to attest to that POV - any music including classical is hard to listen with the quality lower than hi-res. I mention hi-res for the obvious reason you should comprehend by now. These people don't care about blind tests comparing one low end format with the other. All they care is to have hi-res audio be it digitized analogue, DVD-A, SACD or whatever else of the kind. Neither iTunes Store nor Apple Music doesn't hold a candle to HDtracks and analogue recordings.
 
Last edited:
I was not talking about ripping a CD-Audio. You missed my point.
Then why did you reply to me at all? My only point was about CD-quality audio.

nt5672 was not complaining about low-resolution (which for you seems to be “anything lower than 24/96”) classical music, he was complaining about compressed classical music (by which he clearly meant lossy compression). There was nothing in his post to suggest that he finds listening to classical CDs (uncompressed 16/44) unpleasant.

In almost all cases, Apple Music tracks are indistinguishable from CD Audio tracks. If you (or nt5672) enjoy listening to classical CD tracks, then you’ll enjoy listening to Apple Music tracks (unless you convince yourself that you can hear differences that you actually cannot, which double-blind testing shows is something that audiophiles do quite a lot). If you don’t enjoy listening to CDs, then you won’t enjoy listening to Apple Music.That was my only point.

If you want to argue about analog LPs vs CDs, or about 24/96 digital recordings vs 16/44 CD Audio, you’ll have to find someone else to argue with, because I never expressed an opinion on the subject.
 
Someone posted this station but later deleted the post - http://www.radioswissclassic.ch/en

I was going to come today to thank them for it - this is a fantastic station!

Anyone have similar recommendations?
[doublepost=1550539636][/doublepost]

Is there anyway you could share a text dump of your library?

That may be difficult, I exported it from iTunes, and it is a 130 mb .txt file, and a 129 mb .csv file. I opened the .csv in numbers, and it consists of 62,278 rows, one row per track. I attempted to upload it as an attachment to this post, but it was grayed out, so it's apparently beyond the limits of attachments at MacRumors.com.
[doublepost=1550815204][/doublepost]
That may be difficult, I exported it from iTunes, and it is a 130 mb .txt file, and a 129 mb .csv file. I opened the .csv in numbers, and it consists of 62,278 rows, one row per track. I attempted to upload it as an attachment to this post, but it was grayed out, so it's apparently beyond the limits of attachments at MacRumors.com.
I messed up: the .csv file is 9mb, but Macrumors still grays it out when I attempt to upload. I am looking into putting it up on dropbox, if I can I will post the link here in another reply.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: icanhazapple
What kind of ALAC encoding do you speak of? ALAC supports different resolutions of which 16/44 is the minimum: Apple Lossless supports up to 8 channels of audio at 16, 20, 24 and 32 bit depth with a maximum sample rate of 384kHz. The built-in iTunes ALAC Encoder for some unfathomable reason clips the frequencies down to only 44.1 kHz (that's XLD is the go-to tool for better encoding) although leaving the sample rate intact. If you compare this 16/44 which is the floor of resolution tiers with iTunes Plus then in some cases you may not notice the difference and I'm not delving deeply into such aspects as the quality of recording itself. However if we're talking about higher resolution recordings then the difference is hardly unnoticeable. Since we're talking not about "the perception of sound is different with different people" but about those calling themselves "audiophiles" then the leap in quality gets immediately recognizable and you don't have to invest in hundreds of thousands costing equipment to appreciate that. There're communities of people devoted to digital restoration making use of various compression techniques to digitize LP recordings while preserving analogue quality as close as possible: the raw digitized data outputs the resolution as high as 32 bit (which for the sake of reducing disk space is downsampled to 24 bits) and the frequencies often going over 96 kHz. That way any such recording is remarkable difference and if you happened to listen to it you'd notice the difference. Recording companies are very well aware of that and that's why notable rock, jazz groups often release LP versions of their albums reckoned with audiophiles among their fans.
Some posters mentioned how good Home Pode is at reproducing and that various experts certify that quality. I don't doubt the validity of such tests however you have to take into account that they are often conducted by living human beings and thus are susceptible to prioritization of one's subjective feel (one person likes more "bright" basses than the other and so on). Hence, it's virtually impossible to establish criteria of how good the music originally recorded is being output from a different and, very often, consumer device. Let's not forget that indeed these high end systems exist for a reason and I dare to cast a shadow of doubt on the claim that Home Pode is capable of reproducing sound on the scale the top-hi-end hardware is capable of and I believe many audiophiles would agree with me.
If you audiophile you will feel the difference anyway. That's why hi-resolution recordings top easily any typical iTunes/Apple Music recording. So, to summarize, the difference exists and is tangible.

