Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Mac News > Neil Young says he will pull music catalog from streaming services

Neil Young says he will pull music catalog from streaming services
Thread Tools
NewsPoster
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2015, 06:35 PM
 
Increasingly erratic Canadian rock legend Neil Young has announced that he is planning to remove his music from all streaming services, including Apple Music, Tidal, and Spotify due to "the worst sound quality available in the history of broadcasting," despite the fact that Apple Music and Spotify both stream at 256kbps AAC, and Tidal in a 1.4mbps lossless format. Young also appears to have forgotten about vinyl, AM/FM radio, cassette and 8-track.

In his statement on Facebook, he said that "streaming has ended for me, saying he hopes the move is "okay for my fans." While claiming that the move is just about sound quality and "not because of the money -- although my share (like all the other artists) was dramatically reduced by bad deals made without my consent," Young has no plans to stop selling downloadable songs from stores such as iTunes (where the music is compressed to 256kbps AAC) or Amazon (256kpbs average MP3) or Google Play (64-320kpbs MP3 depending on Internet connection). Indeed, as Young is a staunch advocate of "better than CD" audio quality that his player is said to be capable of, some may find it odd that he hasn't requested the removal of his catalog from CDs as well.

"I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution. I don't feel right allowing this to be sold to my fans. It's bad for my music," Young said. "For me, It's about making and distributing music people can really hear and feel. I stand for that. When the quality is back, I'll give it another look. Never say never."

The obvious double-standard of not appearing to mind that his music is sold, rather than streamed, in compressed formats has led critics to suggest that the move is a publicity stunt, designed to prop up Young's poorly-received Pono lossless-format music player. Numerous reviews of the $400 device have called it underpowered (battery life is said to be terrible, and its 64GB size is too small for a substantive lossless-format library), overpriced, and the lossless files it plays largely indistinguishable from well-encoded 256kbps AAC -- least without expensive, audiophile-grade headphones to go with it.

Neil Young album (right) available on Apple Music
Neil Young album (right) available on Apple Music


As of this writing, Young's music is still available on the three streaming services, and Google Play All Access, but is expected to be removed soon. Selected other artists have pulled their music from streaming services, either never selling them there in the first place (such as The Beatles), or in protest of the amount of money generated (Prince, initially Taylor Swift, and others).

The rate of compensation for streaming services has been a frequent bone of contention with artists, since the average earnings are far below that of direct physical CD or digital song file sales. While Apple Music offers the best current deal on streaming services, the average income made from streaming pales in comparison to downloads.
     
justme1212
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2015, 07:24 PM
 
Has Young pulled his music from FM radio too - that REALLY sounds bad.
It must burn Young's 1960"s "radical" butt that a pretty 25 year old blond chick, Taylor Swift has more influence in music and radio than Young ever had or has.
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2015, 08:27 PM
 
I'm not gonna dis Neil Young -- he was a tremendous influence on multiple generations, made many classic and groundbreaking songs, has earned his fame (unlike many) -- but he is not aging well, and this whole Pono thing is going down in flames. When Sony can make a product that outshines yours with no KS help ...
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
Deezy
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2015, 09:11 PM
 
""the worst sound quality available in the history of broadcasting," -- what a hypocrite! NY made his name and his money by launching on AM radio and (arguably) mediocre FM radio signals. AAhole.
     
spidouz
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2015, 09:25 PM
 
As a sound engineer, I think Neil Young just doesn't know anything he's talking about. Most of people couldn't even tell apart a good and well encoded 320kbps AAC song from a 24bits/44.1kHz version of it... including on good sound system. And I dare him to pass some real audio blind test to prove he can actually really hear the difference between a CD quality (16bits/44.1kHz) and a higher resolution such 24bits/96kHz... This is just ridiculous. It should also read some literature from Dan Lavry and Monty Montgomery. And then pass the Philips Golden Ears Challenge... There's absolutely NO need for higher resolution than CD quality for audio distribution and/or diffusion. Mr Neil Young, your stupid "hi-fi" audio player was just a bad idea that could have worked with some idiophiles, but not with us... So, please remove all your music from all streaming service. You're just irrelevant at this point. Bye now...
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2015, 09:53 PM
 
Charles was so much better with this than I was going to be.
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2015, 11:27 PM
 
This is a prime example of not knowing your audience.

