I am absolutely NOT in favour of this "extended" or "limited edition" album package with extra songs.
It's dumb. I bought Accelerate, but I bought the physical album. Now I feel ripped off, because I didn't get a 13 tracker. I wanted the physical rendition of the album as I do with all of the bands I love.
This allows the label to royally f*ck fans in the ass, as they can justify putting out multiple packages with nothing but shitty B-sides the fans might buy into just to make a couple extra dollars. It allows albums like Billy Corgan's Zeitgeist to be a monstrous atrocity....FOUR different albums at the time of release, each with a different "extra" track. I bought the Travelling Wilburys special collection, only to find about a month later there was ANOTHER edition with an additional 3 tracks!
You see now I have no choice but to fire up my P2P and "steal" these songs that, as far as I'm concerned, rightfully belong to me (for related info, see Lefsetz: major labels made music free). I paid for the album, I should get all the tracks officially released under that album's name.
*On a total side note aside from my mini-rant, on ACCELERATE, which is a phenomenal album btw....is perfect length at 11 tracks and 35 minutes.
My immense inherited vinyl collection has perhaps skewed me into thinking 10-11 tracks at less than 40 minutes is the optimal length for an album. In the last year or so I've been fortunate? Or maybe coincidence...that a bunch of my favourite bands albums have come under the 10-11 length category, World Container, In Rainbows, Reunion Tour and Accelerate. Thumbs up to all those bands for keeping it short and digestable.
You know, even though I pirate dozens of albums every week, I have no pretense that I'm entitled to any of it. I think this pretty much sums up my view on filesharing, even though I'm a complete hypocrite for not observing it.
"The first thing is to say that, any assumptions that file sharing is acceptable, without explicit permission from the artist, is completely wrong.
"The Brumailia songs were a present for those who visited the site everyday. It is not for those who didn't. It is not a gift for the world.
"Think about it, the Brumalia songs would still be on residents.com if we wished to have them shared. They should not be archived and shared.
"We plan to offer files on residents.com from time to time, but that does not mean they are intended for anyone who does not visit the site, and we will stop posting rarities if the feeling is that the offering is creating shared mp3s.
"Nothing from the Warner Bros Album has ever been released in any form, including mp3. Anyone who has anything from WB has gotten it illegally, period. No Residents files have ever been placed online as mp3s, except those for eMusic, some things for dot.com, and more recently at residents.com. Any other songs are illegal mp3s.
"The Residents have not granted any rights to copy and exchange their music, although they realize that people will still do it. It is important that no one believe that The Residents are giving their permission.
"The excuse that music artists and record companies are all rich pigs doesn't hold up with 90% of the music artists and record companies. It is like saying everyone who goes to college is rich. Most people struggle to afford college. The truth is that anyone who has the technical facilities for downloading music is a rich pig even if they do it at the library.
"The excuse that music should be free is a good one because it is true. Music, like food, should be free. But you still have to pay for convenience. You can't walk out of the supermarket with a box of cereal. You have to pay because you didn't grow the grain and process the food and add sugar you made yourself and all the other things that went into putting a box of cereal in a store. Same with music. Make your own and it is free. Get someone else to make it, buy equipment, hire studios and such … and you have to pay for that convenience. Believe me, it is cheaper to buy songs than it is to make songs."
Hardy Fox (The Cryptic Corporation), January 2004.
tragicallysteve Wrote:emperor penguin Wrote:screw_ball Wrote:So Hipeponymous was a cash grab?
yeah I think so..
How can you consider Hipeponymous a cash grab? Ofcourse the Hip made money off of it but they make money off of everything they do! That's the point. They don't tour for the fun of it and to leave their families for months. They tour to promote their music and their latest album and to make money. They released Hipeponymous to promote their career and to make money (and because of a contractual obligation, if memery serves me right). They'll release another album to make money.
It's not a cash grab. It's not selling-out. It's the music industry. It's their jobs.
I never said it was a bad thing, I still bought it and I understand why they did it, but greatest hits albums with 1 or 2 new songs is definitely a cash grab, if I wasn't such a big fan of the Hip I would never have bought it, thats why I didn't buy one of the 30 or so greatest hits albums the Who or the Stones have released.
tigerthelion Wrote:emperor penguin Wrote:NegPhil Wrote:Sorry to distract from all the bitch slapping.
I have been digging the new R.E.M. CD/DVD set. It occurred to me that they have offered two packages for the last four or five albums. Yet our beloved Tragically Hip have never offered anything other than a traditional CD.
In the digital age this decision is just stupid. It may be selfish but I want more and I'm willing to pay the extra ten bucks for it. I hope The Hip's marketing people or designers or whomever is in charge of this stuff get on the ball this time.
