Ask HN: Is there a cloud music library that doesn't keep deleting my music?

92 points by neya ↗ HN
Long store: I purchased a bunch of audio CDs and Apple Music (the Mac app) offered to rip it and save it into my iCloud library. I was very happy and saw to it that all the audio files were uploaded. I even saved it into a new playlist. I also have the paid Apple Music subscription which I pay for monthly.

In just an hour, iTunes Match (a feature of the paid Apple Music subscription) tried to match the songs and deleted almost all of them and just left 3 songs in my playlist. I tried it a couple of times and this was still the result.

Apparently some songs aren't licensed for my location/country and/or aren't available in the catalog of Apple music for my country and therefore they were all deleted except the ones that Apple already has in their catalog.

That got me thinking - Is there a reliable paid service where I could just upload MY music I legally purchased and they wouldn't be deleted just because of some stupid location based licensing or some other reason?

Spotify is no better as my songs in their library have disappeared a couple of times as well.

Thank you in advance.

126 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] thread
I had an album in my library mysteriously vanish from Google Play, a service I had used for years. So I switched to Apple Music. A few months later, the same album vanished as well as a single.

Possibly the final straw was when I wanted to purchase an album that existed in iTunes, but only in the iTunes "store" of another country.

Since then, I've just went back to maintaining my own library. I purchase lossless music from Bandcamp and Ototoy. I also rip CDs. I had been importing my files into VLC on iOS but recently switched to Sailfish and just copy my files onto an SD card. For streaming I setup my own instance of Koel.

Does it suck to maintain almost 200GB of audio files? Yes. Have I lost a single track since doing so? No.

> Does it suck to maintain almost 200GB of audio files? Yes.

In what way does is suck? I have about 1TB of audio files on local disks, which I manage with beets + mpd. No troubles at all.

Once they're there, they're there.

I don't know what ongoing maintenance there would be after the initial import.

Backups? Automate them. Integrity checks? Use a better file system.

It sucks having to maintain the drives, prevent the bit rot, restoring them from backup when the drive(s) fail, paying for, installing, maintaining the technology black hole that you fall down into trying to mitigate all of the above from happening in the first place.

Right now, for me, its an external SSD drive and I have a Blaze backup that, in theory, when it works, when it hasn't decided to not backup for a week, preserves it all up in the cloud for me, while my Time Machine manages my main system drive locally.

I dread the day I'll have to restore all of this when the inevitable disaster strikes, but I SHOULD be protected (knock on wood).

> It sucks having to maintain the drives, prevent the bit rot, restoring them from backup when the drive(s) fail

It fits on one drive, so you can do all that with a few minutes of effort once every two or three years. Or just when you change drives, even less often.

> paying for, installing, maintaining the technology black hole that you fall down into trying to mitigate all of the above from happening in the first place.

Is that more than having a backup? You'd better be doing that anyway.

You could go fancy and set up Z-RAID but if you're really inclined to do that you'd probably already have it set up for your main files and then dumping the music on top is near zero effort.

> In what way does is suck?

There is a non-zero amount of "care and feeding" that goes into it.

For example:

Moving them around and re-indexing. I recently copied my library onto an SD card for a new phone, which had a new media player, which then had to re-index them all. As I add new songs to the main dataset, I'll have to sync them over to the phone.

I also manage a Koel instance so I can stream the files from wherever I want. But I like the ability to have them offline as well. And Koel is great but, if I ever decide to move to another utility I'll probably lose playlists or have to convert them over.

Ripping CDs, then moving files over to the main dataset takes time, not a lot but it is a thing. Also I have no shortage of CDs with incorrect metadata in the CD databases or don't exist in the CD databases. Or often there are multiple matches and I have to find the right one.

Scanning the CD album art which I've done for some rarer albums in which I could not find artwork for online (or what I did find was blurry and over compressed)

Managing metadata: For example, I've some CDs that were ripped as "TALKING HEADS", others as "Talking Heads". It's a little more painful with Japanese character sets e.g. "Tatsuro Yamashita" vs "山下 達郎".

If I purchase albums from providers like BandCamp or Ototoy, I then need to make sure the metadata matches what I've decided to go with.

