Interesting Varese News.

[Ollie 1,059]

http://www.varesesarabande.com/News.asp

Discuss, good or bad?

[Diego 21]

Could be bad for me if they ever release something that interest me since I can't download from iTunes or Amazon.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Every label should do this.

[John Crichton 4]

Interesting. As long as it's "sporadic" as they say and there's still CDs available, I'm good.

Every label should do this.

Not really, no.

[Andy 4,141]

I would hate for it to replace any releases that would've been done on CD, like last month's Nightwing. As long as CDs are still for the most part available, I'm fine with it.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Every label should do this.

Not really, no.

Why not? They manufacture the CD for those who want to physically own it, but they also make them available digitally.

[Jacob 0]

Hopefully this will provide the best option for fans of the composers and allow scores that might otherwise have fallen by the wayside to be added to the collection of those who want them, in the format that suits them best.

This can only be a good thing.

[Andy 4,141]

The way it is worded makes me think it will be for newly released films with limited theatrical release, not resurrected scores from older movies.

[Jay 37,372]

Yes thats how I intepreted it as well

[Ollie 1,059]

Correct, the article clearly states that it is for upcoming films.

However it seems which each small step we get closer and closer to downloads only. I know Intrada, FSM etc etc will continue to release scores in physical CD form for as long as possible.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I don't see the problem with going digital. If you can't afford to manufacture the discs and still want the music out there, it's perfect.

[Trent B 337]

Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah I don't want it to be 100% digital. I'll always prefer a physical disc, and I don't think we'll ever get to the point of being 100% digital. But for smaller scores or labels that can't get their music out, I'd rather have digital than nothing at all.

[Jay 37,372]

If they made these scores available as lossless downloads I'd have NO problems with it

Something being ONLY available as lossy (I'm looking at you, Cloverfield) pisses me off

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever.

how do u tell beforehand what is iTunes Plus and what isn't? I've only ever bought 3 songs, Williams' Obama inauguration piece, End Crawl from Quantum of Solace and We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn and they are all 256kbps AAC

[Ollie 1,059]

I think it tells you when you go to download or it should be available on the cue info.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Limited to 3000 downloads.

[DigitalfreakNYC 59]

If they made these scores available as lossless downloads I'd have NO problems with it

Something being ONLY available as lossy (I'm looking at you, Cloverfield) pisses me off

Agreed. I'm not paying for something that's compressed.

CD's are the only option.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

If not making CDs means that they can release more music... then that's fine.

If not... DAMN i want to have Physical CDs (with case and cover art)

[Henry B 50]

Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever.

how do u tell beforehand what is iTunes Plus and what isn't? I've only ever bought 3 songs, Williams' Obama inauguration piece, End Crawl from Quantum of Solace and We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn and they are all 256kbps AAC

Almost the entire catalogue has been converted to iTunes Plus. It's the standard for new releases.

[ymenard 54]

All this non-sense of OOP scores and limited runs will someday be of the past when labels understand that they would make a lot more money by putting them online for all. All the Ebayers would become useless and scores would finally be democratised and given access to true fans of soundtracks. A CD is just a piece of plastic and aluminium with no value. It's all and only about the music.

(hopefully minimum 256kbps or VBR V1)

[Hitch 57]

Like these 2 titles available from today. Limited edition to 1,000 units each.

http://www.varesesarabande.com/default.asp

[Richard Penna 3,694]

All this non-sense of OOP scores and limited runs will someday be of the past when labels understand that they would make a lot more money by putting them online for all. All the Ebayers would become useless and scores would finally be democratised and given access to true fans of soundtracks. A CD is just a piece of plastic and aluminium with no value. It's all and only about the music.

(hopefully minimum 256kbps or VBR V1)

The limited runs are I think mainly to avoid the re-use fees associated with a regular release, and that's out of the labels' control.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Imagine if that happened for a new Williams release.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

Indeed. A 75 minute CD coming from an L.A. orchestra doesn't sound right at all... Concord clearly stumped up a lot of cash.

[Desplat13 1]

Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever.

how do u tell beforehand what is iTunes Plus and what isn't? I've only ever bought 3 songs, Williams' Obama inauguration piece, End Crawl from Quantum of Solace and We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn and they are all 256kbps AAC

Almost the entire catalogue has been converted to iTunes Plus. It's the standard for new releases.

Is iTunes Plus loss less? If so, was Up! lossless? I downloaded from Amazon because I thought I saw that they had a higher (256) kbps. If they make these available as high quality downloads, I'm fine with it. But PLEASE don't make people settle for 256 kbps when a CD will get you so far above that.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

iTunes plus is 256.

[Desplat13 1]

OK, they still haven't figured it out. That's terrible. When is someone going to make these available in high quality? Looking forward to a promo leak...

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I recall seeing Up "around" in FLAC.

Edit: Never mind. I recalled incorrectly.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

I would hate for it to replace any releases that would've been done on CD, like last month's Nightwing. As long as CDs are still for the most part available, I'm fine with it.

I only buy downloads as an absolute last resort. I'd far rather have the CD (uncompressed great audio with liner notes and booklet to flick through, a trophy on my shelf) than the download (generally poor quality compressed audio without anything physical to read, hold, or display).

[fommes 153]

I only buy downloads as an absolute last resort. I'd far rather have the CD (uncompressed great audio with liner notes and booklet to flick through, a trophy on my shelf) than the download (generally poor quality compressed audio without anything physical to read, hold, or display).

How controversial!