Young is trying to exclusively cater (in a very forced fashion) to a very niche segment of the market... probably because he's already made quite a bit of money from his artistry. I doubt he'd be this selective and restrictive with how his music is distributed if he were still an up-and-coming artist.
     
iSkippy
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 12:31 AM
 
Good riddance.
     
sidewaysdesign
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 01:24 AM
 
I won't second-guess Neil's motives. That would be a fool's errand, given his seemingly capricious choices as an artist.

I will comment, however, on audio professionals commenting on this article who so casually dismiss Neil's concerns about digital audio quality.

There is indeed a factor in standard-resolution digital audio that my ears can hardly stand. I do not consider myself an audiophile, but there is a persistent harshness that my ears can pick up in digital recordings. So, the prime concern is not how a track "sounds" to me, it's whether it can be a pleasant experience or irritating as heck.

High-def audio (24bits and 48kHz or greater) is a big improvement, though not perfect, but has let me enjoy at least a slice of recent music. Thankfully, movies on DVD or BluRay are generally hi-def, and have been from the get-go.

Sure, some people pay big bucks to listen to every detail in a cymbal ride or hear reverb decay ad infinitum — or claim as much, to impress their friends with their pricey gear — but everyone's ears simply are not the same.

If you can't hear the difference, I say sincerely: take it as a blessing.

Also consider that for those in the same position as myself, there is practically nothing out there in the way of analogue media anymore. Forget the music — YouTube, Netflix, Internet radio...even the local news is all grating and therefore useless. That's a lot to miss out upon.

So, thank you, Neil, for continuing to raise this as an issue, even if it only means something to a limited number of people. Anything to raise the bar will be welcome.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 02:15 AM
 
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow .....
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 05:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by sidewaysdesign View Post
I won't second-guess Neil's motives. That would be a fool's errand, given his seemingly capricious choices as an artist.

I will comment, however, on audio professionals commenting on this article who so casually dismiss Neil's concerns about digital audio quality.

There is indeed a factor in standard-resolution digital audio that my ears can hardly stand. I do not consider myself an audiophile, but there is a persistent harshness that my ears can pick up in digital recordings. So, the prime concern is not how a track "sounds" to me, it's whether it can be a pleasant experience or irritating as heck.

High-def audio (24bits and 48kHz or greater) is a big improvement, though not perfect, but has let me enjoy at least a slice of recent music. Thankfully, movies on DVD or BluRay are generally hi-def, and have been from the get-go.
Literally the only difference between 16-bit and 24-bit audio is the noise floor. The difference may be audible, but if the difference you're hearing is "harshness", there are several possibilities:
1.) you are hearing limitations of your hardware, not inherent limitations of the data format.
2.) the material has been mastered with greater care for the higher resolution.

Particularly the difference between 44.1 and 48 kHz is irrelevant in every way. The only reason to work in 48 kHz is if you're working for video - it saves the trouble of transcoding.
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 05:42 AM
 
The trend of "brickwalling" music has done, in my not-entirely-amateur-opinion, far more harm to sound quality/music generally than anything else. I find it odd that Mr. Young doesn't seem to address that, or the various hypocrisies that he espouses.
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 07:56 AM
 
Isn't the Spotify default lower quality, and the higher quality versions have to be selected?
     
sidewaysdesign
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 09:24 AM
 
@Spheric Harlot

It's not the hardware — I have auditioned and owned several kinds and calibres of D/A converters, amps, headphones, etc. On my turntable setup, where even the most beat-up vinyl doesn't bother me much, a digital mix or recording is still noticeable. (Even much of the new vinyl these days is actually CD-quality digital, as the cutting heads are digitally controlled — and can't oscillate faster than 44.1 without some serious reengineering.)

