Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If you are someone that doesn't add much new music per year, and/or is very organized in how you like to add songs, what's more convenient, mobile and easy to access (your words) than always having your owned full quality copies of the songs you love on your device, all the time?

(hint: the answer isn't a streaming connection)

+1

Apple Music's only real benefit to anyone older than 35 is unlimited new music and new music is way below average. If we hear more than 3 songs a year that are worth owning it's a miracle. iTunes Radio or Pandora are more than sufficient and don't cost a thing.

BJ
 
Apple Music is available on iOS, via iTunes on the Mac and Windows and will be released on Android this fall. I know this doesn't cover Windows Phone but otherwise this sounds pretty comprehensive to me.

Is vs. might be.
Not on Chrome. Not on Android. On Windows it is middlin' at best. So unless I am all in on Apple....
When it gets to all OS's I'll take another look AND if they fix AM.
 
Is vs. might be.
Not on Chrome. Not on Android. On Windows it is middlin' at best. So unless I am all in on Apple....
When it gets to all OS's I'll take another look AND if they fix AM.
You are right, it is not on Chrome but that seems to have even less users than Windows Phone. And Apple has announced that it will come to Android this fall (and Beats remains available on Android until then), so it is not a 'might' it is a 'will'. And you might not like iTunes but it is a different argument to say you don't like the implementation and saying you cannot access your playlists and other organisation on platforms other than iOS and Mac.
 

End of day iTunes and I have never really gotten along - I was primarily a Windows user. By the time I looked for a "music system" I could get into I was already buying mp3's on line and ripping all my music - iTunes was not cost effective.

Since those days, Amazon and Google have provided me with an option that is shopping, storing, listening and is cross platform. I was hoping Apple in one fell swoop would provide me another cross platform option with some of the better iTunes features. Looks like they may get there, someday. Till then, they are on my "keep an eye on" list.
 
End of day iTunes and I have never really gotten along - I was primarily a Windows user. By the time I looked for a "music system" I could get into I was already buying mp3's on line and ripping all my music - iTunes was not cost effective.
Because iTunes could not rip CDs or import MP3 bought online? Why do I get the impression that very often iTunes is equated with the iTunes Music Store?
 
+1

Apple Music's only real benefit to anyone older than 35 is unlimited new music and new music is way below average. If we hear more than 3 songs a year that are worth owning it's a miracle. iTunes Radio or Pandora are more than sufficient and don't cost a thing.

BJ
Speak for yourself. Every generation thinks their music is the best. You could argue older generations never progressed musically speaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjalda100
Speak for yourself. Every generation thinks their music is the best. You could argue older generations never progressed musically speaking.

Good lord. Let this cliche thing die already.

Remember when Elvis Presley burst on the scene and people called him "a white boy playing jungle music"?

Remember when they burned Beatles albums in the midwest?

New genres, breaking new ground, angering the prior generations because they couldn't relate. Elvis Presley sounded nothing like Benny Goodman, the Beatles sounded nothing like Percy Faith.

There is no angry grandpa because we still listen to those identical genres to this day. What once was very different and offensive to prior generations is now business as usual. Rock, Pop, Singer-Songwriter, Britpop, still going strong, in fact they represent about 90% of what most want from the music industry. My kids listen to the same genres I did and my dad did. We don't have a generation gap; we have a content gap. The whining we oldsters have about music today isn't about genres we find offensive. It's about bad product being released and ruining the genres we love.

BJ
 
I think the best music was written hundreds of years ago.

Not exactly my generation.

+1

Today's music is boring. Most songs that one thinks are really good are actually just rehashes of prior hits.

"Feel My Face" is roaring up the charts, I can name 5 Michael Jackson and Justin Timberlake songs that are essentially the same. Just because these Jedi Mind Tricks work on today's youth doesn't mean I need to buy the tenth iteration of "Billy Jean". People with large iTunes collections know what's what, and we have 100 other songs to fill that "upbeat pop disco" niche when the moment strikes.

