It's a bit like earnestly discussing the lengths of various typewriter ribbons.
It's another reason I'd be happy to be rid of the virtually defunct CD medium and hope for the release of more scores as lossless or hi-res downloads.
Exactly. I still can't believe that major film score releases from new films are not released as lossless downloads, or even mainstream new releases. You still are left with a choice between mp3 and CD and occasionally 24 bit waste of space. Though smaller labels understandably can't put out digital I don't see what the problem is for the new stuff.
I believe that by dividing the music up that way, the byte total weighs less, therefore decreasing the amount of postage needed to mail both CDs. So they most likely did it for YOU -- to save you money!
Rip the damn thing in iTunes or whatever and play it like 21st century folks do!
Shouldn"t have to make that kind of compromise. It doesn't take much effort to split a program musically. It simply requires an artistic, rather than a business, mentality.
There's nothing defunct or outdated about feeling like you're actually giving music your attention by putting an album on a player. I like the convenience of double-clicking too, but not all the time.
It doesn't take much effort to split a program musically. It simply requires an artistic, rather than a business, mentality.
Exactly. If you are showing a theatrical film on commercial television, you can cut to a commercial every fifteen minutes like clockwork, but nobody will think that's a good idea. Or you can judge when there's a good break in the film (a pause in the momentum before the action ramps up again, say).
I still don't see what's odd about breaking across discs for musicality purposes, regardless of how lopsided that makes the running times.
There's nothing defunct or outdated about feeling like you're actually giving music your attention by putting an album on a player. I like the convenience of double-clicking too, but not all the time.
I can give music my attention without having to put an album on a player. I play out of the same quality set of speakers whether coming from my computer or popping a disc into the player. There is no difference in quality. Though I do typically prefer to not just sit and listen to music without doing anything else. It just doesn't work for me whether playing a CD or not.
Rip the damn thing in iTunes or whatever and play it like 21st century folks do!
Shouldn"t have to make that kind of compromise.
I don't think it is a compromise. You're still playing the same music and with the flow you prefer yourself. It's more like an improvement. Unless you like to get up to switch cd's of course.
It doesn't take much effort to split a program musically. It simply requires an artistic, rather than a business, mentality.
And that's what they did on The Red House where the OP is having thoughts about.
I can give music my attention without having to put an album on a player. I play out of the same quality set of speakers whether coming from my computer or popping a disc into the player. There is no difference in quality. Though I do typically prefer to not just sit and listen to music without doing anything else. It just doesn't work for me whether playing a CD or not.
I believe I can see why you disagree with me. Everyone has their way.
I still don't see what's odd about breaking across discs for musicality purposes, regardless of how lopsided that makes the running times.
The only "odd" thing is that I'm not very inclined to play a 25-minute disc. As I'd mentioned, I have the whole thing on a playlist, but I can hear this only on my lousy computer speakers. I doubt that I will play the short disc often on my good system, unless I burn an 80-minute CD that omits 5 minutes of the score. Or I may burn a disc that combines disc 2 with the "Half Moon" CD. That is just me.
Again, I recognize that artistic decisions went into the division, and that is fine. Still, I thought it is a reasonable question.
