 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LMAO!!
I'm also a "no CD, no sale" guy, but it's nice to see another label in the game. Best of luck, CineSonic, and I look forward to your future CD releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we have a good and timely opportunity to see how people spend their money. In the same week, Intrada has just released Shire's The Journey Inside on CD, and CineSonic has given us an mp3 download-only of Shire's Women of Brewster Place. Both somewhat obscure titles by the same composer.
It'll be no surprise to me if the Intrada sells faster than the CineSonic.
But I'd suggest something else – I'd venture that if the Intrada CD was Women of Brewster Place, and the CineSonic mp3 was The Journey Inside, it would STILL be the Intrada that sold faster.
Once again Gary Wright offers opinions without any facts backing them up whatsoever.
As someone else has pointed out, Mr. Wright has NO access to either INTRDA's or CineSonic's sales database, so he has no facts to base said opinion on other then what he is pulling from his uninformed ass.
No big Surprise here.
Folks, As much as the luddites and other fools don't wish to accept, putting some titles out on CD just doesn't make business sense when it comes down to "Cost Vs. Return".
Some titles (Even from INTRADA) don't sell more then 300 or 400 units or even less (That's based on my own experience and what other labels have also seen in sales terms).
So sometimes a digital release just makes more sense and is more cost effective.
Now If CineSonic wants to release it in some lossless format, I'm all for it, but give that we are talking about a nearly 28 year old TV Movie Score that most of the folks here have NEVER SEEN, having it available on ITUNES and such is not a bad thing at all.
If you don't wish to buy it as a digital release, your loss, the current version is more then listenable (Sounds pretty good to my ears) and I hope it does sell, because if it does, they'll do more releases that might get a LOSSLESS release or even a 16/44.1 CD release.
Also I would suggest to them to consider also making it available as a AMAZON Disc On Demand as well, that way you'll get your 16bit 44.1 recording, yes it's on a CD-R, but AMAZON does a pretty good job on those as well.
BTW, has anyone taken the time to download the damned thing and have any comment on THE MUSIC? Is't that the important thing about this entire release?
THE MUSIC?
Also here is the BOTTOMLINE: You have two choices, Do a Digital Release or NOTHING.
You don't get a third choice.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 23, 2015 - 1:54 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Hurdy Gurdy
(Member)
|
Let's discuss the elephant in the room, shall we.
A CD is a physical sale for collectors and part of the tradition.
A download is a floating sale of something from the 'ether'.
Like it or not, all these downloads are 'made available' somewhere and the collector can get the music to listen to without paying for it.
It's the (rather dodgy) equivalent of CineSonic (or Intrada) placing a stack of CD's in a room and saying 'help yourself'.
We all KNOW it's illegal, but in some cases, fans sometimes can't even buy the downloads if they wanted to!!
If Story Of A Woman or a complete Tom Sawyer was made available as a download in America only, I would get a copy of that by hook or by crook. There would be NO PAY OPTION, just a copy of a copy with exact same sound.
The line is blurred for many collectors with this download sh!t.
It is all about the music, I agree, but a collector is still listening to a download, just without paying, whereas they would happily pay for a CD to have and to hold while they listen.
Ford's on-demand CD proposal seems to be the best alternative to this situation.
I am quite happy with my copies of Tourist Trap, Last Airbender, Salt etc, which I paid for more than willingly.
I know kids who aren't even aware that people actually pay for music in this day and age!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's discuss the elephant in the room, shall we.
Oh by all means, it just might not be the same "Elephant" you think it is....
A CD is a physical sale for collectors and part of the tradition.
'Traditions" change, that's a fact of life.
A download is a floating sale of something from the 'ether'.
Like this message board and just about everything else on the internet?
everything isn't of any value unless it's on disc?
Is that what your saying?
Like it or not, all these downloads are 'made available' somewhere and the collector can get the music to listen to without paying for it.
It's the (rather dodgy) equivalent of CineSonic (or Intrada) placing a stack of CD's in a room and saying 'help yourself'.
I think that says vastly more about the folks who download from those sites knowing they are ILLEGAL and don't care.
It says NOTHING about how the original label released it...
Unless you are ok with this?
Are you?
We all KNOW it's illegal, but in some cases, fans sometimes can't even buy the downloads if they wanted to!!
So in your world it's OK to do this
Would that be correct?
If Story Of A Woman or a complete Tom Sawyer was made available as a download in America only, I would get a copy of that by hook or by crook. There would be NO PAY OPTION, just a copy of a copy with exact same sound.
So it would be OK to download from the site that is stealing from the folks who took the time to clear the rights, assemble and create the master just because they don't have the right outside of say the USA?
Is that what you are saying?
The line is blurred for many collectors with this download sh!t.
No, it just means that some folks want what they want and too hell with anyone else.
That about sums it up now doesn't it?
Should I give you a bit of Cheese with your WHINE?
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been listening to some of this on Spotify, and I'm enjoying it more than I expected. Gospel-inspired music isn't usually my cup of tea, and I never saw the mini series. But I found the main title to be extremely strong, with a wordless vocal driving the piece, it convinced me.
And to add a couple of thoughts to the digital-only debate. The big, maybe unsolvable problem is that by NOT purchasing the digital copy, the folks who want this music in another form are actually not providing any incentive for a company to produce a CD.
If a company already feels that a CD isn't viable (and since I think most of these folks love CDs, I'm guessing this is always a hard decision) and then in a forum like this they see a couple of people wanting one but others satisfied with digital, they are seeing that they may miss a couple of sales, but mostly they are getting confirmation of the existing reality.
For a business that only exists to sell the product it offers, not buying their product is not an incentive for the company to produce something else. Because they may not make enough on what they are offering in the first place.
And that's not going to make this suddenly available on CD.
I don't question anyone's right to insist on a CD. But this isn't likely to come out on CD, so I don't know what people who condemn digital think they are accomplishing beyond fomenting ill will. (Requesting a lossless option is another thing entirely, that makes sense, though again I wonder what underlies the decision not to make that available.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Siriusjr, good question on mp3 vs. Spotify.
For myself, if I listen to something on Spotify and enjoy it enough, I will buy it digitally because I want it in my collection free of the internet (and sometimes I'm also motivated by wanting to support whoever put it out). And I do sometimes use Spotify to listen to something in lower audio quality that I will then buy as a CD because I want the higher quality. (Not all lossy files are alike - some sound indistinguishable to me from CDs, and some are woeful - especially many featuring string solos or ensembles.)
If the quality is adequate for my ears (and I'm no audiophile), then I'm satisfied with digital, and increasingly I may just listen through my paid subscription on Spotify vs. buying the item. But this is also because I already own more than 10,000 CDs and I'm awfully tired of adding more to the pile, which is itself a pain. And since I use my various mp3 devices at 256k, I don't worry much about lossless if the tracks sound good enough digitally.
It comes to this for me - I'm a collector for the content, but not so much for the pride of collecting or of having physical objects or top quality audio. Which is another reason digital is good for me - because I can collect more content more cheaply, without adding too much more heft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing this discussion is just a cunning way to keep this thread uppermost on the list so nobody misses the release of the SECOND David Shire score in a week!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But as said above, the simple fact that people accept quality that's worse than that of 30 years ago is pretty silly.
Only if that level of quality is important to the individual consumer. Download success demonstrates that many people don't need higher quality - however much of a bummer it is for people who do.
I used to dub my CDs onto cassettes to combine short albums and carry a lot more music with me wherever I went, with nary a worry about audio quality.
Takes all kinds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
