Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday July 05 2015, @10:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the but-apple-can-do-no-wrong dept.

According to Forbes, Apple Music Could Wreck Your iTunes Library:

At its heart, Apple Music is a simple proposition. For your monthly subscription fee, Apple will offer you access to a library of over 30 million tracks. You can listen, explore, and discover to your heart's content, and you can take that music with you wherever you go. But subscribing to Apple Music and making full use of the streaming service requires a sacrifice.

You have to hand over control of your iTunes music library to Apple and hope that Cupertino's arrogance will preserve your music collection.

[...] The issue that is upsetting many Apple users is that moment when you turn on iCloud Music for the first time and your tracks are synced to the cloud. Apple's methodology on this is not clear, but from reports and feedback from users across the internet, it appears that Apple's view of metadata and what the 'correct' track is, will take precedence over your custom edits.

The Verge's Chris Welch highlights his preference of listening to early tracks from The Beatles in mono format (just as they were recorded) rather than the automatic matching services' preferences for stereo versions. Support forums talk of collections approaching 20,00 songs becoming corrupted and full of duplicate entries, incorrect meta-data overwriting current entries, album art switched out to show the wrong albums, and more stories of personal pain. 

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 06 2015, @11:57AM

    by VLM (445) on Monday July 06 2015, @11:57AM (#205574)

    Why pay month after month for music that disappears as soon as you stop paying?

    I'm not a big music listener, but observing my kids and other people, "most folks" especially top40 types will not listen to or care about anything once its no longer new.

    That classic collection of Metallica CDs that I haven't listened to in approaching 20 years is extremely collector-ish behavior, but 99 out of 100 only want to hear the very latest Katy Perry or Taylor Swift song and by the end of the summer when its no longer the very latest, eh, something formulaic and new will be the only thing they listen to.

    Looking at the parody that is the Lego "everything is awesome" song, there really is no point in owning something that has zero long term value. Let me dredge the waters for a minute... How much would you pay for a copy of the Bangles Manic Monday from '86? Nothing you say? Wouldn't even want it cluttering up the collection such that owning it would have negative value? Well then streaming it would be the perfect solution.

    I guess another way to put it, is broadcast radio suicided by having only one major provider nationally pushing only hyper limited payola genre generally not matching what the listening public wants to hear anyway, aside from being 1/3 commercials, 1/3 DJ babble, and only 1/3 actual music, so streaming took the place of dead broadcast radio. Its like 80s FM, but with modern music and over the internet, kind of.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday July 06 2015, @04:59PM

    Perhaps the reality is that the Bangles song was actually worthless all along.

    I don't see anyone wearing bangles t-shirts walking around town. The kind of shit I listen to, contemporary to the Bangles or predating them by a decade or more, I still see t-shirts of. That implies there is still more of a market for my kind of shit than the Bangles.
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 06 2015, @05:12PM

      by VLM (445) on Monday July 06 2015, @05:12PM (#205732)

      More relevant long term, but in the short term top forty formula filler rules the music industry. In 30 years nobody will be listening to Taylor Swift and most people won't remember who she is without some prompting, but she sold 40 million albums, whatever an "album" means in an itunes economy, and in 30 years it'll be some new hot young woman selling 40 million "albums" or whatever. Also see madonna, katy perry, britney spears, ...

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday July 06 2015, @06:03PM

        Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I do not underestimate the size of the extract-money-from-stupid-teenagers market. And lest someone misinterprets my stance, huge quantities of pop in the 50s, 60s, and 70s was cookie-cutter lowest-common-denominator shit too. Of course, we're more inclined to forget the immemorable stuff.

        Fact: if you play a Rick Astley ballad from an LP at 45 RPM (I know I'm speaking a foreign language to some people now), it sounds indistinguishable from a Kylie Minogue bubble-gum-pop song played at normal speed, and if you play a Kylie Minogue single at 33 RPM, and ignore the lyrics, it sounds indistinguishable from Rick Astley. I know this to be a fact because of science - I challenged my g/f at the time to do the experiment, and we both heard it with our own ears. Even after that, she refused to accept that she was just buying shit pooped out by a cynical andouillette machine. We weren't together long. Not long, but still too long.
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves