"Actually, there will indeed be a physical CD, for the benefit of people who can't (or won't) use the iTMS; the CD just won't be distributed at retail in the US. "
Ouch, glad Slashdot doesn't use the word 'fact' anywhere.;)
You can now get the CD version directly from Varèse Sarabande at their site. The "iTMS-exclusive" means it won't be sold at retail in the US, or through online resellers like Amazon, CDNow or whatever, but those unable or unwilling to use the iTMS can still get a conventional CD directly from the label. It's more expensive, of course, but if the difference is worth it to you to specifically seek this version over the other, presumably it's worth paying more as well.
Mm. Well, you're certainly not alone in your concerns; the messageboards over at Film Score Monthly have had considerable debate on the topic. If you're interested in seeing it, here and here are a couple threads with people debating it; I'm in there, myself, on the side of those who think it's a cool idea.
It was in the older thread that I first heard about the iTMS distribution; through one of the other posters, I eventually got in touch with the Fox Music record producer who gave me the info that let me write the article for our site (woohoo, I scooped MacCentral, CNet and the Chicago Sun Times - I'm so obnoxiously pleased with myself...:))
I gather you're interested in getting this soundtrack, as I am; are you into scores?
Ouch, glad Slashdot doesn't use the word 'fact' anywhere.;)
Heheh. Well, they (the other news reports and even Apple itself) are calling it an iTMS "exclusive"; I guess not having the CD be sold at retail in the US is considered close enough to the same thing. I'm not sure when it will be released; I've seen some indication it will actually be through a sublabel/sister label of Varèse's sometime in August, at least for the overseas release; I'm not sure if that applies to the website-only CD for the US as well.
That's why I was annoyed. iTunes isn't mature enough for that. Granted, it's been successful, iTunes still isn't available for Windows. So the market's not just internet users, but Mac users? (Maybe I'm, missing a factor here?)
I don't know if there's something else to think about. There is a Windows version of iTunes in the works, of course, to be released sometime later this year, so presumably the worst-case scenario for people who want this is they'll either have to wait for some indeterminate time between a week and six months to get it from the Windows iTMS, or they'll have to order the CD directly from the label at their site (or getting an import might be another possibility; not sure about that one).
In the mean time, if that CD is hard to get, what happens when people wanting the sound-track go to Kazaa and get it from there for lack of a better way (iTunes) to get it? I'm worried that this situation will create data that'll stall the release of albums like this down the road.
Hmm... perhaps that's why the CD's getting released after the iTMS file? I wonder...
You know, I'd do a complete 180 if Windows users could get to this too. I'd think it was wonderful. I feel very strongly that the net distribution method could really work to everybody's satisfaction. I just don't want them jumping the gun at this crucial time and making drastic conclusions. Know what I mean?
Ah. From this, it sounds a bit like you don't know there's a Windows version in the works. Were you aware of this? If not, well...: there's a Windows version in the works. It's supposed to be released sometime "this year."
There's a whole body of regulation involving what are known as "re-use" fees, where royalty fees covering "re-use" of the music (the original use being in the film for which it was recorded) apply to most soundtracks covered by union orchestras. These fees, along with complicated legal things I don't have time to go into (I'd need to make a huge post), effectively prevent a lot of soundtrack albums from getting released altogether, and prevent a lot of others from being longer than they are (there are quite a few soundtrack albums from films for which the entire score would fit on a 70-minute CD, say, but because of regulations involving fees paid to the musicians, the soundtracks sometimes include only 30 or 40 minutes of music).
The situation has been improving in recent years with new rules for re-use being adopted by the unions and industry, but things are still a long way from a point where they can easily just release any music that was recorded for a movie, unfortunately.
With regards to this particular soundtrack, though, the London Symphony Orchestra happens to be a nonunion one (as are most outside of the US, apparently), and the re-use issues that bedevil many US-recorded scores apparently aren't a problem. Of course, there's always something else...
I've mentioned this in a few other posts now, but...
The soundtrack will be available on CD directly from the website of record label Varèse Sarabande for the benefit of those unable or unwilling to get it from the iTMS. The "exclusive" thing actually just means the CD won't be sold at retail stores or at any other online vendors besides Apple and the label.
