Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Music Classical

learn.applemusic.apple

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 473 posts

Re: Apple Music Classical

#131

Post by lelag »

echelon wrote: post #48
lelag wrote: post #24

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 cl…

> 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).

Re: Apple Music Classical

#132

Post by [deleted] »

nordsieck wrote: post #105
tkgally wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still buy albums (mostly from prestomusic, in case someone wants to know) I buy my classical music from Presto Music, too. The purchase process is easy, and maybe the performers get a bit more than from streaming. I suspect that purchasing music files to own will seem increasingly strange and inconvenient to younger people, though.

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Apple Music Classical

#133

Post by _thisdot »

dbbk wrote: post #112
_thisdot wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've never seen googlemaps.google.com?

Sorry. Should’ve been clear. It’s not the case, it would’ve been weird if it was

Re: Apple Music Classical

#134

Post by russelldjimmy »

michelb wrote: post #76
russelldjimmy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 delayin…

I’m wondering if they will also do this with jazz, which has similar issues.

I would love that as well!

Re: Apple Music Classical

#135

Post by jevgeni »

tzs wrote: post #120
lynx23 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a good point. Also, I don't see the economic incentives for this to be snakeoil.

Re: Apple Music Classical

#136

Post by gumby »

nordsieck wrote: post #105
tkgally wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still buy albums (mostly from prestomusic, in case someone wants to know) I buy my classical music from Presto Music, too. The purchase process is easy, and maybe the performers get a bit more than from streaming. I suspect that purchasing music files to own will seem increasingly strange and inconvenient to younger people, though.

> 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…

> 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.

O what happened to the idea of the “long tail”, eh?

Re: Apple Music Classical

#138

Post by gumby »

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).

Re: Apple Music Classical

#139

Post by LegitShady »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #25

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.

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.

Re: Apple Music Classical

#140

Post by MavisBacon »

Aidevah wrote: post #113
easyThrowaway wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver?

>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 consid…

>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)

Post reply on HN