Apple launches Apple Music Classical app

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited March 2023
The long-awaited classical music version of Apple Music has been announced, with a new app for it coming on March 28.




Originally promised for 2022, and continually rumored to be about to launch, Apple Music Classical has finally been officially announced.

"Apple Music Classical makes it quick and easy to find any recording in the world's largest classical music catalog with fully optimized search," said Apple in a statement, "and listeners can enjoy the highest audio quality available, and experience many classical favorites in a whole new way with immersive spatial audio."





"[It] is the ultimate classical experience with hundreds of curated playlists, thousands of exclusive albums, insightful composer biographies, deep-dive guides for many key works, intuitive browsing features and much more," continued Apple.

"Apple Music Classical will launch later this month," says the company, "and Apple Music subscribers will be able to download and enjoy the Apple Music Classical app as part of their existing subscription at no additional cost."

While the service is not yet available, the new Apple Music Classical app can be pre-ordered from the App Store now. It's a free download -- listed as being solely for the iPhone, and curiously not yet even for the iPad -- and after preordering, will automatically be downloaded upon release.

Apple Music Classical requires iOS 15.4 or later, and any Apple Music subscription except the Apple Music Voice Plan. It will be available at launch wherever Apple Music is, except China, Japan, Korea, Russia, Taiwan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Apple Music Classical app (source: Apple)
Apple Music Classical app (source: Apple)

What's included

When launched, the app will include "hundreds of Essentials playlists, insightful composer biographies, deep-dive guides for many key works, and intuitive browsing features," says Apple.

It will contain "over 5 million tracks," which range from "new releases to celebrated masterpieces, plus thousands of exclusive albums."

Those tracks will feature the "highest audio quality (up to 192 kHz/24 bit Hi-Res Lossless) with thousands of recordings in immersive spatial audio."

Classical music searches have always been a criticism of Apple Music, given the complexity of multiple versions of works. Apple says the new app will allow users to search "by composer, work, conductor, or even catalog number."

"Benefit from complete and accurate metadata to make sure you know exactly what and who you are playing," continues the app's listing. "Learn while you listen, with thousands of composer biographies, descriptions of key works, and more."

Apple Music Classical was originally announced in 2021 when Apple bought the existing classical music subscription service, Primephonic.

Read on AppleInsider
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 82
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    This is great news, I am certain to use it. 

    However spatial audio isn’t a sell at all for me. Not only does it make most songs worse, but it’s even worse for classical music. Lately I have found myself disabling it entirely because of the way classical or even electronic music sound with it. It’s a completely overrated feature that should only be enabled for songs that were recorded in 3D audio. 
    dewmepulseimageskiehtanAlex1Nsphericmacguibyronlwilliamlondon
  • Reply 2 of 82
    mrstepmrstep Posts: 516member
    clemynx said:
    This is great news, I am certain to use it. 

    However spatial audio isn’t a sell at all for me. Not only does it make most songs worse, but it’s even worse for classical music. Lately I have found myself disabling it entirely because of the way classical or even electronic music sound with it. It’s a completely overrated feature that should only be enabled for songs that were recorded in 3D audio. 
    I'm not sold on Atmos for spatial music in general. 5.1 SACD / DVD-Audio / Blu-Ray are much better for classical and full surround mixes for remastered rock albums are better sounding as well from ones I've compared.

    That said, I'll certainly be using the Classical app! :)
    lotonesAlex1Nwatto_cobrasphericbyronlwilliamlondon
  • Reply 3 of 82
    pscooter63pscooter63 Posts: 1,080member
    A dedicated TVOS app would be a nice tip of the hat - I don’t necessarily want to be tethered to AirPlay.
    RonnyDaddylwiokiehtanlotonesStrangeDaysretrogustorezwitsAlex1Ndoozydozenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 82
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,836member
    Apple Classical; YAY!
    Must have an AppleMusic subscription; Well…
    I’ll hold off until I hear more about it. TBH I don’t want an AppleMusic subscription. If I did I would already have one. I mean if this IS a premium service, and the reviews are top notch, fine. I’ll go with it. But I would have preferred it to be stand alone even at the same price as AM.
    danoxOnPartyBusinessOferwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 82
    igforbesigforbes Posts: 18member
    DAalseth said:
    Apple Classical; YAY!
    Must have an AppleMusic subscription; Well…
    I’ll hold off until I hear more about it. TBH I don’t want an AppleMusic subscription. If I did I would already have one. I mean if this IS a premium service, and the reviews are top notch, fine. I’ll go with it. But I would have preferred it to be stand alone even at the same price as AM.
    So you you’d pay the same amount for classical stand alone as it would cost for an Apple Music subscription. But you refuse to get Apple Music AND classical for the that same price. OK. Makes perfect sense. 
    melgrosskiehtandjames4242gregoriusmmike1StrangeDayschutzpahapplebynaturebala1234retrogusto
  • Reply 6 of 82
    lwiolwio Posts: 110member
    Peeved that there’s no iPad app at launch. I know it will come but for people like me who use an iPad almost exclusively it’s annoying.
    OnPartyBusinessd_2watto_cobrabyronllolliver
  • Reply 7 of 82
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Well, I signed up. I’m surprised it’s just for the iPhone. Since most iPhone apps will work on the iPad, and even on my M series computers, I wonder if it will work that way? If so, maybe that’s why it’s just coming for the iPhone (for now, anyway). I have the original 13.3” Macbook Pro as my music server, so that’s where I really would like it. So we’ll see.

