Do you prefer for LLL's Jurassic Park and Harry Potter Soundtrack Collections to be limited or not?

[Score 770]

3 hours ago, Josh500 said:

 

I believe these editions should be limited, because it makes them feel more special,

 

You mean that, if they were not limited, you would consider them "less special"? So, for you the value of a work of art does not reside in the product itself, but in its rarity?

 

3 hours ago, Josh500 said:

it allows LLL to actually release and sell them at a profit,

 

This is a consideration that, although realistic, has nothing to do with what we "prefer".

 

3 hours ago, Josh500 said:

it  raises their value for us, as customers, etc.

 

 

I cannot see how it can raise their value, unless you mean their economic value once they are sold out. I would never think that the HP scores are more special, nor would I enjoy them more, just because I am one of the 5000 (or whatever) people in the world who could buy the box. They are great because the music is great.  

 

 

[Mattris 416]

On 8/22/2021 at 4:24 AM, His Royal Noelness said:

It’s a better option than being a chump and spending a fortune on the secondary market from a scumbag scalper 

 

Spending more on a physical soundtrack than the original (record label's) price doesn't make one "a chump". It just means that the person chose to purchase the soundtrack because, to them, it was worth the investment.

 

Not all secondary market sellers are 'scumbag scalpers'. Some are just people who choose to sell an item they no longer want. And who are you to dictate their pricing of rare/out-of-print/niche items? People are free to buy at the offered price... or pass.

 

In the secondary market, an item's value is what people are willing to pay - not what it was originally priced. The value can be lower or higher.

 

On 8/22/2021 at 5:13 AM, crumbs said:

On the subject at hand, the poll results speak for themselves. Who in their right mind would want releases to be limited so only a select amount of fans can own them? What a thoroughly selfish, entitled view to have. Literally the only reason labels don't keep these expansions in permanent print, or release them digitally on streaming services, is because of backwards AFM or studio policies.

 

Everyone has the right to enjoy these releases, not only current fans but Williams fans in generations to come.

 

Or could it be that the majority here are "entitled", expecting these for-sale presentations of creative works to be one's "right to enjoy"?

 

Sorry, but owning soundtracks - expanded or otherwise - is not a 'right'. Wanting them to be more readily available is fine but, as others have pointed out, many factors affect the current state of things.

 

If future - or current - Williams fans express interest, it's likely that the Jurassic Park and Harry Potter Collections will be re-printed and/or made available for download/streaming. If there is money to be made, it will likely happen sooner than later.

 

On 8/22/2021 at 9:26 AM, Marian Schedenig said:

Why would I want anything to be limited - in other words, why would I want to be anything made so that some people who would also like to enjoy it (and have as much right to enjoy it as I do, but may not be fast enough to get it) couldn't enjoy it, for no other reason than the fact that those people will miss out on it?

 

But this whole discussion isn't about wanting to "own" something without paying for it anyway. It's about wanting to have access to something that you'd be prepared to pay for, but which you are prevented from buying.

 

A product selling out is not akin to 'people were prevented from buying it'.

 

One's desire to own something they would "like to enjoy" is irrelevant to the larger principle here. People "miss out" on purchasable things - 'limited' or not - for a variety of reasons. Other opportunities usually come along. Such is life.

 

On 8/23/2021 at 12:08 AM, Holko said:

Yeah, pirating or paying 10 times the amount for it because some asshole hikes up the price to make himself feel important is so much better. Lovely future.

 

No one is forcing anyone to 'pirate or pay 10 times the amount' for a soundtrack. Those would be choices, assuming those options are available.

[Holko 9,499]

1 minute ago, Mattris said:

No one is forcing anyone to 'pirate or pay 10 times the amount' for a soundtrack. Those would choices, assuming those options are available.

I didn't say anyone is forcing anyone, but those would be the only options to access the actual work of art.

