Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Maybe if you ever got 1/10 as much money as U2 have you'd be thinking about this little U2/Apple co-op a lot differently. All I'm saying is I think you are looking at it far too critically.
womanfish said:
I'm really confused by your stance Traveller. You say it's all about money, marketing, and publicity. You make it sound as if U2 shouldn't do marketing and publicity???? They have done this their entire career. Print ads, tv appearances, videos, distributing to and lobbying radio stations, tours, movies (R&H), posters, t-shirts, buttons, keyrings, calendars, condoms, the list goes on and on and on.....
They are letting Apple use video of them singing a song. This is promoting their song and where to get it (iTunes). They are breaking into the online market like noone else. The music industry has been hit hard and while most other artists are back on their heels, U2 is moving forward into new territories. They were one of, if not THE first, to put their weight behind the original launching of iTunes. They like to push the technological boundaries, as we've seen with their innovative tours, and i see this as an extention of that.
I don't know how long you've been a U2 fan, but if you have been for a while, then you know that U2 has always wanted to and proclaimed that they want to be the biggest and best band out there. They have used marketing and promotion to do this for their whole career and this is just one part of a huge promotion for this album, like every other album before it.
And as for your "purist" comment. If you were truly a purist you would be listening to vinyl, but other than that, you know that you can download files in a lossless format which is the EXACT same quality as a CD, no data loss, and takes up half the storage space. It's still quite a bit bigger than an MP3, but it is lossless.
The iPod really is an awesome thing. I have 3600 or so songs on mine and can take it anywhere, play it at school, in the car, or work or home through my stereo. The quality of the files is your choice to make.
I am an assistant audio engineer, which means it's my job to hear quality differences in audio, and I have an extremely hard time hearing the difference between CD quality and an MP3 at 192kbps, let alone at 256 or 320. You should check it out.
Lancemc said:Maybe if you ever got 1/10 as much money as U2 have you'd be thinking about this little U2/Apple co-op a lot differently. All I'm saying is I think you are looking at it far too critically.
U2Traveller said:
You have a hard time? My husband can tell the difference and he is a sound engineer. Nice to meet kindred spirits. I can even hear the difference. If I could download something where you'd lose nothing, sure, I'd do it. I have no problem with that. But, I've listened to whole albums on mp3's, then I go and buy the album and then say, "OH! They ARE a good band!" There is a HUGE difference in quality.
Still, I am open to one day being able to replace the cd, just like I'm open to one day being able to go digital (for a camera) without losing quality.
U2Traveller said:
Why do they need more? I've always wondered what drives a person who already has over a 100 million to want to make more. Greed? Retire already and let somebody else make it.
womanfish said:
I can hear the difference between MP3 and CD, just like I can between CD and vinyl. But at the highest kbps, in most normal listening situations, coming out of most peoples normal speakers makes virtually no difference. If you were talking about MP3's at 128kbps or even 160, then yes, there is an obvious and marked difference.
And yes, Apple Lossless is truly lossless and takes up about half the space of a normal CD file. Cool to be able to get rid of CD's at some point, but I still don't like not getting the booklet/liner notes/artwork, so I'm old fashioned that way. So if it's a band i really am into i always go to the store and get the cd instead of downloading. If it's someone I just like, but not a huge fan, i will use iTunes.
cool that your husband is an engineer. how long has he been at it?
Lancemc said:
P.S. by the way, with the argument about Napster and other online music sources not being represented, I say "Good!". iTunes is THE best music player, and online music store there is. The most people that use itunes, the better it will get. I think the best product out there SHOULD get the most profit. In this case it is Apple and itunes. Maybe in a couple years it will change, when it does, I'll be there to support it, but until then this is how it is.
like you? People who talk like this usually die poor always whinning about the other person busting their butt making it.U2Traveller said:
Why do they need more? I've always wondered what drives a person who already has over a 100 million to want to make more. Greed? Retire already and let somebody else make it.
mellyinsf said:
like you? People who talk like this usually die poor always whinning about the other person busting their butt making it.
what a bomb! said:Your missing the point about ipod, this is still in effect in its infancy, you got a problem that they are only endorsing one particular brand, can you not see it will be good for the genre as a whole? If this takes off then we will see a myraid of download companies where it will be the norm to release music on all the formats that are available, as it is, Apple ipod is the chosen son and when the floodgates open this will be all forgotten about, maybe apart from the fact people will be saying "remember when U2 really kickstarted mass consumer MP3s to the uniniatated?
Its the start of a techno and music revolution people! Wave goodbye to CD's (replace with your fave format!) lol
mkjc said:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6490_7-5140299.html?tag=dir.comp
Is CNET wrong? Can someone clear this up? Thanks.
MrBrau1 said:Maybe someone other than Apple should throw their weight behind an online music store. U2 are bad cause they're going with the best? No. Sony should get off there fucking asses and compete. The Sony store is shit. If U2 had partnered w/ Sony, they'd be asses.
mellyinsf said:
like you? People who talk like this usually die poor always whinning about the other person busting their butt making it.
jick said:U2's aliance with Apple can only make them richer in the end. Anything that makes U2 richer is good. It will only inspire U2 to make even more great music.
Cheers,
J
barrett said:I think the point mkjc is making is that U2 have become part of Apple in the downloading business and are effectively giving Apple the opportunity to become the permanent market leader for the future of downloaded music. As other artists follow U2 and sign exclusive agreements (first access to songs, live concert downloads and unreleased tracks) with Apple and itunes you have essentially created a monopoly for Apple. I think two years from now this Apple-U2 merger will be the most significant event for online music along with the Napster suit.
U2Traveller said:
Yeah, cuz of greed.
david said:
U2Traveller said:
Is that so? You've got it ALL worked out, then? FYI, I wasn't talking about me. What U2 does doesn't affect me at all. I was talking about other up and coming bands like Coldplay. But, like my husband says, no band has the entire market.
mellyinsf said:
This is not a zero sum game. If your good you will go far no matter what other bands are around.
BTW I'm not really sure where you are coming from so I won't take you seriously. Nothing you are saying really makes a good argument about anything.
MrBrau1 said:
Wait, let me get this one...greed.
are you not a U2 fan?U2Traveller said:Yeah. Really nice. You've got to love U2 fans.