Depends on one's ears. I listened to some test tones a while back, & I can hear almost nothing above 6Khz. (Its the curse of being an old man; if the ringing in my ears is reasonably low on a given day I'm a happy camper! All of you who are younger - enjoy your decent hearing while you have it...) I can barely hear birdsongs. But I still greatly enjoy music. My theory is that if you have many decades of listening experience, then your brain supplies the sounds you can't hear physically -- not one for one, but to a great enough extent to allow enjoyment. So, Apple music sounds great to me. I can still hear the distortion in bad recordings, but the best labels, Chandos, harmonia mundi, Linn, a lot of Naxos come to mind, sound much cleaner even with my limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maverick28
Then why did you reply to me at all? My only point was about CD-quality audio.
Then why are you keep replying?
nt5672 was not complaining about low-resolution (which for you seems to be “anything lower than 24/96”) classical music, he was complaining about compressed classical music (by which he clearly meant lossy compression). There was nothing in his post to suggest that he finds listening to classical CDs (uncompressed 16/44) unpleasant.

I didn't say that "anything" lower than 24/96 is low resolution, but downward to 16/44 it is and what's definitely less than that is a low resolution = bad, plain and simple. I based my comments off of not what one of commentators reportedly meant, I specifically addressed your idea that Apple Music tracks are so indistinguishable from AudioCD that virtually it's the same which is not. I don't need "blind tests" to state that because I listen for pleasure not to prove something to myself (or to others) and what I hear is enough to draw the ultimate conclusion. Also you stated that Apple uses some special compressing technique that somehow makes 256 kbs sound like 500 or 600 which is an unsubstantiated claim. If it's 256 then it's going to be the same amount of sound as non-Apple 256 and to insist on the opposite is to copy the logic of "Naked Emperor" or such myths that some magic HDMI cables with the insulation of golden coating (100s of $$) is better than those costing 25$ complying to the same set of standards for HDMI signal speed. I have to reaffirm that AudioCD is most always sounds better. You're denying that based on your perception influenced obviously by your bias towards Apple and I believe you not as much hear as want to hear or - if I'm wrong - it can be that you simply overestimate your auditory responsiveness.


"In almost all cases, Apple Music tracks are indistinguishable from CD Audio tracks. If you (or nt5672) enjoy listening to classical CD tracks, then you’ll enjoy listening to Apple Music tracks That was my only point."
I tell you something from my own - very short experience with the Apple produced music material for iTunes, iTunes + or whatever. I once downloaded one track, "iTunes plus" quality. Once I hit "play" I felt as if my blood pressure jumped to the point of calling ambulance (strong giddiness, nausea), I immediately stopped the playback. That was the first time I felt smth like that and I had listened only to CD and higher quality before. So, you tell me what I will hear if this and if that. You're contradicting yourself: on one hand you adhere to the "every person has their own ears" viewpoint but on the other hand you predict for me my experience.
 
Also you stated that Apple uses some special compressing technique that somehow makes 256 kbs sound like 500 or 600 which is an unsubstantiated claim. If it's 256 then it's going to be the same amount of sound as non-Apple 256
Apple does use some special compressing technique: it’s called Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), and both Apple Music and the iTunes Store use variable bitrate (VBR) AAC with a baseline of 256 kbps.

It’s not proprietary to Apple, by the way; it’s an ISO standard. So the comparison is not with “non-Apple” 256, but with non-AAC 256 (e.g. 256 kbps MP3, which is what Amazon Music uses). AAC is theoretically superior to MP3, although at 256 kbps with good encoder implementations, both AAC and MP3 almost always produce tracks indistinguishable to the human ear from CD Audio. As bitrates drop, then AAC should produce better results at a given bitrate than MP3.
…such myths that some magic HDMI cables with the insulation of golden coating (100s of $$) is better than those costing 25$ complying to the same set of standards for HDMI signal speed.
There were audiophiles who swore that those hundred-dollar-plus gold-plated audio cables made their audio sound better. Did it?

