Where is the Music "iTunes" store?

[machenryr]

I'm sure this is the wrong forum but I'm really frustrated. And I am probably the only person who is. I buy my music. I don't use streaming services. I'm a musician and a composer, so I don't want to piss in my own bed. I buy everything I really want to hear. I just bought a Mac Studio, new from a long line of intel Mac Pros. The only time I use "iTunes" is to listen to my library or purchase new music. I just launched "Music" and all I see is my library and streaming. I don't see the store. Can someone tell me where the "iTunes" store is? I'm like to buy some more music. I don't want to see what my friends are listening to. I couldn't care less. Thanks.

 

[machenryr]

OK. I found it. They really want to hide it. You have to look under settings preferences. The box is unchecked. Wow. They just want you to stream.

 

[russell_314]

OK. I found it. They really want to hide it. You have to look under settings preferences. The box is unchecked. Wow. They just want you to stream.

It’s what people do in 2025. Don’t get me wrong I had an iPod and used iTunes back in the day. Once fast cellular data connection was possible that was the nail in the coffin for downloading music and mp3 players. Even from only a cost perspective $10.99 a month for unlimited songs vs $1.29 per song is an easy choice. The only exception I can think of is if you live so far off the grid that you can’t get cellular data.

 

[ChrisA]

I think a long time from now historians will say...

There was a short period from the mid-20th century that extended into the very early 21st century when musicians could play music once in a studio and record it, then get rich by selling millions of copies of that performance. But in the eons of time before and after that anomalous period, musicians only get paid when they perform for a live audience.

There was only about a 90-year window of time when we could make recordings but strictly control distribution. Once distribution was free and easy, the recordings became useless except as a way to promote live performance.

 

[russell_314]

I think a long time from now historians will say...

There was a short period from the mid-20th century that extended into the very early 21st century when musicians could play music once in a studio and record it, then get rich by selling millions of copies of that performance. But in the eons of time before and after that anomalous period, musicians only get paid when they perform for a live audience.

There was only about a 90-year window of time when we could make recordings but strictly control distribution. Once distribution was free and easy, the recordings became useless except as a way to promote live performance.

Musicians get paid when you listen to their music on streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify. From what I understand they get paid significantly more on Apple Music so I don’t know how the price negotiation goes

 

[machenryr]

Musicians get paid when you listen to their music on streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify. From what I understand they get paid significantly more on Apple Music so I don’t know how the price negotiation goes

OMG no. BARELY get any money at all. It's an extremely cruel ripoff of artists. I'm old enough to have been a part of the old system. I actually got paid WELL for music that was on the radio or bought in stores. Writer's credit, royalties. This streaming thing is total BS. Just stealing and poor musicians seek promotion agree as they have no other choice. I get paid a tiny bit more by Apple but it's negligible.

 

[ChrisA]

Musicians get paid when you listen to their music on streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify. From what I understand they get paid significantly more on Apple Music so I don’t know how the price negotiation goes

Technically, this is true, but practically speaking, they are only given a token amount for streaming.

I've read that on average they can make about $4,000 per one million streamers, but recording in a studio might cost many times more, so they need "many millions" just to break even, and only a handful of musicians will ever make money this way. Then, all of the money does not go to one person. It has to be split between band members, backing musicians, producers, and so on.

 

[bzgnyc2]

It’s what people do in 2025. Don’t get me wrong I had an iPod and used iTunes back in the day. Once fast cellular data connection was possible that was the nail in the coffin for downloading music and mp3 players. Even from only a cost perspective $10.99 a month for unlimited songs vs $1.29 per song is an easy choice. The only exception I can think of is if you live so far off the grid that you can’t get cellular data.

I think it also depends on how far along someone was in building up their music library before streaming became practical.

For those who already had 5K or 10K songs or more, paying for streaming seemed like a waste. Plus not all recordings have been streamable.

On the flip side, telling someone starting out today that they should limit themseles to maybe 100 songs to get started and then build their library a few albums a month for 20 years or so until it's reasonably complete is a tough sell.