[Marian Schedenig 8,173]

5 minutes ago, Mattris said:

A product selling out is not akin to 'people were prevented from buying it'.

 

One's desire to own something they would "like to enjoy" is irrelevant to the larger principle here. People "miss out" on purchasable things - 'limited' or not - for a variety of reasons. Other opportunities usually come along. Such is life.

 

But we're specifically talking about the case where people miss out on that product because it sold out *because* it was limited, i.e. they would have been able to buy it had it not been limited. The question wasn't whether we support the Labels making limited releases (most of us do, and most of us understand why they have to make them limited, and have explained so above), but whether we would *prefer* them to be limited or not, without any specific other qualifiers. And clearly, many of us would *prefer* them being unlimited so that all people who want them (now or in the future) can buy them. That this is sadly not practical under the current condition isn't relevant to the question.

[Mattris 416]

1 hour ago, Holko said:

I didn't say anyone is forcing anyone, but those would be the only options to access the actual work of art.

 

Other ways include borrowing the soundtrack from a friend or fellow JWFan member... or perhaps, making a trade for another soundtrack.

 

Those who don't want to - or cannot - pirate, pay more, borrow, or trade should just do without the soundtrack for now and be sure to get it if there is a 'next time'.

 

To facilitate a possible repressing of the limited release, these individuals could appeal to the record label and encourage other fans of the soundtrack to do so. This has worked before with a few Williams titles. ('Back back popular demand...')

 

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

But we're specifically talking about the case where people miss out on that product because it sold out *because* it was limited, i.e. they would have been able to buy it had it not been limited. The question wasn't whether we support the Labels making limited releases (most of us do, and most of us understand why they have to make them limited, and have explained so above), but whether we would *prefer* them to be limited or not, without any specific other qualifiers. And clearly, many of us would *prefer* them being unlimited so that all people who want them (now or in the future) can buy them. That this is sadly not practical under the current condition isn't relevant to the question.

 

I understand the principle and agree with you. I personally don't want any John Williams release - or any soundtrack, for that matter - to be limited. But we have to face reality: these types of releases have  to be made limited for this business model to exist at all. Perhaps things will change in the (near) future.

 

The fact is, these releases were produced and advertised as 'limited'. This increased demand, primarily due to 'fear of missing out'... and they sold out relatively quickly.

 

This should indicate to LLL - and the companies that own the rights to the recorded scores - that a demand for these expanded scores does exist... and that a subsequent re-release (repressing, download, streaming) would be a viable endeavor.

[Holko 9,499]

1 minute ago, Mattris said:

I personally don't want any John Williams release - or any soundtrack, for that matter - to be limited.

Then your answer to the question is no, end of story!

[Mattris 416]

12 minutes ago, Holko said:

Then your answer to the question is no, end of story!

 

It's not, though.

 

I like that LLL's Jurassic Park and Harry Potter Soundtrack Collections were limited because they sold out quickly, indicating to all invested/related companies that these scores should be made available for sale again... preferably, on a wider scale: Amazon, downloads, streaming, etc.

[Marian Schedenig 8,173]

44 minutes ago, Mattris said:

But we have to face reality: the types of releases have  to be made limited for the business model to exist at all.

 

Yes, but most of us who said we *prefer* releases to be limited have already said just that in our initial posts. I fully support the Labels in doing limited releases under the current conditions.

 

44 minutes ago, Mattris said:

The fact is, these releases were produced and advertised as 'limited'. This increased demand, primarily due to 'fear of missing out'... and they sold out relatively quickly.

 

But they haven't sold out very quickly for years now. There was a time when these would sell out over night, but for the past several years I have had no problem with waiting a few months to place an order until enough stuff had accumulated to warrant the shipping overhead. I would have ordered almost everything just the same way if it had been unlimited (even with a guarantee that it would still be available in ten years). I'm sure *some* people hesitate less if a release is limited, but I don't think it makes a significant difference on the whole, except perhaps for the smaller Labels like Quartet who often do very limited releases (e.g. 1,000 copies) - and even then they often take months or years to sell out.