I use ZFS with redundancy, and take regular snapshots but I also make occasional backups to external drives but I could also use something like S3 as well.

This is really a hobby at this point, not a convenience. With a streaming provider you fork over a few bucks a month and listen to whatever they have in their library.

(comment deleted)
Have you taken a look at Syncthing? I use it to sync the desktop music directory (~300Gb) with the phone's microSD card. For external storage or cloud backups, I just use rsync. It's all pretty trivial once it's setup.
"Does it suck to maintain almost 200GB of audio files?"

Having a song silently removed from your "collection" after you discovered it on a streaming service and because it is streaming you only marked but don't remember the name is the most infuriating sucking thing ever.

Ever had a song you heard a long time ago and you never knew it's name then one day you find it? It's a gem, and then Google takes it away from you and you don't know the name and can't ever listen to it again. It's lost again...

I don't think any company would ever get into that space. RIAA (etc) will come after them for not verifying that each user has a license for everything song uploaded. The best the community could probably do is have a 1-click AWS instance that is already setup for running your own streaming server and then you just push your music up there. Could even have a lightweight open-source mobile apps to use the APIs of this server.
> I don't think any company would ever get into that space. RIAA (etc) will come after them for not verifying that each user has a license for everything song uploaded

Why should that matter? As long as you're not making songs uploaded by one user available for another user to listen to without them also uploading the same song, it's fair usage. You're allowed to store the bytes wherever you want, it's the (re)distribution that is illegal.

Read about the company Aereo. That should have been legal too under fair use. The argument will be that this fictional company isn't licensed to be a transmitter because they are transmitting unlicensed content.

YOU can store your bytes wherever YOU want. This would be someone else storing your bytes for you. You could get around it by using Dropbox or something but if you want a good streaming music system/app/experience, then you are locking into "knowing" that it is music, not just a user's files are a user's files.

The RIAA has a very different take on that and no music service wants to get involved in an expensive protracted legal battle against the RIAA which it is very unclear you would actually win.
This isn't an application of fair use. That doesn't allow you to make bulk copies of media with impunity. Lack of distribution only reduces the damages that can be claimed.

For audio this is covered under the format shifting permission provided by the AHRA.

Sometimes, you gotta do things yourself. My music library is a bunch of tagged files in a large music folder. I set up a Funkwhale[0] instance for myself, but I rarely use it. I mostly play transcoded files on my phone, tablet, or MP3 player (Sandisk Sansa with Rockbox).

[0] https://funkwhale.audio/

Funkwhale is a really nice project. OP asked for a reliable paid service, which most comments about just using S3 don't cover.

Luckily, unlike many open source projects, there are a couple of (niche) managed service providers for it:

- https://cloud68.co/instances/funkwhale

- https://weingaertner-it.de

Many of the providers of managed Plex services will also offer audio streaming apps, like Funkwhale, Subsonic, etc. You can hit any price point you want from $5/month and up, with much more storage than those two particular providers.
I've been using Plex for this purpose and it's been great. I self-host it on a NAS server, but I'm noticing a number of consumer products coming out with the server pre-installed (Namely the NVIDIA Shield).

If you're willing to pursue the self-hosted root, there are loads of options beyond just Plex:

https://jellyfin.org/ https://funkwhale.audio/

Plex with Plexamp might be right now the best music streaming setup for music you own. Works great, and does stuff like encoding to 128 kbps Opus if using a connection with limited data.

I'd like to add Roon and Roon ARC to the list. Some people seem to like it a lot, but they do not support FreeBSD for their server, meaning it's quite tricky to install to my NAS...

https://roonlabs.com/

Yup, Roon is great. They just a big 2.0 release that improved mobile streaming support.
I did this as soon as google music transitioned to youtube music and I saw how bad the experience is. Extremely easy to get up!
This used to be a really common service about 10-12 years ago. Amazon, Apple, etc, all offered 'digital lockers' where you could upload your songs and stream them.

These are no longer popular, so not many services are doing this anymore. It's such a wasteland that Wikipedia has a page for closed services [1]

A few small services like medialeap.com still exist, but it is anyone's guess how long they will stick around or how good they are. But I guess you could try that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_music_loc...