Unfortunately the only way streaming works economically for the streamer and the streamee is that the artists, etc get pennies on the dollar. I wonder what the monthly cost would have to be to pay artists on average the same as what they got for similarly successful albums of the past.

 

[ignatius345]

For my money, if I was looking to build up a library of tracks to store and keep locally I'd be buying and ripping CDs versus buying tracks and albums off of the Apple Music storefront.

 

[Spock]

I was actually wanting to purchase a few albums to sync with my old iPod and it took forever to figure out that I had to turn it on.

 

[ChrisA]

Streaming does not work for old people. Being an "old person" myself, I know many my age who will not listen to anything newer than when they graduated from high school or college. One is still a Beatles fan and will only listen to these few albums over and over again. Another is stuck in the 1980s, and another in the 70s. If you are one of them, you already bought your last music decades ago and have no need to ever do so again. In the extreme case, one 90 year old I know is still into bebop jazz and swing and nothing else.

You have no idea how common this is.

 

[IJustWannaTalk]

Streaming does not work for old people. Being an "old person" myself, I know many my age who will not listen to anything newer than when they graduated from high school or college. One is still a Beatles fan and will only listen to these few albums over and over again. Another is stuck in the 1980s, and another in the 70s. If you are one of them, you already bought your last music decades ago and have no need to ever do so again. In the extreme case, one 90 year old I know is still into bebop jazz and swing and nothing else.

You have no idea how common this is.

While I understand the reasoning, I feel bad for people who never expose themselves to new music.

 

[Adora]

Streaming does not work for old people. Being an "old person" myself, I know many my age who will not listen to anything newer than when they graduated from high school or college. One is still a Beatles fan and will only listen to these few albums over and over again. Another is stuck in the 1980s, and another in the 70s. If you are one of them, you already bought your last music decades ago and have no need to ever do so again. In the extreme case, one 90 year old I know is still into bebop jazz and swing and nothing else.

You have no idea how common this is.

My mum (73) is only listening to CDs. She never purchased any digital music or audio book and doesn't want to use any streaming service. I don't know anyone in her age who does.

I grew up with buying CDs and also don't like streaming. I bought a few tracks and albums from iTunes but not very much. Most of my collection is from the CDs in my basement.

Sometimes I take the free months I am offered but always forget to use it regularly and am overwhelmed by what is offered. I also don't buy new music anymore. I just watch it on YouTube because I am mostly at home anyway.

 

[jwolf6589]

It’s what people do in 2025. Don’t get me wrong I had an iPod and used iTunes back in the day. Once fast cellular data connection was possible that was the nail in the coffin for downloading music and mp3 players. Even from only a cost perspective $10.99 a month for unlimited songs vs $1.29 per song is an easy choice. The only exception I can think of is if you live so far off the grid that you can’t get cellular data.

Or you hardly ever listen to music that $11 is not worth it. I prefer whatever music I have on my drives.

 

[Boeingfan]

It’s what people do in 2025. Don’t get me wrong I had an iPod and used iTunes back in the day. Once fast cellular data connection was possible that was the nail in the coffin for downloading music and mp3 players. Even from only a cost perspective $10.99 a month for unlimited songs vs $1.29 per song is an easy choice. The only exception I can think of is if you live so far off the grid that you can’t get cellular data.

It’s what some people do in 2025. I detest renting content—which is all streaming really is. Plenty of us still have LPs, CDs, and even cassettes. In fact, I still have 78s and 45's in my collection!

Let’s unpack that "$10.99 a month": that’s a recurring fee, forever. You stop paying, you lose access. And “unlimited songs” isn’t exactly accurate—it’s unlimited access to a rotating catalogue of “over 100 million songs.” As Tech Penny points out, "...songs can come and go. Not every artist wants their music on the platform, and record labels must be negotiated with to ensure Apple Music retains the right to host them."

When you own a tangible album, you hold a permanent personal-use copy. Yes, it still falls under copyright law, but you’re not subject to shifting catalogues or licensing negotiations just to keep listening. If you rent a house, furniture, appliances, entertainment, and/or a car, you’re paying top dollar for something that doesn’t belong to you—and adds zero to your net worth. The same logic applies to streaming music.

