Skip to main content

To Primephonic or not to Primephonic...

To Primephonic or not to Primephonic... that is the question.

Like many others, while generally impressed with Spotify, I have struggled with some aspects of it when it comes to playing 'classical'* music. Spotify is totally oriented to songs, where much classical music is in the form of a piece consisting of several parts or movements, which are usually provided as separate tracks.

Similarly, in classical music, the composer is a key part of the information - more so than the performer - where in Spotify's songs it's very much performer to the fore. In fact, some of these issues aren't even limited to traditional classical music - I am very much a child of prog rock, and prog rock albums are made to be played as albums, not individual tracks.

I was, therefore, really please when a Facebook query by Emma Darwin brought to my attention Primephonic - a streaming service specifically oriented to classical music. I've had a two month free trial and I'm very impressed.

The dreaded Shuffle Play button
Primephonic has an impressive classical database and is very much organised around pieces, composers and albums, rather than tracks. It has a good discovery section with new albums, recommendations 'from the archive' and reasonable curated playlists for discovery in various genres. The music sounds great and if you, say, suddenly get the urge to listen to any specific classical piece, it's less fiddly than doing so with Spotify. Perhaps best of all, where Spotify on the phone only has a 'Shuffle Play' button, the Primephonic app has a straight Play button, so you don't suddenly find movement two coming after movement four.

Audiophiles can also pay a bit more for really high spec streaming - but I'm a bit of philistine in this respect, as I never play music on any equipment good enough to really care.

The Primephonic pricing is comparable with Spotify. So for a while, I genuinely thought that I might stay with Primephonic. But actually, at the end of my trial, I'm switching back to Spotify. Here's why.

Firstly, I don't just listen to 'classical' music - it's probably 50:50 depending on mood. Primephonic only delivers the classical side, so I'd probably need both if I were to stick with it, which stretches the budget.

The more civilised Mac app
Secondly, I can get round Spotify's issues. More often than not I play music from the computer, rather than a phone - and on the computer, there is a nice fat 'Play' button, rather than 'Shuffle Play.' (Note to Spotify - please give the option of having this on the phone for a paid account!) But even on the phone you can play an album without shuffling - just ignore the main Shuffle Play button, start the first track directly and make sure the little 'shuffle' icon at the bottom is off.

Finally, Primephonic is itself not without issues. I got occasional drop outs of the streaming, which was irritating. I've never had this on Spotify (and it's not down to my broadband, which is plenty fast enough). Most importantly, though, there is no native player for my computer, so I have to use Primephonic from the website. This means I'm constantly accidentally closing the browser while it's running and having to run it again (unlike the native Spotify app, which keeps playing when I click the 'Shut' button). Worse, Primephonic doesn't remember where I was up to, so I have to start again from the beginning. Oh, and the keyboard play/volume controls don't work with it like they do with Spotify. Nor can I route it directly through my Echo devices (though I can through AirPlay/Bluetooth).

So. If you are a dedicated 'classical' listener and tend to use your phone more than your computer, I'd very highly recommend Primephonic. But if you're mix and match like me, it's probably best to stick with Spotify.

* 'Classical' is in quotes above because, strictly speaking I like very little classical music - I much prefer pre- or post-classical. But for better or worse there isn't a good generic term for 'serious' or 'non-popular' music.


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Best writing advice

I saw on Twitter the other day (via someone I know answering it), the question 'What's the best writing advice you would give to someone who wants to become a writer?' My knee-jerk response was 'Don't do it, because you aren't one.' What I mean by this is that - at least in my personal experience - you don't become a writer. Either you are one, or you aren't. There's plenty of advice to be had on how to become a better writer, or how to become a published writer... but certainly my case I always was one - certainly as soon as I started reading books.  While I was at school, I made comics. I wrote stories.  My first novel was written in my teens (thankfully now lost). I had a first career that wasn't about being a writer, but I still wrote in my spare time, sending articles off to magazines and writing a handful of novels. And eventually writing took over entirely. If you are a writer, you can't help yourself. You just do it. I'm writ