Last month, I tried a trial subscription for AudioGalaxy's Rhapsody service when I got a promo email. I used to like AudioGalaxy, so why not?
With this service — apparently Listen.com's Rhapsody with different branding — subscribers pay $9.95 per month for access to about 18,000 albums by something like 8,000 artists. Musicians and songwriters get paid for each listen.
I will not be continuing the subscription. Here's why.
When I first signed on, I quickly found a CD I wanted to hear. It took me a few moments of searching for the "download" button before I realized there is none. This is a streaming audio service only. So ... there is no way for me to listen to the music on my stereo, in my car, or on a portable player. In short, it's a $10 per month jukebox ... chained to my computer. And I'm just not going to pay for a jukebox unless it comes with the saloon.
The experiment almost ended there, but I quickly found myself wondering, late at night and in the shower, whether Rhapsody had other CDs I've been meaning to try. I started looking forward to getting to work to find out. Thinking maybe I'd been too dismissive, I decided to continue the experiment. (Footnote: when I went back to write this review, I learned that it is possible to buy a subscription that allows you to download 10 tracks a month, at least on the Listen.com version. That's an insult.)
I soon ran into two other problems. First, the software has glitches. Specifically, the buffering system sucks, so songs were continually interrupted while the network caught up. This glitch ruins the experience, and would be reason enough not to subscribe. But presumably it can be fixed.
The second problem is more fundamental. Like all online services I've tried, Rhapsody has some glaring gaps in selection. Most critically, it does not have most of the new releases I looked for. Especially for a service that is listen-only, that's a real downer. If I could be persuaded to pay $10 a month to dial up CD's on demand, it would have to be for new releases.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Paul
Good article.
And it raises the question: How can the labels continue to get away with calling streamed and downloaded music "CD Quality" when by all measures (subjective and objective) it isn't? Is anyone lobbying to kill this lie?
Bad quality is one of the main issues that keeps me from enjoying downloaded music (legal or otherwise). To my ears 320k mp3s sound very good, but you never see them.
Paul