The Hydrogenaudio forums are full of skeptics who swore that Audio CD sounded “warmer” or “fuller“ or “richer“ than 256 kbps AAC or MP3, until they actually performed a double-blind listening test and found that they could not tell the lossily compressed tracks from the uncompressed (or losslessly compressed) CD Audio. Psychological factors are stronger than most of us would like to admit.
You're contradicting yourself: on one hand you adhere to the "every person has their own ears" viewpoint but on the other hand you predict for me my experience.
I’m not suggesting that you or anyone else should take my word for it, or even that of the folks in the Hydrogenaudio forums who’ve been scientifically testing the transparency of audio codecs for many years.

Find some ABX software and test it yourself. If you can hear the difference, you can hear the difference.

As for higher bit-depth and higher sample-rate digital recordings, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if you can hear the difference between them and 16/44 CD Audio. But before you spend thousands of dollars on high-end audio equipment, it might be worth performing a double-blind listening test just to make sure.
 
Last edited:
Classical music (and opera) is a dead genre anyway. It’s always depended on wealthy white people to keep it going financially, and young wealthy white people don’t care. While Asians play string instruments as kids by force, they aren’t really interested in it as adults either. Not in the numbers needed.
You couldn’t be more wrong. Classical music is alive and well. Sales of recorded music are up (the bestselling recording in the UK a couple of years ago was a box set of complete Mozart works) and vinyl sales are growing.
New composers emerge every year. Concert audiences are healthy, and diverse. The BBC proms concerts from June to September each year are almost always sold out and full of young people, and people from all walks of life and ethnicities. At only £6 a ticket to promenade they attract a lot of people off the streets in shorts and t shirts - no dressing up there.
A ticket to a symphony concert or an opera is less than a ticket to a football match. I went to the opera in Wales a couple of years ago and was surrounded by families, young women there for an evening out, people on dates... and the audience for BBC National Orchestra of Wales concerts I went to we’re made up predominantly of students making use of their £5 ticket price. I was at a Mahler concert in Glasgow in October and there were kids aged less than ten there, all loving it. Mahler!
Your comments about Asia are also wrong - classical performers are like rock stars in China, and concerts are packed with people of all ages. I teach a lot of Chinese students and their tastes are broad - lots of K-pop and lots of Beethoven too. They like music regardless of genre.
 
Finally! "Fur Elise" is not a "song." Everything about iTunes and Apple Music is offensive to a music lover.
I get that it's all about profits, but that doesn't give me any solace (or encourage me to use their products).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kram Sacul
Thanks for thuis really helpful article. I’ve been considering jumping the mothership for Qobuz but thanks to your suggestion I’ve discovered Idagio and am now trying it out!
 
The lack of nice classical music was the reason I switched from iTunes to Amazon Music, but if they added quality music in the last year im willing to go back
 
The lack of nice classical music was the reason I switched from iTunes to Amazon Music, but if they added quality music in the last year im willing to go back
Huh?

did you ever look? Been there a long time
 
Jazz also could use a bit of a reworking as it has some of these problems to a degree. (though not nearly as much as Classical)

Definitely. There are various sub-genres in jazz - even the ability to add multiple genres would help.
Being able to search for tracks by performer (e.g. "anything with Charles Mingus on bass") would probably be too much to ask for, but would be ideal.
Having said all that, I'd settle for iTunes being capable of syncing mp3s from computer to phone without corrupting them, losing/jumbling album art, crashing etc.
 
This is overall one of the better articles on the topic. A lot of improvements have been made over the years, but there is still room for more improvement. Will such improvements be made? Who knows. It's mostly wishful thinking to believe that services are going to cater to the 5% (or less) instead of constantly optimizing for the 95%.

Another problem is that Apple Music is not the only streaming service in the world. There are hundreds, from all different countries. Even if Apple Music were to get classical right (which they probably won't any time soon), what about all the rest? Most of them are even worse. Even a lot of purely classical-focused stores are worse.

I do want to note that a couple of the most significant problems could be more blamed on the classical labels uploading the music than on the streaming platforms.

First, it's always been possible to upload a complete work (symphony, quartet, sonata, act from an opera, etc.) as a single track. Nobody is making the labels split them up into a bunch of tracks and upload them separately where the streaming service can slice and dice and randomize their playback amongst other music. It would be trivial for the labels to prevent this from happening, but they choose not to.