If you don't live in the States, you'll be able to buy a physical CD through all the usual channels. The "iTunes Music Store exclusive" is only in the US, and even here there'll still be a physical CD for people unable or unwilling to use the iTMS; the difference is really that it just won't be sold at retail. The only way to get the CD in the US will be to order it directly from the label, Varèse Sarabande, at their site (it's not there yet, though, although the soundtrack's been on the iTMS since July 1).
From what I've heard, I think it was actually Fox Music that got the ball rolling on this, not Apple. Fox wanted to do this as an experiment to test the viability of the strategy; that's why it's a niche-appeal album, an orchestral film score, instead of a mass-appeal thing like some pop release - they're not risking "losing" huge sales anyway, so they stand to gain more with the market research it provides.
I'm sure Apple would dearly love to be able to exclusively offer an entire album by a major mainstream artist who sells in the millions, but the labels aren't ready for that yet.
Actually, there will indeed be a physical CD, for the benefit of people who can't (or won't) use the iTMS; the CD just won't be distributed at retail in the US.
In the US it'll be available only through the record label's site; outside the US it'll be sold in all the usual ways. Presumably CD stores in the US that carry imports will also get a few copies that way, so it actually should be quite possible for non-iTunes users to get it (and of course, once the Windows version is released, most people will be able to get it that way, too).
As for whether it's a smart move or not, the point is actually to determine just that. This release is an experiment by Fox Music to determine the viability of releasing something this way. Since orchestral film scores have a highly limited audience anyway (I like to think of them as real alternative music;) ), they're not risking as much in the way of "lost sales" (ahem) as they would if, say, the latest Madonna album or whatever were an iTMS-only release. While naturally Fox would like the money from sales, it's willing to risk the hit to what would surely be modest sales anyway in order to get the information about how it does, which is far more valuable to them in the long run.
I actually wrote about this for our gaming clan's website more than a week ago, a couple days before the soundtrack actually showed up at the iTMS (it was released there a week ago as of this posting). My "informed sources" included a record producer at Fox Music, who indicated to me that people above him at FM had decided on this release strategy as an experiment.
I think "audiophile" is just an elitest term. No one I've talked to can REALLY hear a difference between a CD and a 128 kbs MP3 (though I'm sure someone will jump my ass for making the claim).
Well, since you all but invited it, I guess I'll go ahead...;)
I can easily hear the difference between CDs and 128 kbps MP3s. In fact, when I first started ripping CDs to MP3, I went with 192 kbps, and that still wasn't satisfactory to me, though I'd honestly expected it would be, based on what I'd read other people were happy with; I had to move up to rates upwards of 250 kbps (vbr) before I was really content with how things sounded. It was a big enough deal to me that I put up with the hassle of reripping a bunch of albums I'd already ripped so I could have them at the higher bitrate. I'm not making any special claims for my hearing, either - I was born with perforated eardrums and had somewhat substandard hearing as a child, and while I eventually had tympanoplasty surgery in both ears (where a bit of tissue is grafted over the eardrum to close the hole), bringing my hearing to "within normal range," I definitely don't pretend to have unusually sensitive hearing. I just really think - correction; I know - 128 kbps MP3s are significantly inferior to CDs.
Now I'm ripping to 160 kbps AAC, which to me (at least on my semi-cheap speakers) sound more comparable to my ~256 kbps vbr MP3s (not to mention the CD originals), and I'm happy with that (or at least, I imagine I will be, once I get some better speakers...).
You could encrypt the root filesystem, then on boot authenticate the machine (to make sure someone didn't just clone the startup to harvest your decryption key) and then enter the decryption key based on a one time response from the computer. That level of paranoia would justify caring about this "exploit." Even so someone could just install a sniffer inside the computer since our hardware is not hardened in the least.
Maybe you could, like, lock the door to the room with the Mac in it...
At the moment I'm reading this, both are modded Funny. The moderations fluctuate quite a bit sometimes before settling down on something that's (hopefully) fair. Different moderators do have different opinions.
More or less right. The way the restriction works is, to use the iTMS, you have to have a credit card with a billing address in the US. That's it. You can still take your music with you wherever you go (on your Mac, in your iPod, on CDs you've burnt, whatever); there aren't any kind of geographic restrictions on usage.
Presumably, if Europeans (or anyone else outside the US) can get credit cards with billing addresses in the US, they should be able to use the iTMS as well. It's not tied to one's ISP at all; it's just about the card you pay for the tunes with. If you pay with a US credit card, that apparently qualifies you as a US consumer, and satisfies the music labels's licensing stipulations that the music be sold in the US.