[GerateWohl 4,336]

I suspect, behind the wish of unlimited expansion releases stands the wish of unlimited nummer of John Williams fans, the wish for billions of like-minded people with good taste in music which would probably make this world a better place.

[Josh500 1,615]

1 hour ago, GerateWohl said:

I suspect, behind the wish of unlimited expansion releases stands the wish of unlimited nummer of John Williams fans, the wish for billions of like-minded people with good taste in music which would probably make this world a better place.

 

Yeah, exactly, in an ideal world....

 

 

I think the way it is right now is a pretty good compromise. Is it ideal? No, but then, what is? It satisfies both camps. 5,000 copies is pretty generous, too... That's a number where the majority of diehard fans will be able to get their hands on it without problems. I suspect the alternative might be what we had to endure in the 60s and 70s: no complete scores offered to the public at all! 

 

3 hours ago, Mattris said:

 

I like that LLL's Jurassic Park and Harry Potter Soundtrack Collections were limited because they sold out quickly, indicating to all invested/related companies that these scores should be made available for sale again... preferably, on a wider scale: Amazon, downloads, streaming, etc.

 

Not sure about that. Quickly? Didn't both Jurassic Park and Harry Potter take like 2 years to sell out? I wouldn't call that quickly at all. 

 

They might re-release it on a smaller scale a few years down the road (if there's demand at all), but I doubt very much it'll be on a wider scale. There's simply no market for it. It's a specialized niche market, and a tiny one at that! Sometimes I find it disheartening how tiny it is. 

3 hours ago, Mattris said:

But we have to face reality: these types of releases have  to be made limited for this business model to exist at all. Perhaps things will change in the (near) future.

 

The fact is, these releases were produced and advertised as 'limited'. This increased demand, primarily due to 'fear of missing out'... and they sold out relatively quickly.

 

Yes, exactly! Well said. 

 

 

[Smaug The Iron 510]

44 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

Didn't both Jurassic Park and Harry Potter take like 2 years to sell out? I wouldn't call that quickly at all. 

Harry Potter is not sold out, it just temporarly out of stock

[crumbs 14,300]

1 hour ago, Josh500 said:

Not sure about that. Quickly? Didn't both Jurassic Park and Harry Potter take like 2 years to sell out? I wouldn't call that quickly at all. 

 

The Potter box has been out of stock far longer than it's been available for purchase. It's not OOP yet but, in all likelihood, it would've sold out years ago if it was available to purchase every day since its release.

 

So it's a bit misleading to say something took years to sell out when these items regularly vanish for months on end and can't be purchased until more stock arrives (and IIRC the last batch of Potter stock sold out in only a couple of days). 

[Josh500 1,615]

31 minutes ago, crumbs said:

 

The Potter box has been out of stock far longer than it's been available for purchase. It's not OOP yet but, in all likelihood, it would've sold out years ago if it was available to purchase every day since its release.

 

So it's a bit misleading to say something took years to sell out when these items regularly vanish for months on end and can't be purchased until more stock arrives (and IIRC the last batch of Potter stock sold out in only a couple of days). 

 

Isn't the Potter box an exception, though? Never heard of these releases going OOS on a regular basis... Maybe once or twice, but regularly? 

 

What about the JP boxset? Didn't that go OOP after about 2 years of being available? Or maybe it was briefly OOS in between, I don't  remember. 

[Holko 9,499]

All of these releases are temp out of stock for months on end.

[OneBuckFilms 319]

Although impractical due to the costs involved in a more general release, I ideally would have these given more general releases so that others can discover these great scores.