Similarly, it would be trivial to upload the track titles along these lines: "Beethoven: Symphony No. 5 (Herbert von Karajan, conductor / Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra)" or similar. At least it used to be possible, until the classical labels and musicologists insisted that Apple Music and Spotify ban composer and artist names from track titles, a restriction that has since infected all the distributors needed to get music onto Apple Music or Spotify. This can be seen as the direct cause of the "who's the composer?" problem, a problem that is even worse on most all of the other streaming services in the world than it is on Apple Music.

Of course it seems that Apple Music at least is making some effort to at least sometimes handle and display classical music "properly": like the mobile screenshots above of the Prokofiev Piano Concerto No. 3, which clearly lists the name of the piece, the composer (though it's a bit small and subtle), and the three movements, each as a separate chunk of data with no redundancies. And maybe just stuffing everything into the title and uploading the whole piece as a single track wouldn't help with that granularity, unless they parsed the title to extract the info and maybe movement starts could be added in a separate field. Honestly, I'd have rather seen that solution, so that the 350 other streaming services that aren't doing all that would still play the piece as intended and readily display all the important information about it. That's all that's ever really been necessary, and classical labels could have been doing that from day one, sparing us all the headaches of not knowing who the composer or performers are or having gaps between movements or having movements playing out of order and mixed up randomly with other music. Those problems never needed to exist in the first place, but that's how the classical labels wanted to upload their music, so that's what we've suffered with ever since.
 
So the whole issue is using shuffle play on classical music. No offense, but the solution seems a bit obvious. Classical works always play in order for me. I DONT LISTEN TO THEM IN SHUFFLE PLAY
 
☝ That, and as of 2021 Classical Music aficionados listen to physical media or digital Hi-Ref stuff stored locally. E.g., 99.9(9)% of my iTunes library is not streamed or purchased from iTunes Store.
 
Last edited:
"At least it used to be possible, until the classical labels and musicologists insisted that Apple Music and Spotify ban composer and artist names from track titles.
I didn't know they'd done that - it explains why its so hard to find anything these days.

And Siri makes it even worse. Its hopeless - even with simple requests. "Hey Siri, play Beethoven's 5th Piano Concerto, 3rd movement", and it gives you Lang Lang playing some Chopin - or whatever.

Of course the way we ask for classical music is fundamentally different from pop/rock.

With classical, the composer & the work are the most important thing, next the performers - with the soloists(s) first, then finally, maybe the conductor. "Beethoven's 5th Piano concerto played by Vladimir Ashkenazy with the Chicago Philharmonic"

With pop/rock, the artists & song are the most important, then maybe the version. "Jailhouse Rock by Elvis Presley - 1958 version." The fact it was composed by Leiber & Stoller isn't that important to most people.

And Soul/Rap/Hip hop is even worse - its alway 'Someone Ft. Someone else'!

They need to get a team together to make their algorithms much more intelligent, and try & break these Gordian knots...
 
  • Like
Reactions: LizKat
Of course the way we ask for classical music is fundamentally different from pop/rock.

With classical, the composer & the work are the most important thing, next the performers - with the soloists(s) first, then finally, maybe the conductor. "Beethoven's 5th Piano concerto played by Vladimir Ashkenazy with the Chicago Philharmonic"

With pop/rock, the artists & song are the most important, then maybe the version. "Jailhouse Rock by Elvis Presley - 1958 version." The fact it was composed by Leiber & Stoller isn't that important to most people.

And Soul/Rap/Hip hop is even worse - its alway 'Someone Ft. Someone else'!

They need to get a team together to make their algorithms much more intelligent, and try & break these Gordian knots...

There are whole separate worlds of consideration, you're right.

One of the most annoying things on the planet is looking at the Up Next queue for a classical playlist where of course the movement number or name is dead last, and so may not show up at all in the list. A lot of my tag adjustments have to do with ensuring that I won't end up not realizing that I've left shuffle mode on after I've switched to some classical list... until I hear some work start off with something I know is not the first movement of the work.

All you might see, (and that's if you're even lucky) with say one of the Bach keyboard partitas in the Up Next queue is something like this

Partita No 1 Bb Major BWV825 Pr...
Partita No 1 Bb Major BWV825 A...
Partita No 1 Bb Major BWV825 C...
Partita No 1 Bb Major BWV825 Sa...
Partita No 1 Bb Major BWV825 M...
Partita No 1 Bb Major BWV825 M...
Partita No 1 Bb Major BWV825 Gi...