Mixing and mastering is of course a large factor – there's certainly some carelessly handled hi-res junk out there – but it's not the whole story.

As for the 44.1 vs 48, keep in mind that 44.1 is supposedly the average limit of human hearing (though that particular frequency has an interesting back story). The bump to 48 therefore crosses the threshold with more certainty. That said, 96kHz is still more pleasant to these dog-ears, and 192kHz is yet more "relaxed". I dislike airy terms like that, but it's a fair description of how it feels when listening.

With 30+ years of experience with computers, a radio broadcaster for a father, a musician for a brother and a singer for a sister, I do have a reasonable understanding of audio recording and the processing thereof. Whatever the technical differences between formats or recordings — digital recordings contain some sort of artifact that analogue sources simply do not have.

Maybe PCM (or DSD) need to be rethought entirely. Perhaps recording different tonal ranges at different frequencies (along with parallel playback through a number of audio chips) would cancel out the effect. I really have no idea. But today, hi-res audio offers a significant improvement, and it's a good thing for everyone to raise the bar for audio.
     
spidouz
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by sidewaysdesign View Post
I will comment, however, on audio professionals commenting on this article who so casually dismiss Neil's concerns about digital audio quality.

There is indeed a factor in standard-resolution digital audio that my ears can hardly stand. I do not consider myself an audiophile, but there is a persistent harshness that my ears can pick up in digital recordings. So, the prime concern is not how a track "sounds" to me, it's whether it can be a pleasant experience or irritating as heck.

High-def audio (24bits and 48kHz or greater) is a big improvement, though not perfect, but has let me enjoy at least a slice of recent music. Thankfully, movies on DVD or BluRay are generally hi-def, and have been from the get-go.
Sorry to be rude, but you're fooling yourself with a lot of audiophile arguments... The harshness you're hearing is nothing related to digital recording or even of the eventual "poor" quality of it.

I have VERY good hearing (so good that it's actually my job) and I'm working on very good high-end top notch studio equipment, from A to Z. And I've been working in the Music Industry for almost 2 decades now, with a lot of famous Sound Engineers, Artists, Producers, etc... And so far, I haven't met a single person that could actually really hear and define any well recorded/encoded digital audio in CD quality (16bits/44.1kHz) over a higher resolution. Most of current music isn't even using more than 6 or 8 bits anyway... The whole reason to use 24bits/44.1kHz files is only related to the dynamics for all digital signal processing.

Now, if you don't believe me, just go read some well documented article about it here:
24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

And he even has a pretty simple video to explain the whole AD / DA conversion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

And of course, this article from one of the people that actually really understand audio quality:
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lav...ing-theory.pdf

Then, you can try to test your hearing by passing the Gold level on the Philips Golden Ears (I did):
https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html

And if you still don't believe it (I know, a lot of idiotphiles are hard to convince), just do some real double-blind ABX test with several files from different audio resolutions. And then, just find out by yourself that you might not even be able to distinguish a well encoded 320kbps AAC file from a 24bits/96kHz WAV file...

Neil Young player never got success because people couldn't even hear any difference. And now, he's just trying to get back with it again. But it won't work either, because Human beings don't have any better hearing. We're not dogs and we can't hear up to 50kHz or 60kHz...

And it's even funnier in the case of Neil Young, which is 69 and probably can't hear anything passed 12kHz due to presbyacusis. Most of people over 40 don't hear anything above 15kHz. I'm one of the lucky one that still hear up to 16.5kHz from the last test I passed last year.

So the whole 60kHz, 96kHz or even 192kHz is pure marketing argument that doesn't bring anything real for human beings. If only everyone (including Neil Young) would actually really understand how Human Hearing works, how Digital really works, this discussion would be perfectly irrelevant.

Please, before to comment any further, go read and watch the links I left and don't comment as long as you haven't understood perfectly everything from A to Z (or even tried and compared with your own test). Come with a real scientific method and nothing else.

