The remaining members of Pink floyd

colintrav

Are taking Itunes to court to stop them offering Individual tracks .. for download .. because they would rather have you buy a cd/vinyl releases which I can fully understand and wholey support them for taking this stance


than be a sad boring lazy pr.cks downloading there music


To me a download is completely worthless and has no genuine resale value and there is no collectability .. compared to a Vinyl / tape / CD .

bails87

If they were so 'anti-download' then surely they'd just stop iTunes selling their music at all. But I imagine they like the money they make.

Just like I like not carrying thousands of cassettes with me!

It's music, listen to it. If you want resale value and collectibility then sit at home on a Sunday and watch Antiques bloody Roadshow!

meesterbond

Whilst I agree with the sentiment (Dark Side of the Moon for example should always be listened to as an album), I think the issue here was that they had an agreement with EMI that they wouldn't release their songs individuals - now EMI are saying this doesn't include downloads. I imagine that Pink Floyd just want to ensure that EMI aren't dicking them about rather than any inherent issue with downloading as a concept.

EMI appear to be doing this without their consent, Pink Floyd want to ensure they're honouring the contract. A point of principle if you like.

ilovedirt

I think that's fair, if what mrbond says is true. I'm with colintrav though as well, i don't download, mainly because i'd rather have the actual physical CD. There's something cool about having a big CD collection...

Surf-Matt

I hate downloads too - I only burn CDs onto my phone (W995) so I don't have to carry CDs in the car - but for the home system it MUST be CDs.

My dad played in a band with Snowy White who did session work for PF for a while. He lived next door to him in East Molesey, Surrey.

bails87

Alright grandads, back to your gramophones....

adb1006

Pink Floyd rule! That is all.

colintrav

bails87 wrote:

Alright grandads, back to your gramophones....

Put it this way a a rare vinyl is worth it's weight in gold compared to a mp3 .. which actually had ruined the music scene to such an extent . and Download has cause many distributor to cease trading .. and caused the demise of many record shops


MP3 might be a German created but it's ruined whole spectrum of music scene .. where it got to the pooint that whole albums are up for illegal download .. and the artists doesn't get a penny

MP3 may have been seen an a pioneering idea but the counter effect has nothing been negative ..


And the most expensive cd I've seen going on ebay was Sasha and digweed northern exposure .. for 300 and I have the unmixed Vinyl format

bails87

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=
Hahahahah!

Also, I think you're talking about people who are after two different things. One is a group of people who buy things for their resale value and collectability. The other is people who want to buy the music.

I assume you're against shops that sell second hand music too? Seeing as none of the money there goes to the artist.

meesterbond

There is, of course, another reason why people buy CDs and records over downloads i.e. they want them to sound half decent.

Downloads are fine if you listen to your music through a mobile at the back of the bus, but on a proper hifi there's no substitute for the real (uncompressed) thing.

Northwind

Most people will get better sound quality from downloads than from vinyl, especially old or cheap vinyl. Except of course that Mp3 sound degredation is unacceptable but vinyl sound degradation is "warmth"

CDs have minimal resale value and most will never be collectible so it's a bit of a daft argument really. Generally downloads are cheaper than full RRP CDs which closes that gap, if you buy a CD for £13 and sell it for a fiver (if you're lucky) you're not better off than if you downloaded it for £8.

It's only licencing and DRM that makes downloads sometimes a much worse option.

Surf-Matt

meesterbond wrote:

There is, of course, another reason why people buy CDs and records over downloads i.e. they want them to sound half decent.

Downloads are fine if you listen to your music through a mobile at the back of the bus, but on a proper hifi there's no substitute for the real (uncompressed) thing.

Agree x 100000000

bails87

meesterbond wrote:

There is, of course, another reason why people buy CDs and records over downloads i.e. they want them to sound half decent.

Downloads are fine if you listen to your music through a mobile at the back of the bus, but on a proper hifi there's no substitute for the real (uncompressed) thing.

I think that's incredibly snobby to be fair.

What about lossless downloads?

