Amazon has the box set listed at $79.99 and Barnes and Noble has it listed at 76.79 (69.11 if you're a B&N member. I'm wondering what the retail price will be if you buy it at a midnight or day of release in the store? Here in NYC I assume Virgin Megastore will release it at 12AM on March 3rd. I'm wondering what they will charge for the box set.
That really is the BIG question at the moment - to make sure you get all the songs available without having to buy 5 formats in the UK, plus an itunes format and a Japanese import CD!!
I suppose if worse comes to worst, the bonus or exclusive songs can always be emailed around here by others.
Boo. Radiohead gave us more for £40 : p
I enjoyed the HTDAAB book too. The band's artwork was great - and it had lyrics to Mercy What I didn't like about the HTDAAB package was the cardboard housing for the CD.
I was also majorly pissed that the book version didn't have Fast Cars but that's another story.
Mine came with Fast Cars.
So who's correct?
Best,
Jason
I have a question, is this boxset version being sold in international markets?
I will only buy from Amazon if I have to.
red eye will get an import at least.
I got the vertigo chicago dvd on import form the US two days before it was out in aus
The other day I was chatting to the guy who owns both the Red Eye stores in Sydney and he told me that they'll get the CD in on the day of release, but the box set and vinyl will take up to an extra 2 weeks to show up. He said there is no real way of predicting when, as Universal is more temperamental with the less popular formats. They'll definately get them in, but often they take longer to show because they are in less demand. so basically, If you order it in, you'll definatley get it within two weeks of March 2. Red Eye:
Lets be serious here.
There's art THEORY (something I've studied for a long time)
and then there's REALITY (everything else)
we can banter back and forth all we want, but the REAL question is which one is more important to you? Theory? or Reality?
I've had these type of discussions more times then I can remember...but somehow it never comes to a real conclusion. Oh well...thats life I guess...Thanks for the discussion though, good discussion is hard to find now a days
I suppose if worse comes to worst, the bonus or exclusive songs can always be emailed around here by others.
Werd
i cant go to sydney without going in. I love it!
I made the fatal mistake of getting a job within a five minute walk, so the money that I'm meant to be saving for travel later this year is disappearing rapidly!
I find jasonlee's approach very interesting. I don't think there is any form of "reality" to art. I have experienced many times how the meaning of your own work of art can change with time and other people's interpretation. That's what makes it interesting to me. There is dynamics in art, and many times you don't even know yourself what you're doing until someone else points it out to you. I like to be surprised by my own art and I have found myself so many times just struck by an interpretation that turned out to offer a totally new perspective on my own art. I find that art can often be surprising for the artists themselves because it often comes from a different place. I like art best that appeals to the unconscious.
Honestly, I've heard that argument a billion times. Although its absolutely correct in a sense its not. Too many people point to that argument when its convenient for them. I used to hear it during critiques when many of the people in the class didn't quite see what someone was trying to convey or really "buy" what their piece was about. Thats when that person would play the "Art Card" as we liked to call it, a.k.a the argument that we're talking about.
My comment about 'reality' was pertaining to these types of instances. There is good art and there is not so good art. We all agree on that. There are people who master their craft of painting (for example) and there are those that will never do so. But if you use that argument then there are no masters and their are no apprentices....because "all art is subjective" See where the reality comes into play? You can use that argument as a scapegoat. Thats why I said what I said. Is my opinion of a Picasso work just as important as his intent? In THEORY...yes. In REALITY....No. Picasso was a master painter who mastered his craft and knew exactly what he was doing....I on the other hand am not a master. So if I want to live in the world of "theory" and say that his painting Guernica was about a butcher shop in lower Manhattan, then I have all the right to do that because "art is all speculative" but if I want to be real with myself and try to be real with the work then I do the research, read the hundreds of books about the painting, understand that context behind the symbolism and subject matter and understand it was based on the brutal Spanish Civil was and the bombing of the village of Guernica. (BTW, it is my favorite painting from my favorite painter)
Understand what I'm getting at?
THEORY is all talk, unless you apply it to REALITY....then you get somewhere. I spent 4 years talking about THEORY in college, and it wasn't until I hit the real world and experienced reality that I could understand it all.
This is a pretty cool discussion. I miss this kind of stuff. It allows me to brush the cobwebs off of my brain.
Then you might want to research and study harder, because that makes no sense.
The only way to "understand" a work of art is to separate the art from the artist. The whole purpose of art is to create something bigger than yourself, something that has a life beyond that of the creator. Like I said before, if I have a single intent or agenda, then I should probably be a politician, not an artist. I would only be frustrated if everyone who read any of my works left thinking the same thing, which suggests I've written a preachy polemic, not a story.
And you might care about masters and apprentices, but I certainly don't. Art is not a sport. I think any product of human creativity can be considered art. That doesn't mean it's good, of course, but was Pollack a paint-splattering nut, or was he really an idiot savant artiste?
As a creator, I believe my intent is completely irrelevant. Your opinion of what the work means is equally as valid as anyone else's, including mine. Sometimes, people can set out to make mindless entertainment, and end up creating something that millions find profoundly meaningful to their lives. And more frequently, vice versa.
There are some opinions of my recent screenplay that I find hilariously off-base, but nonetheless, I wouldn't say they're wrong. And I refuse to discuss what my stories are about or what my "intents" are, because art should always be allowed to speak for itself.
But I do understand your point, Surge. A piece of art like War of the Worlds is a story about anti-occupation and the dangers of imperialism... But as a piece of art, it can be interpreted completely differently, or in addition to.
Mostly, I believe art is always bigger than the artist.
Best,
Jason
PS. When I asked "who's correct," I was referring to Bono and The Edge's different interpretation of Original of the Species, so it was rhetorical.
The U2 Myspace Page has been updated to include GOYB.
It also has the boxset
-Not sure if this deserved its own thread or not-
Hey everyone,
Amazon just dropped the price on the box set to $66!!! And with free shipping, it seems like I pretty good deal...
...so of couse I went ahead and picked one up
Mario
The U2 Myspace Page has been updated to include GOYB.
It also has the boxset
-Not sure if this deserved its own thread or not-
Hey everyone,
Amazon just dropped the price on the box set to $66!!! And with free shipping, it seems like I pretty good deal...
...so of couse I went ahead and picked one up
Mario