[Henry B 50]

Well Koray you gotta accept the fact that there are a lot of people who prefer having the physical CD (myself included!). Not all of us are keen on having the whole digital download thing, especially that most probably won't be upgraded to the "iTunes Plus" or whatever.

how do u tell beforehand what is iTunes Plus and what isn't? I've only ever bought 3 songs, Williams' Obama inauguration piece, End Crawl from Quantum of Solace and We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn and they are all 256kbps AAC

Almost the entire catalogue has been converted to iTunes Plus. It's the standard for new releases.

Is iTunes Plus loss less? If so, was Up! lossless? I downloaded from Amazon because I thought I saw that they had a higher (256) kbps. If they make these available as high quality downloads, I'm fine with it. But PLEASE don't make people settle for 256 kbps when a CD will get you so far above that.

iTunes is 256 kbps AAC and Amazon is 256 kbps MP3. I believe that makes iTunes the superior format for the moment.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

I would hate for it to replace any releases that would've been done on CD, like last month's Nightwing. As long as CDs are still for the most part available, I'm fine with it.

I only buy downloads as an absolute last resort. I'd far rather have the CD (uncompressed great audio with liner notes and booklet to flick through, a trophy on my shelf) than the download (generally poor quality compressed audio without anything physical to read, hold, or display).

So you agree then that a download is an acceptable route if it's not financially viable to press a bunch of CDs?

There's so much music out there that most 'normal' people don't care about, but which would have a small following among score fans if made available to download- you can't deny that.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I prefer having the compact disc for the higher quality audio and the aesthetic appeal of the my CD collection. I like to watch it grow, like a physical library.

[Trent B 337]

If they made the downloads available in lossless, even if it's a buck more or whatever then I'll only consider the downloads. I don't like lossy sources for scores.

[Desplat13 1]

Henry, I didn't realize that MP3 and AAC with the same specs actually have different qualities. I guess I don't really know how these things work. Interesting...

[fommes 153]

AAC is a much newer compression format, so the compression is improved.

[John Crichton 4]

I prefer having the compact disc for the higher quality audio and the aesthetic appeal of the my CD collection. I like to watch it grow, like a physical library.

Seconded.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Buying CDs is great when you are starting out, but once you get everything that you want, you reach the stage of only buying new releases. So your library pretty much freezes. The last physical CD I bought was probably Duplicity.

My brother still buys a lot because there are so many RCP composers releasing music. We agreed that he'd get Star Trek and Lost: S4 and I'll get Up and Land Of The Lost. Unfortunately Up was a digital release.

[Ollie 1,059]

I have yet to even come close to having everything I want on CD.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I have yet to even come close to having everything I want on CD.

Yup, I too still have many holy grails that I shall enjoy pursuing for a long time.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

I would hate for it to replace any releases that would've been done on CD, like last month's Nightwing. As long as CDs are still for the most part available, I'm fine with it.

I only buy downloads as an absolute last resort. I'd far rather have the CD (uncompressed great audio with liner notes and booklet to flick through, a trophy on my shelf) than the download (generally poor quality compressed audio without anything physical to read, hold, or display).

So you agree then that a download is an acceptable route if it's not financially viable to press a bunch of CDs?

I wouldn't go that far. I see it as being better than nothing, but hardly the way forward. It seems like a big leap backward quality-wise. I just think it's interesting that people who are spending a fortune to upgrade their TVs to digital, and their DVD players to Blu-Ray seem to be happy downloading mp3s and settling for crappy audio quality. What's going on here? Is the human eye more sensitive than the human ear or something? Why are people settling for this audio quality when the older technology (CDs, SACDs, heck even vinyl!) are vastly superior?

[Richard Penna 3,694]

I don't get this continued argument of crappy audio quality. Unless you're someone who really can tell the difference, or have seriously high end equipment, I don't see how you can tell the difference between a CD and a well encoded mp3. I certainly can't.

And yes, I think it's a lot easier to compress audio than it is to compress video.

[Hitch 57]

Like these 2 titles available from today. Limited edition to 1,000 units each.

http://www.varesesarabande.com/default.asp

Both ^{SOLD OUT} now

[pixie_twinkle 48]

I don't get this continued argument of crappy audio quality. Unless you're someone who really can tell the difference, or have seriously high end equipment, I don't see how you can tell the difference between a CD and a well encoded mp3. certainly can't.

And yes, I think it's a lot easier to compress audio than it is to compress video.

You can really tell in the high and low-end frequencies the most. Those are usually the first to go in the compression process.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

Yeah but most of those are frequencies we can't hear, right?

[Trent B 337]

Abolish reuse fees? You don't think the musicians and that should be paid for their work on recording the score?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Union cards, please!

[Wycket 36]

I can definitely understand people not liking reuse fees, as it does seem a little arbitrary.

Carpenters who work on movies don't get paid more depending on how the movie does, so why sound musicians get paid more just because a certain amount of music they performed is used? Its not an attack and I'm not saying they should be abolished, I'm just proposing the counter argument. I assume musicians are paid to perform the music, and re-use fees are applied for how much of that music is released.

This is where I become confused, as I don't see why musicians who didn't write the music need to be paid just because of their performance of said piece. I understand that people deserve to get paid and these are what the rules are, it just seems to me that the rules are arbitrary. As I mentioned earlier, carpenters and other people don't get paid extra for their work if DVDs and the like are released, so why should musicians (who didn't write the music, but were only paid to perform it) get paid an additional fee that others who worked on the movie did not.

As I said, I am not trying to take money out of people's hands, only I'm trying to not only provide a counter-argument, but try to more deeply understand why re-use fees exist.

[publicist 4,643]

Abolish reuse fees? You don't think the musicians and that should be paid for their work on recording the score?

They are paid. Re-Use fees are an additional income.