FWIW, if I really like an album, or at least think I will, then I'll buy the CD. I listen to my music through an iPod (blergh, I wanted a creative or sony due to the better sound quality, but they're far too expensive) with decent in ear headphones.

Except when I'm in my car, when I use an FM transmitter, and at any kind of speed there's so much road noise that the quality of the sound is pretty irrelevant anyway.

I've got a 'not bad' stereo, but it's not what I'd call a 'proper' hifi, so not in the hundreds or thousands of pounds. Whether that's enough to tell the difference between a CD and a 320kbps download, I don't know.....

I was just making the point that downloads aren't for

sad boring lazy pr.cks

ilovedirt

Surf-Matt wrote:

meesterbond wrote:

There is, of course, another reason why people buy CDs and records over downloads i.e. they want them to sound half decent.

Downloads are fine if you listen to your music through a mobile at the back of the bus, but on a proper hifi there's no substitute for the real (uncompressed) thing.

Agree x 100000000

Definitely, i'm a sound engineer, and MP3 just doesn't sound as good as a WAV on a CD if you're playing it through a good quality system

bails87

ilovedirt wrote:

Surf-Matt wrote:

meesterbond wrote:

There is, of course, another reason why people buy CDs and records over downloads i.e. they want them to sound half decent.

Downloads are fine if you listen to your music through a mobile at the back of the bus, but on a proper hifi there's no substitute for the real (uncompressed) thing.

Agree x 100000000

Definitely, i'm a sound engineer, and MP3 just doesn't sound as good as a WAV on a CD if you're playing it through a good quality system

What about a WAV that's been downloaded as opposed to one that's been ripped?

Surf-Matt

ilovedirt wrote:

Surf-Matt wrote:

meesterbond wrote:

There is, of course, another reason why people buy CDs and records over downloads i.e. they want them to sound half decent.

Downloads are fine if you listen to your music through a mobile at the back of the bus, but on a proper hifi there's no substitute for the real (uncompressed) thing.

Agree x 100000000

Definitely, i'm a sound engineer, and MP3 just doesn't sound as good as a WAV on a CD if you're playing it through a good quality system

Glad you agree.I'm no sound engineer but my dad was a pretty successful bass player (and still plays a fair bit) and so have unfortunately developed a fussiness for good sounding music.

My car stereo (BMW Professional, six speakers, two subs - standard system) isn't bad but I reckon MP3s (via my W995 mobile) are good enough - a bit of loss but it's not exactly a top line system.

At home I don't have anything too flashy but was careful to get good quality kit (Bose 301s, Teac Reference system, good interconnects, speaker cable, isolated mains input, etc) and I really notice the difference. I also like CD cases and the info they contain.

Downloads have as much passion as a phone number, even if you can fit 3 billion on a player the size of a gnat.

bails87

What about unsigned bands?

Should they be ignored until they get signed and start releasing songs on vinyl?

There's an awful lot of claptrap about 'passion' and 'soul'. I agree low bitrate digital music sounds bad. But then a badly recorded song on vinyl sounds bad. The problem is the quality, not the medium. How does a CD, made in a Taiwanese factory along with a million others, and sold to line the pockets of a record company executive have 'passion'?

I don't see why a song becomes bad as soon as it's downloaded.

meesterbond

bails87 wrote:

I think that's incredibly snobby to be fair.

What about lossless downloads?

FWIW, if I really like an album, or at least think I will, then I'll buy the CD. I listen to my music through an iPod (blergh, I wanted a creative or sony due to the better sound quality, but they're far too expensive) with decent in ear headphones.

Except when I'm in my car, when I use an FM transmitter, and at any kind of speed there's so much road noise that the quality of the sound is pretty irrelevant anyway.

I've got a 'not bad' stereo, but it's not what I'd call a 'proper' hifi, so not in the hundreds or thousands of pounds. Whether that's enough to tell the difference between a CD and a 320kbps download, I don't know.....

I was just making the point that downloads aren't for

sad boring lazy pr.cks

Totally agree, it was a little snobby and I apologise...