BJ
 
Good lord. Let this cliche thing die already.

Remember when Elvis Presley burst on the scene and people called him "a white boy playing jungle music"?

Remember when they burned Beatles albums in the midwest?

New genres, breaking new ground, angering the prior generations because they couldn't relate. Elvis Presley sounded nothing like Benny Goodman, the Beatles sounded nothing like Percy Faith.

There is no angry grandpa because we still listen to those identical genres to this day. What once was very different and offensive to prior generations is now business as usual. Rock, Pop, Singer-Songwriter, Britpop, still going strong, in fact they represent about 90% of what most want from the music industry. My kids listen to the same genres I did and my dad did. We don't have a generation gap; we have a content gap. The whining we oldsters have about music today isn't about genres we find offensive. It's about bad product being released and ruining the genres we love.

BJ
Sorry but I called a spade a spade. Bad product is simply an opinion from the angry grandpa's of the world who think nothing good exists outside of their limited bubble. Old people not willing to progress. It's not that they can't, they just refuse to. There is a reason why businesses seek out younger less expensive talent in an array of industries and it's for this very reason.

Genre's are just that labels. There was no EDM label put on songs before the 1990's. Rap and hip hop as a genre didn't exist before the 1980's. "Pop" music genre didn't exist before the Michael Jackson in the 1980's. So lets just stop with the whole all the genres are the same as before. Rock and Alternative and R&B is in HUGE decline in terms of radio audience as is R&B. EDM and HipHop and "Genre inspired Pop music" and Hip-Hop/EDM inspired R&B & Rap dominate radio now.

If the music in earlier generations was so great than the newer generations would buy it. Instead they aren't buying it or consuming it. They are consuming the newer music at a lower cost. The music business has to change. They went from charging way too much for music to charging way too little for it. I think Spotify came in too low devaluing other people's product and hard work. The entertainment industry is largely inept when it comes to technological advances. Spotify doesn't even make enough to pay its own bills let alone enough to feed the artists who create the content.
 
Last edited:
Because iTunes could not rip CDs or import MP3 bought online? Why do I get the impression that very often iTunes is equated with the iTunes Music Store?

Both ;)
Cost and Ease of Use.
  • Wasn't cost effective when compared to other venues.
  • Creating playlists was okay but managing them on the fly outside of iTunes was a pain. Then there was the initial "Match" mess. Then add it never has run well on Windows....o_O
 
Sorry but I called a spade a spade. Bad product is simply an opinion from the angry grandpa's of the world who think nothing good exists outside of their limited bubble. Old people not willing to progress. It's not that they can't, they just refuse to. There is a reason why businesses seek out younger less expensive talent in an array of industries and it's for this very reason.

Nonsense. I love Tame Impala, great band. But unlike my 14 year old son who thinks its something fresh and new I can trace their roots back through Radiohead to Jellyfish to Squeeze to World Party to ELO to The Beatles to Velvet Underground. Is Tame Impala good? Yes. Would I simply die if their music was taken away from me? No. It's not inventive. It's not hearing Elvis for the first time. It's Jellyfish 3.0. It's nice, it's not necessary. For my son, I've got no less than 100 fantastic songs that would satisfy his Tame Impala curiosity. I don't need to spend $120 a year for the privilege.

Genre's are just that labels. There was no EDM label put on songs before the 1990's. Rap and hip hop as a genre didn't exist before the 1980's. "Pop" music genre didn't exist before the Michael Jackson in the 1980's. So lets just stop with the whole all the genres are the same as before. Rock and Alternative and R&B is in HUGE decline in terms of radio audience as is R&B. EDM and HipHop and "Genre inspired Pop music" and Hip-Hop/EDM inspired R&B & Rap dominate radio now.

Thanks for proving my point. Your examples of "look at all the new genre's!" goes back to 1990 which was 25 years ago. And Rap and Hip Hop get 90% of their spark from ripping licks and phrases from songs going back 20 years before that.