    while there are always some nay sayers, the large majority of people, and music critics, agree that Spacial Audio is a major advance, and I agree with that. I also think it’s really silly to say that someone would pay for this, but not if it’s part of the larger music subscription. So those people want to get less for more? Strange.
    OferSpitbathwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 82
    AppleishAppleish Posts: 697member

    Apple Music whacks Spotify, yet again.

    rezwitsSpitbathwatto_cobralolliver
  • Reply 9 of 82
    djames4242djames4242 Posts: 651member
    Been looking forward to this for awhile. I have a Classical Archives subscription, but their app is absolutely awful. Their website isn’t much better.

    I feel a little sorry for them because this will definitely affect their subscriber count, but they should’ve been keeping up their application which looks no different today than it did when it first hit the App Store over a decade ago.
    danoxrezwitsstompywatto_cobraAlex_Vbyronllollivertwokatmew
  • Reply 10 of 82
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,836member
    igforbes said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple Classical; YAY!
    Must have an AppleMusic subscription; Well…
    I’ll hold off until I hear more about it. TBH I don’t want an AppleMusic subscription. If I did I would already have one. I mean if this IS a premium service, and the reviews are top notch, fine. I’ll go with it. But I would have preferred it to be stand alone even at the same price as AM.
    So you you’d pay the same amount for classical stand alone as it would cost for an Apple Music subscription. But you refuse to get Apple Music AND classical for the that same price. OK. Makes perfect sense. 
    I don’t want the clutter. The first thing I do when I get a device is go through and delete the stuff I don’t want. I like my systems as clean and spartan as possible. So now it’ll be two apps when I only want one. 
    d_2
  • Reply 11 of 82
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,856member
    Should just be in a genre tab on Apple Music. 

    a lot of music catalogs on Apple Music. Just because this is a giant catalog doesn’t mean it needs its own app. 

    Biography info, etc would fit nearly as a link or accordion element. 

    More steps to do the same thing. Not good. 
    edited March 2023 lotonesretrogustowatto_cobratwokatmew
  • Reply 12 of 82
    gilly33gilly33 Posts: 442member
    I’m excited about this app. Definitely looking forward to its launch. 
    watto_cobralolliver
  • Reply 13 of 82
    igorskyigorsky Posts: 759member
    DAalseth said:
    igforbes said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple Classical; YAY!
    Must have an AppleMusic subscription; Well…
    I’ll hold off until I hear more about it. TBH I don’t want an AppleMusic subscription. If I did I would already have one. I mean if this IS a premium service, and the reviews are top notch, fine. I’ll go with it. But I would have preferred it to be stand alone even at the same price as AM.
    So you you’d pay the same amount for classical stand alone as it would cost for an Apple Music subscription. But you refuse to get Apple Music AND classical for the that same price. OK. Makes perfect sense. 
    I don’t want the clutter. The first thing I do when I get a device is go through and delete the stuff I don’t want. I like my systems as clean and spartan as possible. So now it’ll be two apps when I only want one. 
    What clutter?  You don't even have to have apps on your homescreen if you don't want to see them.
    gregoriusmStrangeDayschutzpahmelgrosstdknoxRudeBoyRudywatto_cobrabyronllolliver
  • Reply 14 of 82
    gregoriusmgregoriusm Posts: 514member
    DAalseth said:
    igforbes said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple Classical; YAY!
    Must have an AppleMusic subscription; Well…
    I’ll hold off until I hear more about it. TBH I don’t want an AppleMusic subscription. If I did I would already have one. I mean if this IS a premium service, and the reviews are top notch, fine. I’ll go with it. But I would have preferred it to be stand alone even at the same price as AM.
    So you you’d pay the same amount for classical stand alone as it would cost for an Apple Music subscription. But you refuse to get Apple Music AND classical for the that same price. OK. Makes perfect sense. 
    I don’t want the clutter. The first thing I do when I get a device is go through and delete the stuff I don’t want. I like my systems as clean and spartan as possible. So now it’ll be two apps when I only want one. 
    It just says you need an Apple Music subscription. I don’t see anywhere that says you need to keep the Apple Music app on your iPhone. 
    mike1chutzpahapplebynatureSpitbathmelgrossstompytdknoxradarthekatwatto_cobrabyronl
  • Reply 15 of 82
    dymmasdymmas Posts: 34member
    clemynx said:
    This is great news, I am certain to use it. 