To address your points above though - lossless downloads (and I may be out of date here) were always very rare - and mainly classical. If it is possible to get 'mainstream' music lossless then obviously many of my arguements are negated, but I'm not aware of many places you can legitimated download a decent amount of albums at high quality.

Personally though, I'll still buy vinyl for a whole load of sentimental reasons (and because it sounds better )

For what it's worth, I don't actually listen to CDs very much at all anymore - I still buy them, rip them and listen lossless over Sonos via the hifi. If I have time to really sit down a listen to an album properly (rather than just having it on in the background) I tend to stick a record on.

ilovedirt

Surf-Matt wrote:

ilovedirt wrote:

Surf-Matt wrote:

meesterbond wrote:

There is, of course, another reason why people buy CDs and records over downloads i.e. they want them to sound half decent.

Downloads are fine if you listen to your music through a mobile at the back of the bus, but on a proper hifi there's no substitute for the real (uncompressed) thing.

Agree x 100000000

Definitely, i'm a sound engineer, and MP3 just doesn't sound as good as a WAV on a CD if you're playing it through a good quality system

Glad you agree.I'm no sound engineer but my dad was a pretty successful bass player (and still plays a fair bit) and so have unfortunately developed a fussiness for good sounding music.

My car stereo (BMW Professional, six speakers, two subs - standard system) isn't bad but I reckon MP3s (via my W995 mobile) are good enough - a bit of loss but it's not exactly a top line system.

At home I don't have anything too flashy but was careful to get good quality kit (Bose 301s, Teac Reference system, good interconnects, speaker cable, isolated mains input, etc) and I really notice the difference. I also like CD cases and the info they contain.

Downloads have as much passion as a phone number, even if you can fit 3 billion on a player the size of a gnat.

don't get me wrong, i use my ipod a hell of a lot, it's great for long journeys and commuting etc, but there's no substitute for CD's, personally.

bails87

Meh, I don't have the space, money or inclination for a 'proper' gramophone/whatever it is you play vinyls on

But to write off all digital music as for chavs playing it out of their mobiles is a bit wide of the mark.

I've listened to music from CDs, ripped as WAV and ripped as a high bitrate MP3/WMA through Denon C551s and couldn't tell any difference. Low quality digital music is bad though, like filling your ears with treacle, and listening to music playing in the car, while you're stood outside it!

Worst of all is people who play music really loud through the crappy white earbuds that come with iPods, when they've had to turn it up really loud because they don't keep out any external noise. Unfortunately that means they also let out a load of of the music. Hearing *TISH TISH TISH TISH* for an hour on the train is soul destroying.

Anyway, back to the OP......Pink Floyd are after more money, simple as, which is fair enough, as making and selling music is their livelihood.

mac_man

Surf-Matt wrote:

I hate downloads too - I only burn CDs onto my phone (W995) so I don't have to carry CDs in the car - but for the home system it MUST be CDs.

My dad played in a band with Snowy White who did session work for PF for a while. He lived next door to him in East Molesey, Surrey.

Cool. Old snowy was better known as the lead guitarist in Thin Lizzy in the early 80s. Damn fine geetar player.

Which band was it?

EDIT: Not a big fan of Bose systems though. Always thought they were overpriced for their sound quality (sorry). Am saving pennies for a set of B&W 600 series, or possibly Monitor Audio Silvers.

Surf-Matt

My Boses were given to me so price wasn't an issue! They sound pretty good if set up exactly right.

Not sure the band name at the time but he was also good mates (as was my Mum) with Phil Lynott from Thin Lizzy - in fact he taught him to play guitar better. Thin Lizzy toured as a support band to Dad's one (called Arrival) in the early 70s. Rock on!

mac_man

Surf-Matt wrote:

My Boses were given to me so price wasn't an issue! They sound pretty good if set up exactly right.

Not sure the band name at the time but he was also good mates (as was my Mum) with Phil Lynott from Thin Lizzy - in fact he taught him to play guitar better. Thin Lizzy toured as a support band to Dad's one (called Arrival) in the early 70s. Rock on!