And then if they've tagged it as "B-Flat Major" instead of "Bb Major" or just "B-Flat" it's even worse -- because they all look exactly the same and you might not even get the end of the BWV catalog number. So even if you do have the partita's chronological number to ensure you know which work is referenced, you may not realize shuffle mode is on if you've only selected one partita, until you hear the thing maybe start out with one of the Menuet tracks instead of the Praeludium.

Partita No 1 B Flat Major BWV82...
Partita No 1 B Flat Major BWV82...
Partita No 1 B Flat Major BWV82...
Partita No 1 B Flat Major BWV82...
Partita No 1 B Flat Major BWV82...
Partita No 1 B Flat Major BWV82...
Partita No 1 B Flat Major BWV82...

Argggh!
 
Great article. It perfectly summarizes all the problems and solutions.

To be fair, I think the problem predates digital music revolution. It was never easy to catalog and manage classical music.

When I rip classical music, I totally disregard CD meta data. I manually edit them as:
  • Album Title: Composition Title, Key, and Catalog Number (e.g., Piano Concerto No. 3 in C Major, Op. 26)
  • Composer: Composer's name (e.g., Sergei Prokofiev)
  • Artists: Artist, Conductor, Orchestra (e.g., Martha Argerich, Claudio Abbado, Berliner Philharmoniker)
  • Song: Movement and Tempo (e.g., 3rd Movement, Allegro ma non troppo)
  • Comments: Live Concert/Studio, actual album title
So when album contains more than one composition, I would break it into multiple albums.
I can't believe that this topic is finally getting the discussion it deserves, and it's about time!
There may be problems adding classical music repertoire to a music catalog, but they are far from unresolvable.

Designing a catalog of "classical" music is an interesting database exercise. Knowledge of the classical music genre(s) added to knowledge of database creation could go a long way. It is a multi-dimensional target that would have a clear result: era, composer, composition, compostion-type, performer(s), style, instrumentation, recording date, title, section, and many other descriptors would lend themselves to unique indexed selections. It can (and should) be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zephyre



Last August, Apple Music was updated with a new section in Browse curated by Deutsche Grammophon, one of the biggest classical music labels in the world. While classical music fans welcomed the specific focus of the area, many of our readers quickly pointed out the numerous issues that remain for classical listeners on a daily basis within Apple Music, and the fact that they've been there since the launch of the service with seemingly no correction in sight.

AM-classical-1.jpg

To help break down and highlight these problems, we reached out to a few experts in the classical music field, including professor Benjamin Charles, who wrote a blog post about his frustrations with streaming music services last October. We also spoke with Franz Rumiz, a classical music fan whose article "Why Apple Music fails with classical music" struck a chord with the community in early 2017.

Frustrations with classical music streaming are nothing new, but as Charles tells us, this is a problem that affects nearly every streaming music service, including Apple Music rival Spotify. In an effort to find out exactly what's wrong with classical music on Apple Music -- and what steps could be taken to address these problems -- we asked Charles and Rumiz to detail the biggest issues with classical music on Apple Music.

The Problems

Classical music is treated as a single genre


When you tap on "Genres" in Apple Music's Browse tab, you're treated with a list of over 30 styles of music, from Alternative and African Music to Christian, Electronic, K-Pop, and Metal. This is where classical music fans have to visit to find their favorite music, within the singular "Classical" genre section.

AM-classical-2.jpg

For Charles, this is the first in a long line of problems. The section spans centuries, including all of the notable composers like Mozart (born 1756, died 1791), Maurice Ravel (b. 1875, d. 1937), and John Cage (b. 1912, d. 1992), but this grouping is frustrating for classical music aficionados, given how little these musicians have in common among one another.
Classical music wasn't designed to fit in modern album templates

Streaming classical music on a service like Apple Music forces the expansive art form into a strict, boundary-ridden template. Because of this, numerous aspects of the music are truncated in a way that deflates their impact, particularly for anyone without existing knowledge of classical recordings.

AM-classical-4.jpg

Charles says that one aspect of classical music that's mixed up in the shuffle is the listener's interest in a piece's composer versus its performer. While some artists, like Leonard Bernstein, both compose and perform their music, Charles questions how Apple Music determines the best recording for a piece of music: "Is a recording more significant because it is composed by Bach, or is it more significant because it is performed by Glenn Gould?"

Further complicating matters, orchestral recordings introduce both the conductor and orchestra as contributors, essentially breaking any possibility for these pieces to be read and seen within the boundaries of a modern album format. With concerti, the soloist, composer, and orchestra also need credit.