    However spatial audio isn’t a sell at all for me. Not only does it make most songs worse, but it’s even worse for classical music. Lately I have found myself disabling it entirely because of the way classical or even electronic music sound with it. It’s a completely overrated feature that should only be enabled for songs that were recorded in 3D audio. 
    Agreed. Symphonies with large orchestras don’t work in Atmos. There are a few binaural recordings in Apple Music that sound great through headphones (esp.  Rite of Spring) but these have been recorded with a dummy head mic, not mixed afterwards to sound spatial. This captures the positioning of the instruments and makes you feel like you’re sitting in the audience.
    watto_cobramacgui
  • Reply 16 of 82
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,065member
    igforbes said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple Classical; YAY!
    Must have an AppleMusic subscription; Well…
    I’ll hold off until I hear more about it. TBH I don’t want an AppleMusic subscription. If I did I would already have one. I mean if this IS a premium service, and the reviews are top notch, fine. I’ll go with it. But I would have preferred it to be stand alone even at the same price as AM.
    So you you’d pay the same amount for classical stand alone as it would cost for an Apple Music subscription. But you refuse to get Apple Music AND classical for the that same price. OK. Makes perfect sense. 
    Apple Music isn’t that good… at any price, the interface for Classical however looks more refined, less clutter. And if it was separate, I would pay for it.
    edited March 2023 d_2
  • Reply 17 of 82
    It says you need an internet connection, which I presume means that you can't download albums for offline listening (which you can on the regular Apple Music app). This renders it useless to me, since I don't have unlimited data. Also, why wouldn't you immediately release the service on all Apple platforms? 
    byronl
  • Reply 18 of 82
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,936member
    DAalseth said:
    igforbes said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple Classical; YAY!
    Must have an AppleMusic subscription; Well…
    I’ll hold off until I hear more about it. TBH I don’t want an AppleMusic subscription. If I did I would already have one. I mean if this IS a premium service, and the reviews are top notch, fine. I’ll go with it. But I would have preferred it to be stand alone even at the same price as AM.
    So you you’d pay the same amount for classical stand alone as it would cost for an Apple Music subscription. But you refuse to get Apple Music AND classical for the that same price. OK. Makes perfect sense. 
    I don’t want the clutter. The first thing I do when I get a device is go through and delete the stuff I don’t want. I like my systems as clean and spartan as possible. So now it’ll be two apps when I only want one. 
    But why would you say you’d rather pay the same price as AM and only get Classical, rather than pay the price and get…both? Because apps? Hard to follow 
    Spitbathmelgrossmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobrabyronllolliver
  • Reply 19 of 82
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,936member
    Should just be in a genre tab on Apple Music. 

    a lot of music catalogs on Apple Music. Just because this is a giant catalog doesn’t mean it needs its own app. 

    Biography info, etc would fit nearly as a link or accordion element. 

    More steps to do the same thing. Not good. 
    It’s not the number of tracks, it’s that the UX is different owing to some unique things about classical music. 
    applebynatureOferSpitbathtdknoxmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobrabyronllolliver
  • Reply 20 of 82
    chutzpahchutzpah Posts: 392member
    danox said:
    igforbes said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple Classical; YAY!
    Must have an AppleMusic subscription; Well…
    I’ll hold off until I hear more about it. TBH I don’t want an AppleMusic subscription. If I did I would already have one. I mean if this IS a premium service, and the reviews are top notch, fine. I’ll go with it. But I would have preferred it to be stand alone even at the same price as AM.
    So you you’d pay the same amount for classical stand alone as it would cost for an Apple Music subscription. But you refuse to get Apple Music AND classical for the that same price. OK. Makes perfect sense. 
    Apple Music isn’t that good… at any price, the interface for Classical however looks more refined, less clutter. And if it was separate, I would pay for it.
    So get the Classical app and delete the Music app?  The app is separate, its just the pricing that isn't.  So your complaint makes literally no sense, you're getting something you want at a price you like, and are moaning about having extras that you don't need to see or use.
    AppleZulugregoriusmretrogustomelgrossmuthuk_vanalingamRudeBoyRudywatto_cobrabyronllolliver
Sign In or Register to comment.