If the music in earlier generations was so great than the newer generations would buy it. Instead they aren't buying it or consuming it. They are consuming the newer music at a lower cost. The music business has to change. They went from charging way too much for music to charging way too little for it. I think Spotify came in too low devaluing other people's product and hard work. The entertainment industry is largely inept when it comes to technological advances. Spotify doesn't even make enough to pay its own bills let alone enough to feed the artists who create the content.

Stop with the "whoa the poor artists" stuff, it's completely misguided. The record industry used to use Radio as a way to promote their new music; today, what we call "Radio" is the actual product people want, not the physical media or file download. Pandora, iTunes Radio, iHeart Radio, YouTube, music is free because the record companies keep giving it away and consumers aren't dumb enough to buy the new Maroon 5 song because a) they know they can listen to it whenever they want for free and b) it sounds like hundreds of other pop/soul songs which they can listen to on a custom Pandora station for free.

Today's youth is marginally excited about new songs and new artists, not new genre's, considering no new genre's have emerged since 1990. And none of those artists can fill a stadium like in the old days. Today, young people go to these weekend festivals to do drugs and get laid, the music is just an excuse to hook up.

Add it all up and:

1. No new Genre's emerged since 1990.
2. There aren't grumpy old people who are against anything because there is no Elvis breaking barriers.
3. Record companies are stupid for giving their product away for free and expecting payment.
4. Today's music can be good but sounds exactly like last year's and last decades music.
5. Subscription "streaming services" is code for "paid radio" and that doesn't fly.

BJ
 
I would really like to hear one good argument from Apple or anyone that explains the reason for adding songs from playlists into your library. From what I've read Apple has about 200 people that works solely on making playlists. This probably means Apple is cramming out thousands of playlists every week. So eventually if you want to listen to many of these, your personal music library will have hundreds or even thousands of 1 song albums in you library. Seems pretty counter intuitive to me.

Right now I avoid playing any of the playlists because I prefer my music album clean and focused. If Apple want people to actually discover new music and artists they need to fix this.

Playing the playlists DOES NOT add them to your library. You have to do this manually by clicking Add to My Music for the entire playlist.
 
Playing the playlists DOES NOT add them to your library. You have to do this manually by clicking Add to My Music for the entire playlist.

Well I haven't added a single song manually from the playlists but my library is filled with 1 song albums I don't even know of.
 
Nonsense. I love Tame Impala, great band. But unlike my 14 year old son who thinks its something fresh and new I can trace their roots back through Radiohead to Jellyfish to Squeeze to World Party to ELO to The Beatles to Velvet Underground. Is Tame Impala good? Yes. Would I simply die if their music was taken away from me? No. It's not inventive. It's not hearing Elvis for the first time. It's Jellyfish 3.0. It's nice, it's not necessary. For my son, I've got no less than 100 fantastic songs that would satisfy his Tame Impala curiosity. I don't need to spend $120 a year for the privilege.

Thanks for proving my point. Your examples of "look at all the new genre's!" goes back to 1990 which was 25 years ago. And Rap and Hip Hop get 90% of their spark from ripping licks and phrases from songs going back 20 years before that.

Stop with the "whoa the poor artists" stuff, it's completely misguided. The record industry used to use Radio as a way to promote their new music; today, what we call "Radio" is the actual product people want, not the physical media or file download. Pandora, iTunes Radio, iHeart Radio, YouTube, music is free because the record companies keep giving it away and consumers aren't dumb enough to buy the new Maroon 5 song because a) they know they can listen to it whenever they want for free and b) it sounds like hundreds of other pop/soul songs which they can listen to on a custom Pandora station for free.

Today's youth is marginally excited about new songs and new artists, not new genre's, considering no new genre's have emerged since 1990. And none of those artists can fill a stadium like in the old days. Today, young people go to these weekend festivals to do drugs and get laid, the music is just an excuse to hook up.