Man that's a mint story. Thin Lizzy were one of my favourite bands of the early 80s. Only saw them the once on what was to be their final tour (Thunder and Lightning) and TBh they weren't at their best. Would have loved to see them circa Live and Dangerous.

Lynott was a true original. A very sad loss to rock music at such a young age.

Surf-Matt

Mac - a Swedish guy got in touch with me a while back following my attempts to find some Arrival gig posters to print as a gift for Dad (I found some!) - he runs a pretty good fansite with loads of updates - if you want his details, I'll hunt them down.

I agree that Thin Lizzy were a cracking band. Phil was apparently a top bloke too - very down to Earth and keen to learn (which he did - very quickly). My folks were really devastated when he died.

In fact Dad gave up on music as a living after a few of his mates OD'd. It seemed to get very common in the 70s. When I turned up (1975) he decided it was time to get a "proper" job! He still plays though and has a cracking bass guitar collection.

thekickingmule

bails87 wrote:

ilovedirt wrote:

Surf-Matt wrote:

meesterbond wrote:

There is, of course, another reason why people buy CDs and records over downloads i.e. they want them to sound half decent.

Downloads are fine if you listen to your music through a mobile at the back of the bus, but on a proper hifi there's no substitute for the real (uncompressed) thing.

Agree x 100000000

Definitely, i'm a sound engineer, and MP3 just doesn't sound as good as a WAV on a CD if you're playing it through a good quality system

What about a WAV that's been downloaded as opposed to one that's been ripped?

A .wav is a .wav whether ripped or downloaded. Provided the file was made from a good quality original source (ie CD or from the master, not .mp3) then the .wav will sound fine.

colintrav shhh you're embarassing yourself thinking you know what you're talking about. :roll: .mp3 didn't kill off the music industry, the top 5 labels did that themselves by ignoring the internet and what it can do for the industry. Now they're trying to catch up, but it's too late.

Andy

So much of this thread is just full of shit...

bails87

thekickingmule wrote:

bails87 wrote:

ilovedirt wrote:

Surf-Matt wrote:

meesterbond wrote:

There is, of course, another reason why people buy CDs and records over downloads i.e. they want them to sound half decent.

Downloads are fine if you listen to your music through a mobile at the back of the bus, but on a proper hifi there's no substitute for the real (uncompressed) thing.

Agree x 100000000

Definitely, i'm a sound engineer, and MP3 just doesn't sound as good as a WAV on a CD if you're playing it through a good quality system

What about a WAV that's been downloaded as opposed to one that's been ripped?

A .wav is a .wav whether ripped or downloaded. Provided the file was made from a good quality original source (ie CD or from the master, not .mp3) then the .wav will sound fine.

.

That was my point. Downloaded music isn't inherently better or worse than any other type of music.

thekickingmule

Andy wrote:

So much of this thread is just full of shit...

You expected what from a colintrav thread?

Bails, totally agree. Doesn't matter how you get hold of the file, it's the type of file that depicts the quality.

meesterbond

bails87 wrote:

That was my point. Downloaded music isn't inherently better or worse than any other type of music.

But if you can't actually download the tracks in a lossless format, then yes, it is worse.

I've found http://www.naimlabel.com/ which allow you to download at high quality but I've never heard of any of the artists available.

It'll happen, I'm sure, but at the moment I don't know of anywhere you can download mainstream music legally at high quality.

monkeylizard

meesterbond wrote:

It'll happen, I'm sure, but at the moment I don't know of anywhere you can download mainstream music legally at high quality.

I think the key word there is 'mainstream'. MP3s sell by the bucket load, so I doubt that the mainstream labels see any value in offering higher quality - especially as the majority of the mainstream listening public probably don't give a rat's backside with regards to the quality of what they're listening to (sweeping generalisation).

If what you listen to is non-mainstream, it's possible to get downloads that are not just higher quality than normal MP3, but higher quality than CD.

Surf-Matt

Andy wrote:

So much of this thread is just full of shit...

So will you care to enlighten us oh sage of all music?