A couple decades ago Lucas said he wanted to make it nine parts, with the last three films presumably about Luke training a new generation of Jedi, Han and Leia's kids, the rebuilding of the Republic, etc. (all of which has since been related in various novels, incidentally). However, it was also thought there would be a new movie every three years, so that after Episode VI: Return of the Jedi in 1983, we'd have gotten Episode I in 1986, Episode II in 1989, etc., on up to Episode IX in 2001. Somewhere along the way George Lucas realized he didn't want to spend his whole life constantly making Star Wars, and he took a break after Jedi and worked on other projects (while also rearing his kids). He's long since decided he'll just do the first three and then let the films stand at six episodes, apparently; he's said repeatedly in recent years he has no intention to go back and do VII, VIII and IX. He apparently wants to go back and do smaller, more experimental, less commercial sorts of films, and I for one hope he does; I'd be really interested in seeing those.
You took the initiative in creating an incredibly stupid excuse for an incredibly stupid claim.
Except that some of the people who have a legitimate claim to having helped to invent the Internet publicly came out and supported what Gore said. Al's claim might have been a bit self-aggrandizing (from a politician?!?! noooooo...), but no matter how you try to spin it, what he said was a fair statement in and of itself. It's only once it got twisted by certain Republicans and their media lackeys into something it emphatically wasn't meant to mean that it became complete balderdash (and it wasn't Gore who was lying).
Oh, just so you know, since you're obviously thinking to yourself that I'm just another Democrat apologist who'll defend anything said or done by any Dem, you should know I'm not a Democrat and I've never voted for Gore or Clinton. I simply object to lies, like the one about Al Gore having claimed to have invented the Internet.
There may well be aspects of MacOS X that Apple copied from the Windows GUI. Gods know, it certainly went the other way. But if he substantiated his case, then he's still not a troll.
FWIW, while demoing Panther in his keynote yesterday, Jobs specifically noted Windows XP had beaten Apple to one of its features, fast user switching. He did qualify this by saying "it's the only feature I can think of like that," but I think it's remarkable he was honest enough to acknowledge even one thing that XP had first. Can you imagine Gates or Ballmer or someone else from M$ demoing a new version of Windows, and acknowledging one of its features as an Apple innovation?
Oh, right, of course, heaven forfend, let's do our utmost not to waste any space on Slashdot. God knows we certainly wouldn't ever want to see any wasted space on Slashdot.
Can you imagine the disaster that would result if Slashdot's sterling history of 100% efficiency in communication and always-rational discourse were to be suddenly impinged by a single errant, trivial comment? Oh, the horror!!! It'd be a madhouse...
How is pricing something at $2999 instead of $3000 misleading? It is $1 cheaper. It's true that's not a significant difference, but then any price over a thousand dollars isn't going to be significantly different from a price one dollar higher. If the computers were priced at $3000, he could just as easily gripe about how misleading it is that they aren't priced at $3001.
Yes, it's true that they (and darn near everyone else) price things a unit one below a sort of numerical milestone, and this is known to "help" consumers see the machine as being somehow magically more affordable, but the truth is, it is more affordable - not by much, but then they aren't making outlandish claims regarding price. It costs $2999, and there it is. If it's so unfair, what is this guy's solution, exactly - price it at an even $3000? Does he actually want it to cost a dollar more??
The only legitimate gripe one might have with the pricing is that one will actually pay more than the stated price because of sales tax and/or shipping, but that's not the manufacturer's fault.
Damn straight. My Atari 800 XL has 64k of RAM, and it works just fine (well, it used to, anyway... it's inoperative now, but not because of the RAM). You could use a word processor, a spreadsheet, or even some genuinely kickass games like Lode Runner, Centipede and Miner 2049er on it. Therefore, it's obvious no one needs all these obscene amounts of RAM people have in their comps now. 64k was good enough for me then, and it should be just fine for all these spoiled brats now.
Why, I remember how appalled I was when my friend had an Apple IIgs with 1 MB - 1 megabyte!!! - of RAM, a decade or so ago. What kind of hedonist needs that much? Bah.
These damn kids today, with their gigabytes and their FireWire and their "rock 'n' roll" music and the hair and the clothes...