Add it all up and:

1. No new Genre's emerged since 1990.
2. There aren't grumpy old people who are against anything because there is no Elvis breaking barriers.
3. Record companies are stupid for giving their product away for free and expecting payment.
4. Today's music can be good but sounds exactly like last year's and last decades music.
5. Subscription "streaming services" is code for "paid radio" and that doesn't fly.

BJ
Elvis didn't break barriers. He just put a white face on black music.... That's what Eminem and Iggy Azealia do. Nothing new there. You are giving older artists credit for things they didn't originate using your own logic that you prescribed to the new music of today.

EDM and Pop and Rhythmic and HipHop/R&B emerged as genres of their own since 1990. There is a reason why several years ago Billboard created these genre based charts several years back. Many songs fall into multiple genres... Secondly the label/genre doesn't matter. it's the sound that matters. You old folks are hung up on labels and classifications. Pop stood for popular up until about 2000 when Britney Spears, Nsync and BSB came into the game and clear channel took over most of the pop radio stations.

The songs playing on Mainstream Urban radio sound nothing like the songs playing on Mainstream Urban radio in the 1990's. Just because people didn't create new labels for the material doesn't mean that it isn't different in terms of sound.

If the music of today sounds like the music you've heard years ago then the music from years past must not have been very good by your own admission. The fact is that newer artists borrow and are inspired by older ones. That's a given no matter the generation and no matter the art form we are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Elvis didn't break barriers. He just put a white face on black music.... That's what Eminem and Iggy Azealia do. Nothing new there. You are giving older artists credit for things they didn't originate using your own logic that you prescribed to the new music of today.

EDM and Pop and Rhythmic and HipHop/R&B emerged as genres of their own since 1990. There is a reason why several years ago Billboard created these genre based charts several years back. Many songs fall into multiple genres... Secondly the label/genre doesn't matter. it's the sound that matters. You old folks are hung up on labels and classifications. Pop stood for popular up until about 2000 when Britney Spears, Nsync and BSB came into the game and clear channel took over most of the pop radio stations.

The songs playing on Mainstream Urban radio sound nothing like the songs playing on Mainstream Urban radio in the 1990's. Just because people didn't create new labels for the material doesn't mean that it isn't different in terms of sound.

If the music of today sounds like the music you've heard years ago then the music from years past must not have been very good by your own admission. The fact is that newer artists borrow and are inspired by older ones. That's a given no matter the generation and no matter the art form we are talking about.
Oh yes. "Artists" like Eminem and Iggy have contributed sooooo much more than Elvis did.
Lmao!!!!!
 
Elvis didn't break barriers. He just put a white face on black music.... That's what Eminem and Iggy Azealia do. Nothing new there. You are giving older artists credit for things they didn't originate using your own logic that you prescribed to the new music of today.

Stop. Your argument was that people who criticize the quality of current music are "old people just like my grandfather who thought Elvis Presley was a sinner" and that's what we're talking about here. There isn't an artist in my lifetime that ever made me think similar thoughts because, sadly, no one since has taken such a bold departure from the norm.

EDM and Pop and Rhythmic and HipHop/R&B emerged as genres of their own since 1990. There is a reason why several years ago Billboard created these genre based charts several years back. Many songs fall into multiple genres... Secondly the label/genre doesn't matter. it's the sound that matters. You old folks are hung up on labels and classifications. Pop stood for popular up until about 2000 when Britney Spears, Nsync and BSB came into the game and clear channel took over most of the pop radio stations.

EDM, Pop, Rhythmic, and Hip Hop are iterative of other pre-existing genres going back far longer than 2000. EDM isn't new, ask Georgio Moroder. Hip Hop goes back to early rap in the 70's. There isn't anything new. "Feel My Face" is someone doing Justin Timberlake doing Michael Jackson. It's transparent.

If the music of today sounds like the music you've heard years ago then the music from years past must not have been very good by your own admission. The fact is that newer artists borrow and are inspired by older ones. That's a given no matter the generation and no matter the art form we are talking about.