PS: Oh, btw, the whole 48kHz has NOTHING to do about "better" audio quality over the 44.1kHz. It was done regarding video syncing...
( Last edited by spidouz; Jul 16, 2015 at 09:53 AM. )
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 10:37 AM
 
We were offered a Pono, but because of our editorial calendar, we didn't get to take advantage of the very limited time they offered us for loan. However:

Pono Player review: A tall, refreshing drink of snake oil | Ars Technica

Audio is very, very subjective. I see the technical numbers behind it, and I hear the testimonials from some, and I can't quite get my brain to understand both simultaneously. So, the debate rages on again, I guess.

Just remember, this is on the main news page. Keep it civil.
     
spidouz
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
Audio is very, very subjective. I see the technical numbers behind it, and I hear the testimonials from some, and I can't quite get my brain to understand both simultaneously. So, the debate rages on again, I guess.
Exactly, but for the people that actually understand it, and even work it all day long... to the people it's actually their day-job to get the best quality ever, that did enormous amount of tests to confirm or deny some arguments out there, yeah, it could be puzzling to keep reading some of the most uninformed argument, again and again, generally based on nothing but air (or "feelings"). I just love how people say: "I don't know but..." and keep claiming we should do "better". When actually I KNOW and I know we already have everything we need.

I got a lot of people coming in my studio with similar claims, that I just put in the chair to listen and test by themselves to prove me wrong that they actually really can hear what they're saying. So far, all of them just fail. I just can't wait to find the person that would prove me wrong. But in 2 decades of this endless debate about digital, it never happened once.

As mentioned above, I would be more concerned about the Loudness War that reduce all dynamics in current music to the point that even 6 or 8 bits would be enough to diffuse it. That is a way more concerning subject to be honest... but again, it won't help Mr Neil Young to sell you anything.

When I read that "44.1 kHz" is 'supposedly' the human hearing limit, it just makes my head hurt pretty bad. Most of people should know by now it's not... 20 to 22kHz is actually the human hearing limit. 44.1kHz is already the double of it (in regard of the Nyquist frequency).

Since most adult people can't even hear anything pass 15 or 16kHz, they could easily go along with only 32kHz with 14bits, like it was used in broadcast with NICAM during the 80's... but I guess Mr Neil Young never had anything to say back then regarding the "diffusion" of his music... Not even mentioning AM/FM radio, etc...

People want to capture and reproduce things they just can't hear. It would be like wanting to have video with higher PPI resolution that would be 2 times the "retina" resolution, and thinking: We need higher resolution to capture and display more pixels per inch... The only problem is that all normal human eyes won't be able to see all the "extra" pixels because of their sight limitation. This is where technology start to reach some limitations... the human limitations. And this is just what happens already for audio... we already reached this limit.

Once again, this is nothing more than a Marketing and Advertising claim, based on nothing scientific. And I will then quote Mr Dan Lavry conclusion about high-end audio:

The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Weather motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true.
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 12:39 PM
 
Tell Dan not to rely on spell-check. It's "Whether" not "Weather."

That said, I appreciate your insightful comments and experience, which correspond closely to my own experience in college and commercial radio.
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2015, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by sidewaysdesign View Post
@Spheric Harlot

As for the 44.1 vs 48, keep in mind that 44.1 is supposedly the average limit of human hearing (though that particular frequency has an interesting back story). The bump to 48 therefore crosses the threshold with more certainty. That said, 96kHz is still more pleasant to these dog-ears, and 192kHz is yet more "relaxed". I dislike airy terms like that, but it's a fair description of how it feels when listening.
Unless you're five years old, you're not hearing anything above 18 kHz (and more likely nothing above 14 khz), so the difference between 44.1 kHz (with a Nyquist of 22.05 kHz) and 48 kHz (with a Nyquist frequency of 24 kHz) is utterly irrelevant - unless you've got ancient and crappy D/A .

With 30+ years of experience with computers, a radio broadcaster for a father, a musician for a brother and a singer for a sister, I do have a reasonable understanding of audio recording and the processing thereof. Whatever the technical differences between formats or recordings — digital recordings contain some sort of artifact that analogue sources simply do not have.
With all due respect, if you're hearing the digital master, it's because somebody ****ed up, not because it's digital.