This results in albums with names like "Prokofiev: Piano Concerto No. 3 in C Major, Op. 26 - Ravel: Piano Concerto in G Major, M.83; Gaspard de la nuit, M. 55," credited to "Martha Argerich, Berlin Philharmonic & Claudio Abbado."

AM-classical-5.jpg

Not only is this far too much information to read clearly in Apple Music, but the app's basic UI functions fail to provide links to every credited artist, making further classical music discovery a frustrating endeavor. In the above example, the link for "Martha Argerich, Berlin Philharmonic & Claudio Abbado" directs listeners only to Martha Argerich's Apple Music profile page. On that note, Rumiz points out that classical music playlists are essentially nonsense. This is because each playlist takes in arias and overtures from various operas, completely disrupting the ordered way that classical music is intended to be listened to. This happens in playlists like Apple's "Essentials" for composers like Richard Wagner, and in mood playlists designed for studying or relaxing.
Siri isn't very helpful

homepod-siri-250x268.jpg
Because of these wordy titles, any voice-enabled features touted by Apple and found within Apple Music are much harder to use for classical music fans.

As Charles bluntly puts it, "Can you imagine: 'Hey Siri, play the third movement of Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No. 3 from the album Prokofiev: Piano Concerto No. 3 in C Major, Op. 26 - Ravel: Piano Concerto in G Major, M.83; Gaspard de la nuit, M. 55 by Martha Argerich, Berlin Philharmonic & Claudio Abbado."

In our tests, simply stating "Hey Siri, play Prokofiev's Piano Concerto" did lead to Siri playing the correct concerto in the correct order, but as with all things Siri, the command was not consistently reliable. The proclivity toward the use of foreign language titles for some pieces, and the acceptance of English versions of the same titles, also regularly stumps Siri.

"Sometimes we use English titles, sometimes we use foreign language titles; 'The Rite of Spring' and 'Le Sacre du printemps' seem to be used equally to describe the same piece," Charles explains.

There are breaks between each track

Rumiz's biggest issue with classical on Apple Music is the breaks that happen between tracks in recordings (this frustration originally led Rumiz to write his Medium post on the topic). For any classical piece that is through-composed (music intended to be played from beginning to end in one continuous stream), Apple Music interrupts the fluidity of the piece by placing a break of ~1 second between each track.

Rumiz does point out that Apple has removed these breaks from many recordings over the years, but it isn't solved for all recordings.
There is a large barrier to entry for new listeners

This is Charles' biggest problem with classical on Apple Music. Although the browsing and playback experience can be awkward, the music professor ultimately notes that his background and education in the subject help him navigate Apple Music's less-than-stellar classical music selection with some ease. If you're on the other end of that spectrum, trying to get into the genre and navigating 300+ years of music on Apple Music, it's "effectively impossible."

Charles is understandably disappointed in the lack of education and forethought put into classical selections on Apple Music. There are no program notes, select few pieces of biographical information, and no guidance when navigating among composers. Despite the music having thorough research readily available, Apple Music ditches all interconnections between notable composers in favor of static tabs of music lists.

AM-classical-7.jpg

One of the few educational areas in Apple Music's classical section is buried at the very bottom of the page, and offers a quick overview of the genre's history.


Listening to classical music often requires the listener to understand the work in context to get everything out of it. Without these tidbits of history, connective tissues between composers, and educational program notes, Apple Music fails this fan base.
There's a lack of legitimacy

As an extension of the previous grievance, Apple Music's Beethoven page lacks a link to the composer's spiritual successor, Brahms, but it does provide a link to an artist named "Chopin." Unfortunately, this is not the Polish composer, but a rapper who appeared on a hip-hop song named "Circumstance," which was released in 2018. "Even if it did link to the correct Chopin, there are far more relevant composers to link to," Charles points out.

AM-classical-8.jpg

Furthermore, Apple populates composer pages with songs from albums and playlists that don't necessarily paint these artists in a respected light. Beethoven's "Top Songs" include songs from albums like "The World's Most Beautiful Wedding Music," "Classical Music for Power Pilates," and "Exam Study." While relevant to each of these activities, Apple's decision to push these results higher on the page above more reputed collections "sends strong signals of a lack of legitimacy in the classical music world," Charles argues.