No, what it means is that Jellyfish and XTC were the breakthru in 1987 and Tame Impala, while nice, is just a rip of what they did. The music from years past was better because a) it was better written and b) it was a fresh departure from what else was out there. The Struts are bad Killers and bad Supergrass. Current music is imitation, it can never eclipse the original.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Sorry to be adding to this wildly off-topic discussion, but...

1. No new Genre's emerged since 1990.

* grunge
* nu-metal
* post-rock
* Madchester
* britpop
* house (it technically started at the end of the 80s, but developed fully in the 90s)
– circuit house
– tribal house
– minimal house
– etc.
* eurodance
* techno
* rave
* happy hardcore
* jungle/drum and bass
* trip-hop
* stadium house
* dubstep
* two-step
* PC Music

– that's off the top of my head. However, you are right to a degree. I've read that if you fell into a coma at the beginning of each decade until 2000 and woke up 10 years later and listened to popular music, you'd be shocked. But if you fell into a coma in 2000 and woke up in 2010, you'd hear the same familiar stuff. More refined, somewhat altered, but otherwise pretty similar. So I'll give you that -- only one genre emerged in the last 7-8 years, it's dubstep, and what it actually is is eurodance slowed by 50%. PC Music is a recent phenomenon but since I heard precisely one PC Music song ("Bitch I'm Madonna"), I'm going to withhold my judgement.

I intentionally left hip-hop and all its subgenres off this list, because my interest in hip-hop is extremely marginal and I have zero expertise on it, but I'm pretty sure it's easy to hear the differences between Grandmaster Flash, Kid Cudi, Frank Ocean (his album channel:ORANGE is incredible, check out "Pyramids" at least), Kanye West, Eminem, Lil' Kim, Azealia Banks... You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Greetings!
 
Some genres are… dead. Just like Western genre in films. Nothing new can be created in some genres, everything has been composed/played (at least on one instrument in a band: for example guitar in rock'n'roll).
 
Rock'n'roll keeps on being reinvented approximately every five years. I remember when Arctic Monkeys' first album came out, and all I could think of was "how have you guys manage to miss out on Rolling Stones, The Smiths and Oasis to the point you think Arctic Monkeys are 'original'?" The four boys/drums/bass/guitar/vocals kind of band will always stick around.

See also: people who think Lady Gaga is original and groundbreaking.

Nevertheless, when Goldie's Timeless came out in 1995, I was absolutely blown away. Similar with Björk's Homogenic, Medulla; Sparks' Lil' Beethoven (2002), Air's Moon Safari (2008), etc. If you think all music is like the top 40 stuff, you are putting yourself up for disappointment, but that doesn't mean new genres don't get invented and new great music isn't made -- that is happening all the time -- most just never make it to the mainstream. When I look at the UK top 40... you'd have to pay me a lot of money for me to listen to that.

(By the way, @tomekosiowy, I like your signature.)
 
However, you are right to a degree: If you fell into a coma in 2000 and woke up in 2010, you'd hear the same familiar stuff. More refined, somewhat altered, but otherwise pretty similar. So I'll give you that.

Only one genre emerged in the last 7-8 years, it's dubstep, and what it actually is is eurodance slowed by 50%.

Greetings!

Good post, thanks.

Let's run with 2000 because that would stretch back to when any 30 year old today was in his teens and any 20 year old today was in diapers. For them, and all of us, it's been 15+ years and no exciting and completely new genre of music has emerged. Frankly, I don't think it's the record companies fault. There are just so many instruments to be played and just so many voices to be heard and that's that.

So what we're left with are decades ahead where the only thing "new" to get someone excited will be some pretty-boy band from a reality show, some smokin' hot crossover blonde making country-pop, the seventh-coming of Michael Jackson, and yet another Radiohead clone. And that's okay, but it's not worth subscribing to, it's not worth $120 a year or $1,200 a decade. To listen to these iterations and rips of other people's work along with some of the original classics mixed in, Pandora or iTunes Radio is a fantastic solution. And it's free.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.