This doesn't appear to be mentioned in their Wikipedia history, but Spotify also started as a digital locker/music matching. You would install the client and point it to your iTunes library and it would build the online playlist from that.

4 years of Spotify pivots is missing from their[0] Wikipedia page (2006-2010). I signed up in 2007 and stopped using once I got annoyed with them removing songs from my playlist. They then pivoted to music streaming subscriptions, with the recording industry becoming a "partner".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify#History

Youtube Music (which replaced Google Play Music) allows you upload your own library of songs. The app UI makes it fairly difficult to find them and play them, but it does work. If you can tolerate the app's UI, that's one way to go.
Buy a PCloud subscription. Upload your music, mount over webdav or rclone and enjoy.
If you're willing to check out self-hosting, Navidrome is fast, slick, and under active development. It provides a Spotify-like experience from your local collection and is compatible with dozens of clients for different platforms.

https://github.com/navidrome/navidrome

I'll second navidrome -- moved to this after airsonic seemingly slowed down/stopped development.

I'm using DSub on my android phone to get a nice mobile player, which also sync's tracks locally to the phone if I wander into an area with low or no signal. Navidrome being compatible with the Subsonic API means there are several players on all platforms that can hook into it.

Is there an option to download to the local device, too?

I drive through areas with no service for a few hours per week.

If you use a *sonic app, you can cache locally, yes.
That's the price of convenience. Either you have your own storage (preferably on hardware you own, such as a home NAS) or you have the convenience. You won't have both. My nextcloud server hosts my music. It doesn't host anything that I didn't buy, but I'm pretty sure the music I once bought won't disappear...
i use google drive and use drive sync on my android to push updates
No. That's the risk you take with a cloud service. Even if they don't do it now, if they ever become popular enough they eventually will.
Youtube Music actually does have a option to upload up to 100,000 songs. This was one of the biggest selling points of Google Play Music and the feature was mostly carried over. The difference now is that uploaded files aren't automatically added to the library, they live in a different section. You can make a playlist that includes uploaded songs and songs on youtube music, but the song suggestion/radio feature does not combine them. But there are no limits to listening like you experienced with Apple music. Youtube music premium can be bought standalone or bundled with youtube premium.

The other alternative is self hosting, plex and plexamp are popular.

https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/thread/52908732/faq-...

The other concern here is that, as an Alphabet product, you need to try to guess when it's going to be canceled, which basically means having an alternative already on day one of use. And if you have an alternative, why use the product that's going to be canceled?
I would be very surprised if user uploads aren't shelved in YouTube music within the next 2-3 years.

It's purely a loss for them financially and is a giant thorn architecturally for YouTube's backends since it's very different rights- and lifecycle- wise than their other content.

They pretty much only brought it over from GPM because they were worried about the user outrage if they didn't, so as fewer people care about curating music files they will eventually decide pulling the plug is worth it.

(You have an Indian-sounding handle, so you might identify with this problem!)

I'd uploaded all of my offline library to Google Play Music, back when it was relatively easier to do so, and before it became YouTube Music.

Unfortunately the service seemed to do some sort of acoustic fingerprinting to make uploads more efficient, and I ended up with the wrong language versions of several of my film soundtrack songs! Loads of them got randomly converted from Tamil -> Telugu, Tamil -> Hindi, Hindi -> Telugu, Hindi -> Tamil, etc.

I did not have that experience with Google Play Music, but I have run into a different struggle with metadata. The new Youtube Music doesn't allow editing metadata online, you have to download the file, edit the tags, and then reupload.

My tags for Hindi songs were always in English. Because of the way Hindi songs are credited, searching by tags like artist was always annoying, but that's not a problem specific to google music. I did have times where Japanese track names got translated to English in the old Google Play Music, but I haven't experienced that with Youtube Music.

FYI this doesn't happen on YT music at all; the user uploads are completely segregated from the YT catalog for licensing reasons so your files are stored exactly the way you upload them.
I made the mistake if uploading all my mp3s from the 2000s to Google Music then deleted them locally to "save space". Missed the memo on Google Music getting sunset in 2020 (there were other things going on at the time) and rolled into Youtube Red Music Plus (or whatever) and they are now lost and gone forever.