Digital handles completely differently from analogue audio, and as such, it is often rather "counter-intuitive" to people coming from an analogue age. When it was new, people had fifty years of experience with analogue magnetic recording and reproduction.

It took a while to get there with digital, and even in the early 2000’s, I saw engineers redlining their digital masters the way they would their analogue consoles, completely ruining them in the process (why they couldn't hear the clipping is utterly beyond me - it was immediately obvious to me the first time I heard the master of one album I did a few tracks on. Thankfully, I only played and didn't mix that thing - I'd hate to have any engineering credit on the album.)

This is not a problem inherent to digital audio; it's a problem of total clods screwing up stuff they don't understand.
     
sidewaysdesign
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 12:25 AM
 
@ spidouz & Spheric Harlot

I think my overall point is being missed here.

Looking past the range in quality of work put into digital recordings, the end result, at standard resolution, is consistently an unpleasant harshness. Sometimes more pronounced, sometimes more subtle. But it's *there*.

The effect is just not there with any fully analogue audio recordings (and analogue playback chain) I have listened to, whatever the other artifacts that analogue media have.

So, if it's some engineer ****ing up, they're all ****ing up, all the time.


The more likely answer is that it is an inherent drawback in the medium that affects a certain number of people.

Higher bit depths and sample rates to a large degree resolve the problem. I'm sure the average technical skillset is also improving as well. Win-win.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 07:37 AM
 
What source material are you hearing this harshness on, and where are you not?

I'd like to see if I can follow your argumentation on my Analogue and digital systems, and try to figure out what you're talking about, from an engineers' perspective.
     
sacrums1
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 04:56 PM
 
The dark age of music has been with us for a while. I remember I read that most people spends less than $36 a month on music. I think AM/FM, streaming and compressed files are for people not that into music. It is what is is now. People who used to listen to AM/FM went out to buy albums and listed to it at home. They used to sell millions and millions of albums. Now, people are happy with the low quality music and they don't want to spend money on it, that means, there are a lot of other things are more important to them than music. Music used to unite people, now it has become a background noise. And most people are ok with it, except NY.
     
sacrums1
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2015, 04:58 PM
 
The dark age of music has been with us for a while. I remember I read that most people spends less than $36 a month on music. I think AM/FM, streaming and compressed files are for people not that into music. It is what is is now. People who used to listen to AM/FM went out to buy albums and listed to it at home. They used to sell millions and millions of albums. Now, people are happy with the low quality music and they don't want to spend money on it, that means, there are a lot of other things are more important to them than music. Music used to unite people, now it has become a background noise. And most people are ok with it, except NY.
     
wireboy
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Princeton, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2015, 10:17 AM
 
With all due respect sidewaysdesign, you are using the same language that is always used by those trying to make a similar point and, in almost every such case, there is nothing to the claim.

It would be great of you could get into spidouz chair, and maybe bring Mr. Young along with you. I am pretty sure you would find that, just like every other human being on the planet, you would not be able to tell the difference in a blind test.

I really don't mean to be rude, everyone has the right to state their opinions, we could all just stop reading if we are too delicate to take the back and forth, and the exchange of ideas, even heatedly, is what makes life worth living IMHO. But this one has really been done to death over the years and the facts about human hearing are pretty much the facts.

I for one would love to see a documentary film wherein Neal Young does some blind A/B testing of audio signals. I would actually love it even more if he were to blow us all out of the water with his ability to hear the difference! We'll just never know until it happens.
     
wireboy
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Princeton, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2015, 10:23 AM
 
Also, I am not sure what is going on now but, as I understand it, Mr. Young has a pretty strong history of integrity and not bowing down before financial factors so, while the temptation may be there, I think it is slightly unfair to put this down to being nothing more than a play to push his Pono device.

The desire to push for optimal presentation of artistic work, even if somewhat misguided, is nothing but honorable.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,