The Solutions

Build better composer pages and offer more categories


This would be feasible, since Apple just last year updated the artist pages across Apple Music with new profile picture designs, new featured albums, album reorganization, and a "play all" button. Although composers and their works are inherently more complex, Charles points out that some already have their own identification systems, including the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (BWV) catalog for Bach and the Köchel (K) catalog for Mozart, which have the potential for streamlined integration into Apple Music.

AM-classical-9.jpg

In the same vein, Rumiz says more categories would do wonders for expanding the ease-of-use of classical on Apple Music, by offering more complex categories like "soloist" and "conductor," instead of following the rules of pop and rock music where songs only have one artist. While this would be a big task for Apple, Rumiz notes that it will be "necessary if they want classical music fans to continue using Apple Music on the long run."

Fix irrelevant recommendations

In a simpler and easier solution, Charles hopes Apple can more intelligently guide users to important and noteworthy composers, pieces, and musicians, that actually have relevance to one another. No more erroneous "Chopin" pages and "Ode to Joy" recommendations found within Power Pilates playlists.

Make it smarter and hire a human curator

Overall, Charles is hoping for Apple to boost the intelligence of its classical music section on Apple Music. To start, he recommends Apple hire a musicologist whose job it would be to personally back the rejuvenation of the classical music features on the service. This would be just like most other sections of Apple Music, where algorithms are backed and double-checked by human editors, like Arjan Timmermans's role as Apple Music's "Head of Pop."

This includes adding program notes that would enhance the listener's understanding of classical music, so that they're actually taking part in digesting and understanding the composition and not just passively listening. Charles explains the importance of knowing a piece's real-world history: "Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique is a great example: it features a story (loosely based on the composer's own life) of an artist obsessing with a love interest, taking opium, and murdering his beloved in a drug-induced trip. This sort of thing kind of changes how you hear a piece!"
Acquire a company that does most of this already

In a move that would make sense given Apple's history, Apple could also simply acquire a company that's doing most of these things already, and implement the technology within an update to Apple Music. Charles pointed me toward the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert Hall [Direct iTunes Link], a classical music streaming service that has live and on-demand concerts (up to 40 each season), hundreds of archived recordings covering five decades, composer interviews, documentaries, artist portraits, and a family-friendly education program that dives into the history of each piece.

AM-classical-10.jpg

While the Digital Concert Hall mostly lacks simple music streaming, if Apple made a deal with Berlin Philharmonic, the service's features would greatly boost classical music offerings on Apple Music.

Rumiz doesn't recommend an outright acquisition, but he does point towards a company and service that is already leagues ahead of Apple in the classical music field: IDAGIO [Direct iTunes Link]. This service costs $9.99/month and focuses solely on classical music. While some important recordings are missing and require him to return to Apple Music or Spotify, Rumiz says that IDAGIO's usability and interface are far better than Apple Music, eliminating many of the frustrations classical fans have with streaming services.

Boost the video offerings

According to Rumiz, a well-organized and fully featured suite of classical video content "could be an important selling point" for a streaming service intent on gaining more classical fans. Apple has a few of these, offering background interviews with artists, but Rumiz points toward YouTube Music as the current leader in this category, since it offers full recordings of concerts and operas.

The Future

In the end, Apple -- and Spotify, Google, Amazon, etc. -- have a tricky battle ahead of them if and when they decide to address the issue of classical music on streaming services. "It doesn't seem to be a business priority [for Apple]," Charles admits, and in the current scheme of things, the company's focus on pop and hip-hop in Apple Music is logical from a financial standpoint.

apple-music-future.jpg

But that doesn't change the fact that there are millions of classical music fans willing and ready to pay the company that can get these things right. "This is a completely untapped market," Charles tells me. "One streaming service could completely own the classical music audience if it wanted to."

Article Link: Classical Music on Apple Music: What's Wrong and How Apple Can Fix It
 
There will never be any changes in Apple Music regarding classical music, as Apple truly doesn't care. They just want to sell downloads of the latest pop music, as the fad is always changing. This is very short sighted on Apple's part, as classical music listeners tend to be affluent and collect music. Apple is saved by the fact that most of the other music streaming services have no more idea of how classical music works than Apple. The other problem for Apple Music is the lack of higher resolution files. The main selling point of Apple Music is its convenience if you listen on multiple devices. The search functions in Apple Music are just above worthless.
Well written. To some of us, calling a Cantata a "song" is contemptible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdagioPerpetuum
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.