Streaming vs owning may simply come down to the difference people have about music; whether it's a throwaway item with little value, or a collection, asset, or component of a trove of an artist they appreciate. I'm quite attached to what little money I have, so I lean more towards giving away very little of it when there's nothing of value in return, which contributes to my approach to 'buying' music.

 

[Boeingfan]

I think a long time from now historians will say...

There was a short period from the mid-20th century that extended into the very early 21st century when musicians could play music once in a studio and record it, then get rich by selling millions of copies of that performance. But in the eons of time before and after that anomalous period, musicians only get paid when they perform for a live audience.

There was only about a 90-year window of time when we could make recordings but strictly control distribution. Once distribution was free and easy, the recordings became useless except as a way to promote live performance.

I see musicians as no different to a carpenter or any other tradesman; they use their talent to produce something, which consumers buy to enjoy their own instance of that item. Renting music ie streaming is a house full of furniture that you will pay for forever yet none of it is yours. What a waste of money.

 

[russell_314]

I feel like I upset everyone in the old folks home when I mentioned streaming. I’m an old fart as well, but I can adopt to new things. I’ve used vinyl records as a kid, then 8 track tapes, cassette tapes, compact discs, Napster to pirate music, then I went to downloading songs from iTunes and now streaming on Apple Music.

The only reason why purchasing downloadable music became a big thing was because people were doing it illegally. The music industry had to come up with an answer to counterfeit music. The problem is it’s easy to download thousands of songs on P2P applications because they’re free. Not everyone will want to or can spend thousands of dollars to pay for music. Streaming is like having a radio play songs for you. Unfortunately Apple Music at least in my experience does not do a good job at randomly playing good songs. Spotify does better but I’ve given up on them. What I like about Apple Music is I can pick a song or album and play it just like if I purchased it on iTunes.

For all the people enjoying outdated forms of music by all means enjoy it, but it’s not going to be the mainstream way people consume music. There’s always going to be a market for niche products like even vinyl records. They are coming out with new ones because people will buy them. If there’s enough people out there that want to download MP3 music, there’s going to be somebody to cater to that market.

 

[klasma]

In 20 years we'll all be listening to AI-generated music anyway, for double the price.

 

[machenryr]

Streaming does not work for old people. Being an "old person" myself, I know many my age who will not listen to anything newer than when they graduated from high school or college. One is still a Beatles fan and will only listen to these few albums over and over again. Another is stuck in the 1980s, and another in the 70s. If you are one of them, you already bought your last music decades ago and have no need to ever do so again. In the extreme case, one 90 year old I know is still into bebop jazz and swing and nothing else.

You have no idea how common this is.

That's not exactly my issue. I do like a lot of new music. I buy some. But I have been buying albums, vinyl, CDs and iTunes since I was a kid. The format has just changed. I want to listen to the music I bought. I don't particularly want to listen to the radio or picks for me. I'm a professional musician. I want to listen to what I want to listen to. I have so much music I've bought that I haven't even gotten to. I'm a jazz musician and composer. The stuff I listen to is often well off the beaten path. It's not pop. But then again I want to listen to pop. Modern pop, older pop. Every once in awhile I want to listen to some math metal. I loved the Beatles and Hendrix. But I don't need to listen to them any more.. I'm always looking for the new. But my new is mostly what's happening in the jazz world. The last few albums I purchased on iTunes were Incubus, Animals As Leaders, Chuckii Booker, Joni Mitchell Archives, Christian Scott, Jacob Collier, Chick Corea, Pink etc. But I want it on shuffle. Not streaming.

I used to get small but for me substantial checks from BMI. A couple of grand twice a year. Not bad for jazz. Since streaming I'd be lucky to get .12

 

[machenryr]

And it's not that I can't adopt to new things. I own a recording studio. It's pretty much cutting edge technology. For me I tihnk streaming is unethical. That's my whole deal with it. It's not going away. But that doesn't mean I have to support it.