I understand your point, but in my opinion I think special edition cd's and cd's with extras are a waste of money.. to me they just seem like a cash grab that are rarely worth it. Especially when the "special edition" comes out months later like a few of Neil Young's latest cd's have.. the so called father of never selling out...
I don't know what selling out actually means. Feist is supposed to be the hot new alternative to mainstream music, the supposedly ultra talented woman who gives music consumers a choice other than big time music label regulars. A big reason for Feist making a name for herself was selling her song to Apple so I guess that must rule her out of the "non sellout" category.
But, if giving your fans what they want IS NOT selling out, like NegPhil alluded to, then Neil is no more of a sellout than The Hip. Fans have been clamouring for archived footage of Neil's for years and years and the vault has just recently been opened. Everyone wants to make money. Feist fans can call her an underdog and a true musician through and through but in the end, she's got to make a living, like everyone else.
I understand what you're saying. I mean, there are some extreme cases of so called sellouts. KISS comes to mind as a band that was more business than musical.
Hey I could care less if someone "sells out" I agree with you that its dumb to call someone down for "selling out" whatever that means. I was just alluding to a few of Neil's latest records that were re-released months later with extras tacked on.. thats definitely a cash grab.. It doesn't bother me, I can choose not to purchase it, and in reality it probably wasn't Neil's choice to do something like that, but he's always been so extremely adamant his whole career about never selling out..
Well, I'll semi-agree that it's a cash grab if they're re-released only months later with a bunch of extra stuff, but it's fair game of they're released at the same time. You have the choice and you're paying extra for extra material. I think the Accelerate deluxe package was worth it. I don't have it, but I've heard great things from it... It has a DVD (which costs more to press, including the slightly extra cost of the deluxe booklet and casing) and bonus tracks which cost money to record just in themselves.
emperor penguin Wrote:tragicallysteve Wrote:emperor penguin Wrote:screw_ball Wrote:So Hipeponymous was a cash grab?
yeah I think so..
How can you consider Hipeponymous a cash grab? Ofcourse the Hip made money off of it but they make money off of everything they do! That's the point. They don't tour for the fun of it and to leave their families for months. They tour to promote their music and their latest album and to make money. They released Hipeponymous to promote their career and to make money (and because of a contractual obligation, if memery serves me right). They'll release another album to make money.
It's not a cash grab. It's not selling-out. It's the music industry. It's their jobs.
I never said it was a bad thing, I still bought it and I understand why they did it, but greatest hits albums with 1 or 2 new songs is definitely a cash grab, if I wasn't such a big fan of the Hip I would never have bought it, thats why I didn't buy one of the 30 or so greatest hits albums the Who or the Stones have released.
I definitely hear what you're saying.
BTW, the only thing that I bought from the package was the "That Night in Toronto" DVD. I wasn't buying the whole package for two new songs and a few throwaway musical interludes. I got what I wanted- the concert from Toronto and it only cost me $9.99 plus taxes. :thumb:
Yeah, but with Hipeponymous you got all of the videos (this was before MAv pu them all up on Youtube) and Chris Mills' documentary, which I think is an essential viewing for anyone who likes the Hip. Oh, and you got The Right Whale.
Graham Wrote:I am absolutely NOT in favour of this "extended" or "limited edition" album package with extra songs.
The ABSOLUTE worst are iTunes pre-order-only bonus tracks. I don't want to buy an entire album in their shitty format, but in order to get that ONE song you have to take the whole thing. If they were simply bonus tracks you could buy individually I'd have no problem with it. Also, yeah, multiple special editions can blow me. QOTSA and Bloc Party had whole albums worth of b-sides with their latest releases. Instead of feeling like you're buying a special edition it just seems like each version is incomplete. It makes me LESS likely to buy the album, as I'd rather burn my own copy with all the bonus tracks on it.
I'll agree that iTunes sucks, but... Incomplete albums? When bonus tracks are offered, the reason why they're "bonus" tracks is because they aren't supposed to be part of an album. This isn't 1963. Albums aren't just collections of singles anymore. Most bands actually create albums as cohesive pieces of art and the outtakes or rejected tunes they offer are a PRIVILEGE to you, the fan willing to pay extra for them. Such a sense of entitlement you people have...
I don't feel entitled to these thing. I just feel they are owed to me because I'm special.
Whatever, See if I care.
screw_ball Wrote:This isn't 1963. Albums aren't just collections of singles anymore. Most bands actually create albums as cohesive pieces of art....
That died in about 1983.
Most bands today create albums as nine pounds of crapola filler wrapped around one good track.
You listen to the wrong music, then.
screw_ball Wrote:You listen to the wrong music, then.
You really are an arrogant prick.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:That died in about 1983.
Most bands today create albums as nine pounds of crapola filler wrapped around one good track.
With the advent of MTV, you reckon?
screw_ball Wrote:You listen to the wrong music, then.
Really? What do I listen to?
And how do my listening habits affect what "most bands" produce?