Bugzilla – Bug 17941
Slacker: Unable to retrieve next track
Last modified: 2012-04-23 11:05:03 UTC
Error with Slacker. Started with 7.7.2 "Unable to retrieve next track, press PLAY to try again. (500 Please retry)"
*** This bug has been confirmed by popular vote. ***
Created attachment 7665 [details] Description of problems I've been having lately with Squeezebox & streaming I sometimes keep a little log when I have a technical problem with a device. The attached is my recent log of problems with streaming music (big problems with Slacker, to a lesser degree with Pandora) through my SqueezeBox Boom & Radio (both are showing the same problems). I also had a couple of issues with Rhapsody.
Identical message also received with direct connect of the Boom to mysqueezebox.com instead of through a local server. Slacker will play only 2-6 songs before stopping with the "Unable to retrieve next track - press PLAY to try again (500 please retry)" message.
Rolled back radio software version to earlier 7.51.. , still had same problem with Slacker - stops playing after a few minutes with "unable to retrieve ..." Pandora seems to be OK. (so far)
Another repeat of bug 11746? Is there a new server IP that needs to be whitelisted with Slacker?
I'm having this problem as well, at two different physical locations. One is a recently purchased Squeezebox Radio which only utilizes MySqueezebox.com (there is no SB Server software installation at this location), and at home on my 6 yr old Squeezebox which connects to Slacker and Pandora through my local Windows Squeezebox Server (not MySqueezebox.com). I occurs mostly on Slacker, but occasionally I have problems on Pandora as well, at BOTH locations. This has been happening for several weeks, and continues through today.
.. I should add: This is happening after almost every song played on Slacker. It is just not usable at all! Please fix it, as this is the only method we have of playing music at the one location.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 16692 ***
(In reply to comment #8) > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 16692 *** You're marking a confirmed bug with 9 votes to be a duplicate of an unconfirmed bug with two votes? Seriously?