 

[Boeingfan]

I feel like I upset everyone in the old folks home when I mentioned streaming. I’m an old fart as well, but I can adopt to new things. I’ve used vinyl records as a kid, then 8 track tapes, cassette tapes, compact discs, Napster to pirate music, then I went to downloading songs from iTunes and now streaming on Apple Music.

The only reason why purchasing downloadable music became a big thing was because people were doing it illegally. The music industry had to come up with an answer to counterfeit music. The problem is it’s easy to download thousands of songs on P2P applications because they’re free. Not everyone will want to or can spend thousands of dollars to pay for music. Streaming is like having a radio play songs for you. Unfortunately Apple Music at least in my experience does not do a good job at randomly playing good songs. Spotify does better but I’ve given up on them. What I like about Apple Music is I can pick a song or album and play it just like if I purchased it on iTunes.

For all the people enjoying outdated forms of music by all means enjoy it, but it’s not going to be the mainstream way people consume music. There’s always going to be a market for niche products like even vinyl records. They are coming out with new ones because people will buy them. If there’s enough people out there that want to download MP3 music, there’s going to be somebody to cater to that market.

I would put it to you that 'outdated' is the wrong word choice. Given you can still buy LP's, CD's, and cassettes to a degree, plus MP3's, I disagree wholeheartedly that they are outdated, but rather other options.

Further, I would say that streaming is dissimilar to the radio, because you don't pay for radio.

 

[Boeingfan]

In 20 years we'll all be listening to AI-generated music anyway, for double the price.

Like hell we will.

 

[Boeingfan]

And it's not that I can't adopt to new things. I own a recording studio. It's pretty much cutting edge technology. For me I think streaming is unethical. That's my whole deal with it. It's not going away. But that doesn't mean I have to support it.

Whilst disliking streaming personally, I'm unsure about 'unethical', given artists and labels have agreed to a streaming hosts terms. "It's not going away" may be a stretch; remember we had VHS and beta video tapes once, and radio's! Remember radio's!? They were 'streaming' devices, but didn't charge you! How cutting edge is that.

Streaming will be replaced by whatever next technology comes along that makes even more profit. I hope more studios like your own will decline streaming terms and only produce tangible albums. Stay outside of 'the lazy'.

 

[Boeingfan]

I'm sure this is the wrong forum but I'm really frustrated. And I am probably the only person who is. I buy my music. I don't use streaming services. I'm a musician and a composer, so I don't want to piss in my own bed. I buy everything I really want to hear. I just bought a Mac Studio, new from a long line of intel Mac Pros. The only time I use "iTunes" is to listen to my library or purchase new music. I just launched "Music" and all I see is my library and streaming. I don't see the store. Can someone tell me where the "iTunes" store is? I'm like to buy some more music. I don't want to see what my friends are listening to. I couldn't care less. Thanks.

Interestingly, I've just received a CD I bought on eBay via the post, and I'm now trying to work out how the hell you rip it into Apple Music. What a hot mess. I've lived with my existing library as they forced the transition from iTunes to Apple Music, but with this very poor very poor experience trying to add it to my library, it has got me realising about just how far Apple have pushed all functionality to streaming preferences, it seems.

As a staunch Nokia fan prior to the iPhone and iTunes, I embraced the iPhone with wild abandon. I never got into iPods but when they combined it with a phone I was all in. Now, if the game has shifted so far that it is going to be increasingly difficult to import and manage my tangible media in conjunction with any iTunes store purchases, then this will be a real deal breaker for me. I have no music streaming subscriptions, and I have no TV streaming subscriptions, and I don't intend to.

To date I thought Apple had simply dismantled iTunes and replaced it with 78 other pieces of software but the functionality remained. This doesn't seem to be the case, and I'm really disheartened by this realisation. I desperately hope I'm wrong, or my iPhone 16PM may well be the last iPhone I have.

 

[darkpaw]

I used to buy compilation CDs by a particular artist. They were about £10 each, and they released one a year. I stopped around 2016 when I started using Apple Music.

I just priced up the CDs for the years 2017-2024, and they're now £25 each. Those 8 CDs would be £200!

Sorry, but I'm sticking to streaming those 8 albums and hundreds more via Apple Music.