Slashdot Mirror
Can I have the remaining time on your Real Life account, then?
Though the most famous (the Lugosi one) isn't the best.
The CD is now available at Varèse's site.
You can now get the CD version directly from Varèse Sarabande at their site. The "iTMS-exclusive" means it won't be sold at retail in the US, or through online resellers like Amazon, CDNow or whatever, but those unable or unwilling to use the iTMS can still get a conventional CD directly from the label. It's more expensive, of course, but if the difference is worth it to you to specifically seek this version over the other, presumably it's worth paying more as well.
It was in the older thread that I first heard about the iTMS distribution; through one of the other posters, I eventually got in touch with the Fox Music record producer who gave me the info that let me write the article for our site (woohoo, I scooped MacCentral, CNet and the Chicago Sun Times - I'm so obnoxiously pleased with myself... :))
I gather you're interested in getting this soundtrack, as I am; are you into scores?
BTW, the track samples at the iTMS run 30 seconds, not 15 (except for tracks shorter than 30 seconds, of course ;)).
My pleasure! :)
The situation has been improving in recent years with new rules for re-use being adopted by the unions and industry, but things are still a long way from a point where they can easily just release any music that was recorded for a movie, unfortunately.
With regards to this particular soundtrack, though, the London Symphony Orchestra happens to be a nonunion one (as are most outside of the US, apparently), and the re-use issues that bedevil many US-recorded scores apparently aren't a problem. Of course, there's always something else...
There may indeed be compilations someday that include at least a bit of this music, but they won't be of the "NOW That's What I Call Music" variety.
I've mentioned this in a few other posts now, but... The soundtrack will be available on CD directly from the website of record label Varèse Sarabande for the benefit of those unable or unwilling to get it from the iTMS. The "exclusive" thing actually just means the CD won't be sold at retail stores or at any other online vendors besides Apple and the label.
If you don't live in the States, you'll be able to buy a physical CD through all the usual channels. The "iTunes Music Store exclusive" is only in the US, and even here there'll still be a physical CD for people unable or unwilling to use the iTMS; the difference is really that it just won't be sold at retail. The only way to get the CD in the US will be to order it directly from the label, Varèse Sarabande, at their site (it's not there yet, though, although the soundtrack's been on the iTMS since July 1).
I'm sure Apple would dearly love to be able to exclusively offer an entire album by a major mainstream artist who sells in the millions, but the labels aren't ready for that yet.
In the US it'll be available only through the record label's site; outside the US it'll be sold in all the usual ways. Presumably CD stores in the US that carry imports will also get a few copies that way, so it actually should be quite possible for non-iTunes users to get it (and of course, once the Windows version is released, most people will be able to get it that way, too).
As for whether it's a smart move or not, the point is actually to determine just that. This release is an experiment by Fox Music to determine the viability of releasing something this way. Since orchestral film scores have a highly limited audience anyway (I like to think of them as real alternative music ;) ), they're not risking as much in the way of "lost sales" (ahem) as they would if, say, the latest Madonna album or whatever were an iTMS-only release. While naturally Fox would like the money from sales, it's willing to risk the hit to what would surely be modest sales anyway in order to get the information about how it does, which is far more valuable to them in the long run.
I actually wrote about this for our gaming clan's website more than a week ago, a couple days before the soundtrack actually showed up at the iTMS (it was released there a week ago as of this posting). My "informed sources" included a record producer at Fox Music, who indicated to me that people above him at FM had decided on this release strategy as an experiment.
Well, since you all but invited it, I guess I'll go ahead... ;)
I can easily hear the difference between CDs and 128 kbps MP3s. In fact, when I first started ripping CDs to MP3, I went with 192 kbps, and that still wasn't satisfactory to me, though I'd honestly expected it would be, based on what I'd read other people were happy with; I had to move up to rates upwards of 250 kbps (vbr) before I was really content with how things sounded. It was a big enough deal to me that I put up with the hassle of reripping a bunch of albums I'd already ripped so I could have them at the higher bitrate. I'm not making any special claims for my hearing, either - I was born with perforated eardrums and had somewhat substandard hearing as a child, and while I eventually had tympanoplasty surgery in both ears (where a bit of tissue is grafted over the eardrum to close the hole), bringing my hearing to "within normal range," I definitely don't pretend to have unusually sensitive hearing. I just really think - correction; I know - 128 kbps MP3s are significantly inferior to CDs.