 

It should be noted that the OST arrangements of these scores are obviously more wisely available, and the albums actually do a good job as an introduction to each score, but that's a situational mitigation rather than the ideal and preference for availability.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

I wouldn't normally weigh in on a thread like this, but I must say that I find it rather disconcerting that there's really anything to discuss here. I'm not sure how anyone who finds joy and inspiration in John Williams' music and has thus supported the fantastic work of the expansion labels could ever attempt to present a valid reason in favour of limited releases unless it was out of selfishness. Talk about commercial viability and an added sense of exclusivity (yuck!) all you want, but this is what it really comes down to.

 

It has always bothered me that, in the grand scheme of things, the window to purchase many of these expansions is typically limited to a 5 or 6 year time frame at the most (although some have disappeared in as little as 2 or 3 years, as we have seen). For many releases, particularly JW scores, this period has fallen sometime within the last decade. A constant stream of releases has meant that JWFan has been eating good during this time. However, many of these sets have already gone out of print, or are very near the end of their stock. What about the future JWFans who will have missed out on these? What about the JWFans who are still too young and not financially independent, or those who are not even aware of these releases because they aren't active members of the online film score community? I would think that anyone on this forum would be in favour of ensuring these were made available to them. Whatever fevered value one might find in a particular release being limited is not only void, but just plain false. How can you hold something like the E.T. set in your hands, and as you flip through the liner notes and listen to the climax of The Departure think that the thing that makes it special is the fact that "I'm one of 5000 people who own this"? That's really sad to me.

 

I am a student. I do not have a full-time job. I do not have a lot of wiggle room when it comes to making purchases like these, and while there are certainly many sets I would happily pick up, my collection remains fairly small. To be clear, I could not be more thankful for the sets I do own. E.T., CE3K, Superman, Saving Private Ryan - these are without question some of the maestro's finest works, and the flawless presentations as tirelessly constructed by Mike Matessino and the folks at LLL could not possibly reflect that any better. I was lucky enough to discover JWFan in late 2017. Of course, I had great admiration for John Williams' music prior to joining in January 2018, but my knowledge of the scores and cues and facts that I am now very much familiar with was limited then. Most significantly, I was not even remotely aware of these expanded releases at the time. Obviously, I had already missed a number of them, and in the process of "catching up" this continues to be the case for me. I try to follow the news on the forum and keep up with the relevant threads, but the reality is that I will not be able to pick up majority of these scores while they're still around. I cannot stress enough how immensely grateful I am for the sets that I do own, but my need to prioritize and become especially selective as a result of this scenario admittedly remains frustrating to me, although I have still managed to be smart about what I buy and when.

 

I know our dear friend Mattris has already posted his dissertation, a good indication that a thread is about to go off the rails, but I guess I just need to say that I am ultimately surprised and disappointed by what I can only describe as a certain level of ignorance and, yeah, selfishness inherent in the question this thread poses. Oh well.

[GerateWohl 4,336]

@The Illustrious Jerry

Hold on. I think everyone who is in favour of limited releases made very clear that this is not about the intention to keep expanded releases from fans that cannot effort them at the moment or something like that. And I have seen major releases of soundtrack vanish from the market in five years. So this limited or not limited discussion is kind of a fake discussion since all physical releases are limited. That has been said here multiple times as well. And of course that is bad for fans who were informed or born too late to get the info. But there are practical constraints. But of course these can be ignored in such a question and we can just decide what would be the solution that fulfilles the fan's desires best, no matter at which cost.

 

But if I follow that argumentation then we can open the next poll with the question "Should the labels give their releases to fans for free or take money from us?"And of course we can all vote for "They should give them to fans for free", because that would be best for everyone, especially those who cannot affort them if they cost money. And who ever would vote for, they should take money for it, is a selfish ashole according to your logic.

 

Next poll: LLL Records should donate 1000 $ to Amnesty International for every CD they are giving to a fan for free because that would make this world a better place. And who would say that donating 1000$ to Amnesty is a bad thing? Right. Only selfish people.

 

But.. seriously? 