Now I either buy music via Bandcamp and download the FLAC or replace the ones I lost via other methods and store them locally in Plex and play with Plexamp + Tailscale. That should avoid them getting googled again from any service.

I felt like the grace period to recover your files was okay and if you logged into Youtube Music, there was a way to transfer them for free. They kept the original file, no transcoding. The feature parity is not perfect between the old Google Play Music and the new Youtube Music, but I have not lost any files. Some of the metadata was incorrect, but nothing else.
I have songs purchased in 4 different mediums, sometimes more than once.

Pretty irritating, tbh. I haven't bought a license to listen to a song, I've bought a license to use destructible chunks of plastic or bits...

Even if not in YouTube Music, it's very likely still available in Google Takeout.
I ripped and uploaded my Tool CDs to Youtube Music before they got the license deal fixed, and it was a good experience. Even though Tool wasn't allowed in the streaming subscription, there was no issue me listening to it with my uploads. I also have a few other albums that aren't available on streaming that I uploaded, and those likewise work great.

I can also recommend Youtube Music for that.

I ended up uploading my music library to S3 compatible cloud storage (DigitalOcean Spaces) and creating[1] a minimalistic audio player that plays music straight from S3. S3 serves as a live audio library and as a backup at the same time. The web interface lets me listen the music from a desktop or a mobile web browser.

[1]: https://github.com/akrylysov/bsimp

can this be integrated with subsonic like servers?

https://github.com/navidrome/navidrome

https://github.com/sentriz/gonic

these have good app support so this could be nice

I'll take a look, thanks for the links! As for apps, playing from the web browser doesn't require additional apps and works surprisingly well. Bsimp is integrated with the Media Session API which lets you control the playback from the notification bar or the lock screen.
Why upload anywhere instead of buying one sdcard?
My iPhone doesn't have an SD card slot. It sounds like it would be a useful feature to have - perhaps they could add a headphone jack as well.
I've heard a lot of argument about the headphone jack. For my iPad, I bought an apple plug (i don't even know what they call it, is it a lighting port?) to 3.5mm phone jack. Can you explain what that solution doesn't work for everyone? The only thing I can think of is that you can't listen and charge at the same time.

Thanks!

Dongles are ugly, inconvenient, flimsy, and they use up the single port on the device. The apple dongle's cable in particular is so thin, I feel like it's about to break every time I use it.
When you have a USB A socket, dongle flash drives are a valid permanent solution.

On a phone's tiny port, storage will stick out very far, snag constantly, and something is probably going to break.

So external storage is just not viable if you're going to be plugging it in for more than a few minutes at a time. And buying more internal storage won't be reasonable until someone puts out a phone where it's "only" twice as expensive as high-end microsd cards. (Right now iPhone storage costs 8x as much, Pixel storage costs 8x as much and requires buying the top model for larger sizes, and Galaxy storage costs 6x as much and requires buying the top model for larger sizes.

Well, that’s one reason. Another is that sometimes my headphones run out of charge while I’m away from an electric socket and would like to keep listening - a 3.5 mm socket allows me to do that.
Its almost like you gave money to someone treating you like a walking talking MRR.
The alternative is to use a phone OS that has become so unbearable to me after 13 years of being a loyal user, that I decided to switch to iOS. So yeah, I gave them my money but am reluctantly satisfied with the trade-offs… for now.
The problem with this is that I don't want to maintain an iOS app. I've considered RSS feeds, etc. But at the end of the day holding onto a song you love that you paid for shouldn't be this hard.

For subscription services, I get it. I don't love it, I think the contracts they've all negotiated are stupid, but fine. I get that a bunch of lawyers leads to me not being able to play almost any of my music while I fly over the Pacific.

But the combination of locked-down-OS (something I'm actually for) and legaleses / constant access negotiations means the effort I would have to go through to legally pay for music and actually hold onto it for good and then play it from my phone is too hard.

Unless you add a layer of encryption S3 is unwise to, the files are still at a risk of eventually being identified as music and deleted without your consent.
What is the cost per month for running something like that?
It costs me $11/month. $6 for a small DO droplet instance[1] and $5 for DO spaces storage[2] which gets me 250GB of space. I use both the instance and the storage also for other purposes. E.g. I also host my personal blog and store backups there.