Now I'm ripping to 160 kbps AAC, which to me (at least on my semi-cheap speakers) sound more comparable to my ~256 kbps vbr MP3s (not to mention the CD originals), and I'm happy with that (or at least, I imagine I will be, once I get some better speakers...).
Maybe you could, like, lock the door to the room with the Mac in it...
At the moment I'm reading this, both are modded Funny. The moderations fluctuate quite a bit sometimes before settling down on something that's (hopefully) fair. Different moderators do have different opinions.
Presumably, if Europeans (or anyone else outside the US) can get credit cards with billing addresses in the US, they should be able to use the iTMS as well. It's not tied to one's ISP at all; it's just about the card you pay for the tunes with. If you pay with a US credit card, that apparently qualifies you as a US consumer, and satisfies the music labels's licensing stipulations that the music be sold in the US.
Corey Carrier (as Indy around age 8 to 11)
River Phoenix (as Indy about 13)
Sean Patrick Flanery (as Indy from 16 to early 20s)
Harrison Ford (as Indy from his 30s to his 50s)
George Hall (as Indy in his 90s)
A couple decades ago Lucas said he wanted to make it nine parts, with the last three films presumably about Luke training a new generation of Jedi, Han and Leia's kids, the rebuilding of the Republic, etc. (all of which has since been related in various novels, incidentally). However, it was also thought there would be a new movie every three years, so that after Episode VI: Return of the Jedi in 1983, we'd have gotten Episode I in 1986, Episode II in 1989, etc., on up to Episode IX in 2001. Somewhere along the way George Lucas realized he didn't want to spend his whole life constantly making Star Wars, and he took a break after Jedi and worked on other projects (while also rearing his kids). He's long since decided he'll just do the first three and then let the films stand at six episodes, apparently; he's said repeatedly in recent years he has no intention to go back and do VII, VIII and IX. He apparently wants to go back and do smaller, more experimental, less commercial sorts of films, and I for one hope he does; I'd be really interested in seeing those.
Except that some of the people who have a legitimate claim to having helped to invent the Internet publicly came out and supported what Gore said. Al's claim might have been a bit self-aggrandizing (from a politician?!?! noooooo...), but no matter how you try to spin it, what he said was a fair statement in and of itself. It's only once it got twisted by certain Republicans and their media lackeys into something it emphatically wasn't meant to mean that it became complete balderdash (and it wasn't Gore who was lying).
Oh, just so you know, since you're obviously thinking to yourself that I'm just another Democrat apologist who'll defend anything said or done by any Dem, you should know I'm not a Democrat and I've never voted for Gore or Clinton. I simply object to lies, like the one about Al Gore having claimed to have invented the Internet.
FWIW, while demoing Panther in his keynote yesterday, Jobs specifically noted Windows XP had beaten Apple to one of its features, fast user switching. He did qualify this by saying "it's the only feature I can think of like that," but I think it's remarkable he was honest enough to acknowledge even one thing that XP had first. Can you imagine Gates or Ballmer or someone else from M$ demoing a new version of Windows, and acknowledging one of its features as an Apple innovation?
Can you imagine the disaster that would result if Slashdot's sterling history of 100% efficiency in communication and always-rational discourse were to be suddenly impinged by a single errant, trivial comment? Oh, the horror!!! It'd be a madhouse...
;)
Yes, it's true that they (and darn near everyone else) price things a unit one below a sort of numerical milestone, and this is known to "help" consumers see the machine as being somehow magically more affordable, but the truth is, it is more affordable - not by much, but then they aren't making outlandish claims regarding price. It costs $2999, and there it is. If it's so unfair, what is this guy's solution, exactly - price it at an even $3000? Does he actually want it to cost a dollar more??
The only legitimate gripe one might have with the pricing is that one will actually pay more than the stated price because of sales tax and/or shipping, but that's not the manufacturer's fault.
Why, I remember how appalled I was when my friend had an Apple IIgs with 1 MB - 1 megabyte!!! - of RAM, a decade or so ago. What kind of hedonist needs that much? Bah.
These damn kids today, with their gigabytes and their FireWire and their "rock 'n' roll" music and the hair and the clothes...
Letting the students even see Slashdot would probably be the last thing an English teacher would want... ;)