[Richard Penna 3,670]

We're looking at hypotheticals that ignore practical constraints because scores can be kept alive in the digital world, not because anyone's imagining a utopia where all score releases are free.... 

 

Anyone who wishes that sets like these remained limited and and there be no way to buy digitally, is definitely selfish. You're basically actively denying future people hearing the music (legally) just because you want a collectible. The LotR CR sets are available digitally - perfect way to solve this issue with what is a hard-to-produce phyisical item. Why shouldn't, in theory, the Potter and JP boxes all be on Spotify/digital retailers?

[SteveMc 2,674]

I don't get the meaning or purpose of this thread.

I guess it is just to let those who are  soundtrack collectors first (a smaller but plenty vocal group it seems) argue with soundtrack fans, who thankfully are in the vast majority.  

[Josh500 1,615]

4 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

Anyone who wishes that sets like these remained limited and and there be no way to buy digitally, is definitely selfish. 

 

And as far as I can see, nobody participating in this thread expressed that wish... Nobody. 

 

6 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

@The Illustrious Jerry

Hold on. I think everyone who is in favour of limited releases made very clear that this is not about the intention to keep expanded releases from fans that cannot effort them at the moment or something like that. And I have seen major releases of soundtrack vanish from the market in five years. So this limited or not limited discussion is kind of a fake discussion since all physical releases are limited. 

 

It's really a question of whether an album is advertised as limited from its release... That's obviously different from an unlimited album eventually going OOP after several years, for whatever reason. 

 

6 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

@The Illustrious Jerry

Next poll: LLL Records should donate 1000 $ to Amnesty International for every CD they are giving to a fan for free because that would make this world a better place. And who would say that donating 1000$ to Amnesty is a bad thing? Right. Only selfish people.

 

But.. seriously? 

 

Exactly! Well said. I wanted to write something exactly like that myself. I think some people just have a very hard time accepting the fact that other people have a different view on things than themselves.... Something you see more and more often these days, on not just on this topic. 

[GerateWohl 4,336]

7 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

Anyone who wishes that sets like these remained limited and and there be no way to buy digitally, is definitely selfish.

I said in my very first post in this thread "Sorry, I personally like that they are limited. And I would vote as well for unlimited digital releases in addition. Like amazon does it."

So, why do you assume, that people who voted for limited physical releases are automatically against unlimited digital releases?

I don't get it.

[Josh500 1,615]

I don't respond to every message directed at me anymore, because seriously, many are not worth it. But somebody asked me whether something becomes more valuable just because it's limited.  Well, duh. It raises its value, without a doubt. It's the difference between owning something only 5,000 people in the entire world have, or something that everybody can get anytime at a moment's notice (not that they would). But that in no way means or implies that everybody that wants it shouldn't have it.... 

 

An example. Let's say you buy a mansion for a million dollars in an exclusive, gated community. You expect its value to rise as time goes by, and although you're no expecting to move anywhere soon, that's good to know: 

 

Then people from all over the country starts moving into your exclusive neighbourhood and starts building houses all over the place. Your neighbourhood might end up looking like this.... 

 

Will the value of your mansion sink? The mansion itself won't change, of course, but it will lose its value nonetheless, even if those houses don't infringe upon your property. See, it's a matter of perception, how it's perceived by everybody else, and that alone dictates its value. Do you want other people to become homeless, though? Of course not. They can build their homes elsewhere.

 

It's not an exact comparison, of course, but an example for why values rise or fall based on perception. And this perceived value ensures, I'm convinced, that specialty labels like LLL can release and sell and gain profit from these highly specialised products in the first place. This perceived value ensures that diehard fans and casual fans alike are motivated into buying said products within a certain limited time period. The studios know it, and they make sure that's the way it happens (or they simply won't allow it, why start a venture that will end up losing money?), although labels like LLL probably don't want to officially admit it for understandable reasons: they're on "our" side. 

 

In the end, it's all about profit. What else? 