If you want to save a few dollars, you can get it close to $5/month if you go with cheaper S3 compatible storage from Backblaze[3] or Cloudflare[4] + the cheapest $2.5 instance from Vultr[5].

[1]: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/droplets

[2]: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/spaces-object-storage

[3]: https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/360037814594-B2...

[4]: https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/platform/pricing/

[5]: https://www.vultr.com/pricing

Get a Synology NAS with the DSAudio app. I stream music from my NAS wherever, super simple classic interface, and it caches songs too.
I toss everything on the NAS and interface via Swinsian [1]. Bought a license many years ago and haven't looked back. Closest thing to "old itunes" UI and rock solid, low-latency playback and browsing across a large library over the network.

[1] https://swinsian.com/

I saw Plex mentioned, but personally I like Subsonic better for music specifically: http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp

If you're already hosting Plex, what's one more Docker container running Subsonic? :)

Jellyfin is a good option too, the FinAmp app is a pretty good music player.
At least Navidrome (what I consider to be the most interesting Subsonic system) is kind of tricky to use with FreeBSD. I'm probably using my Plex until I convert my NAS to TrueNAS Scale (based on Linux), or get myself a small PC for Proxmox, which can then run it with less friction.
Google play music was this exactly. And it worked beautifully. But alas, someone at Google needed a promotion.
Amazon did the same thing to my music library almost a decade ago. Their app even deleted some of my locally stored music.

It's best to just store it all locally (and make it read-only).

The Pirate Bay (https://thepiratebay.org/index.html) is one of the best cloud music providers, they've been around for two decades and have never deleted anything. Depending on your genre preferences they might not have everything you want, in which case there are some other competing cloud providers[0] that specialize in specific genres:

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/wiki/megathread/music/

The Pirate Bay may never have deleted anything, but they also don't host any of the music. Just because a torrent exists doesn't mean anyone is seeding it.
You might as well say no, because that’s not a cloud provider. I’m not sure stealing is the right solution. Most artists struggle to make ends meet and have little control over their own music rights.
Album sales haven't been how musicians have made money for over a decade now.

It's cute that you care, but money is a lot better spent on merchandise from the band's store than on records if you're trying to financially support the artist.

So you’re entitled to music for free because you buy merchandise?
What deterred me from becoming a professional musician was this (paraphrased) quote:

“Your job is not to sell music. Your job is to sell merchandise, and your music is just advertising for your merchandise.”

If I were to rationalize it, I would say “stealing music” is essentially “stealing advertising”.

(By the way, I don’t think you should be downvoted so much. I believe in good-faith discussion, even if I disagree)

You know what, sure! If you feel better than me because you gave some record label execs money to listen to that music then by all means, feel better than me.

I'll buy a vinyl from the merch booth, maybe. But I have no reason to purchase digital content. And I certainly don't feel bad about entertainment piracy.

I play music. I don't care if people copy my music and share it. Every musician I personally know feels the same.

(comment deleted)
i'm entitled to music for free because it's asinine to threaten me with fines and arrest for redistributing information (it's called sharing and where i'm from they teach it in kindergarten)
If you use a cloud service, then playing ""your"" music from it is going to incur license fees. Or get deleted if they don't want to take your money in that country.

If you want a cloud service that keeps your CDs and doesn't fiddle with them it'll have to be an encrypted S3 bucket.

(comment deleted)
Copyright infringement isn't stealing.

My perspective on this was formed when I sold a chemistry program I wrote on a TI-85 to another student in 1997. It felt ridiculous to charge a lot for something I still had after selling it so I charged $1. Inadvertently beating Apple to the $1 mobile app market by 8 years, but I digress...

> It felt ridiculous to charge a lot for something I still had after selling

Access to a physical item isn't the only reason we need something like copy right.

We also need it to successfully amortize the creation cost of things across many buyers, else you'd have to sell copy for the full creation cost else it'd become a first mover disadvantage.

Soulseek beats TPB in terms of variety and has been around for far longer
Its not your music.
There's a setting along the lines of "don't delete". People were burned by this, it boggles my mind that it's not the default...