This was only an issue at Apex and Evo since they were officially sponsored by Nintendo and had actual legal contracts written up that said what music they could and couldn't stream. The details are unknown because yay NDAs, but my hypothesis is that they simply looked at the stage list and explicitly allowed them to stream their BGMs and only their BGMs, instead of saying "you cannot stream music tracks XYZ and all others are fair game". I doubt Nintendo or anyone else will care about music streaming issues for locals and regionals.
On a different note, I had an idea earlier today about what people like (and don't like) in a stage, and also a bit about the meaning of "jank". Basically, with a few exceptions, the current favored stages (Apex/Evo list + Dream Land/Miiverse) are pretty good about not forcing the player into unusual situations. And the ones that are hated (Lylat's tilting, Duck Hunt's dog, Castle Siege's transformations, Halberd's cannon, Delfino's ceiling shenanigans) all fall pretty squarely into "unusual". You can also see them coming if you're willing to split your attention between the fight and the stage for a few seconds, but still. Unusual.
Similarly, I think "jank" basically means "it does something weird". Lylat was jank when the ledge was unforgiving. Delfino is jank when you die to a ceiling kill at 30%. Castle Siege is jank when the transformation puts you offstage in your rapid jab animation or something. Duck Hunt is jank when the dog pops up under you or your opponent. Halberd is jank when the claw does claw things. Skyloft is jank when the island itself does damage. Wuhu was jank when the boat glitch existed. (Obligatory reminder that it was patched out ages ago.) For characters, Rosalina is jank when Luma can save her from...basically anything, or kill with sweetspot utilt at 0% with max rage or whatever.
Jank does not mean unpredictable, or random, or can't-be-accounted-for. It just means weird. I think that's why I hate the argument so much, since IMO half the point of Smash is the inherent weirdness in the game. But that's me.
This may or may not be anything new to some people. But I've been struggling with a way to properly verbalize these thoughts for a while and I wanted to get it down before I forgot.
...Duck Hunt is hated? News to me. Not that I'm disputing your statement, I'm just a bit shocked because I've only ever heard it being described as a fundamentally fair stage (except for Mac / Ganondorf / Doc / any character with non-existent recovery options, but let's ignore the gravitationally challenged).
Otherwise I absolutely agree with your thesis. "Jank" is a platitude. It doesn't explain how or why the offending ephemera is undesirable or "broken"; it just offers the suggestion that "this is different, I don't want to play different".
I can see where people are coming from when they say a stage is unfair in its design or expects too much of the player; there does come a time when you're fighting the stage more than the opponent (any stage with random, unpredictable or otherwise unavoidable hazards - debatably Gamer and Norfair (which I don't see an issue with, personally),
NOT Halberd), or when you need to engage the stage in some kind of physical test before you can engage the opponent (the walls in Luigi's Mansion, the platforms in Skyworld). In that kind of scenario, I can understand not wanting to go to a particular stage. The point of the game, after all, is to fight the opponent and not the stage's topography or hazards.
That said, I think a certain degree of "jank" (to purloin the popular parlance) is fine, and indeed, healthy. I know certain folk will advocate for a fundamentally neutral, safe paradigm of stage viability, and that's okay. For some, the stage should serve as a setting for the fight and nothing more, rather than a distinct entity that intervenes in the fight on behalf of one, more or neither party; we can infer that to be the rationale behind Sakurai's decision to make For Glory a series of Final Destination-esque stages, since that represents the most neutral stage possible whilst still creating a dynamic atmosphere that works within the context of Smash's basic principles (i.e. knock the other guy off and recover if you're knocked off, which a walkoff or similar stage without edges would invalidate). We add platforms and things to make it even more dynamic and to ensure a healthy variety of characters and strategies can involve themselves in the fight, without creating a (debatably) unnecessary risk to the fighters (except for cases such as the two side platforms in Town & City, platforms won't kill or put the fighter in danger, and even then you have to be in a very specific situation for it to happen). I get that. I'm happy with that, if that's what people want to do.
My reservation isn't with conservative stage choice, it's with the rationale behind it and
especially the choice of wording to justify it. I don't think Halberd or Delfino should be banned because "they're jank, end of". That isn't a valid refutation, that's a john. A valid refutation is, "I don't think Halberd should be valid because the low ceilings favour characters with strong vertical kill options and the stage hazards can intervene unfavourably in the fight." I don't agree with the statement, but I can respect the opposition's desire to justify the process behind their choice. Unfortunately, too often the semantics of the debate boil down to who can make the most noise and which opinion happens to prevail in a certain context. Choices should not be made based on hysterical reaction and refusal to educate oneself, which is why I find it sad and distressing that that tends to happen more often than not in this kind of debate.