[Brundlefly 2,385]

If that's the way you think and you also feel the need to illustrate it with this tasteless comparison of housing, then don't be surprised about many mad posts.

 

11 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

But if I follow that argumentation then we can open the next poll with the question "Should the labels give their releases to fans for free or take money from us?"And of course we can all vote for "They should give them to fans for free", because that would be best for everyone, especially those who cannot affort them if they cost money. And who ever would vote for, they should take money for it, is a selfish ashole according to your logic.

He was complaining about the lack of availability and the high prices which depend on the fact that these releases are limited. Has nothing to do with this "for free" nonsense. Thus you do not seem to follow the argumentation, you instead warp his statements.

[GerateWohl 4,336]

16 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

He was complaining about the lack of availability and the high prices which depend on the fact that these releases are limited. Has nothing to do with this "for free" nonsense. Thus you do not seem to follow the argumentation, you instead warp his statements.

That is not correct. I am exactly following his argumantation. I said, this limitation makes sense in a real world with actual market constraints, that is why I am in favour of the limited releases. 

Jerry resonded that this is selfish and he is against it, which either means, people's votes should ignore market constraints (that is where my post was referring to) or he things he believes differently that there are no market constraints and just wishing that unlimited releases would make it possible to satisfy every fans desire for all the expanded releases they ever wish to have and make the labels rich at the same time.

[HunterTech 987]

To those who are strongly in the limited camp: what exactly were you expecting? For a site that is primarily dominated by music enthusiasts, is it really that surprising that treating full film scores through mainly archaic means would be opposed? Sure, open the door for discussion all you want, and I will say that it has lead to further reminders of the sorts of hurdles labels have to go through in order to get much of their work out there, as well as the reality people face whenever a release ends up being out of their grasp for one reason or another. But if the point was to flex over how special you feel over having these artificially valuable items, then I don't know what else to tell you that these other gentlemen haven't already covered.

[GerateWohl 4,336]

Again. I think, if you would not just see my vote but would read my words, you could see that my intention was not about feeling special. 

What did I expect? Having a conversation with adults and not with a bunch of I-Want-I want-I want-Kids.

[crumbs 14,300]

 

4 hours ago, Josh500 said:

An example. Let's say you buy a mansion for a million dollars in an exclusive, gated community. You expect its value to rise as time goes by, and although you're no expecting to move anywhere soon, that's good to know: 

 

Then people from all over the country starts moving into your exclusive neighbourhood and starts building houses all over the place. Your neighbourhood might end up looking like this.... 

 

Will the value of your mansion sink? The mansion itself won't change, of course, but it will lose its value nonetheless, even if those houses don't infringe upon your property. See, it's a matter of perception, how it's perceived by everybody else, and that alone dictates its value. Do you want other people to become homeless, though? Of course not. They can build their homes elsewhere.

 

This is, quite comfortably, the most breathtakingly hamfisted analogy I've read on JWFan.

 

4 hours ago, Josh500 said:

It's not an exact comparison, of course

 

Understatement of the millennium? 

 

Maybe your next analogy can liken limited soundtracks to the availability of clean drinking water in Malibu versus Sub-Saharan Africa?

 

4 hours ago, Josh500 said:

In the end, it's all about profit. What else? 

 

 

[GerateWohl 4,336]

I agree. It is never a good idea to compare essential assets like food, housing or healthcare with optional assets like soundtrack expansions. That doesn't work.

What I don't understand, that nobody tried to convince the limited camp by explaining how the system could work with unlimited releases in their oppinion instead of just calling us selfish (because any approach that leaves any fan with his expansion wishes behind is mean and bad).

 

Anyway, at least we still have all the OST releases of all the soundtracks available, because they were never limited, right?

 

[Holko 9,499]

3 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

What I don't understand, that nobody tried to convince the limited camp by explaining how the system could work with unlimited releases in their oppinion

 

On 8/22/2021 at 7:12 PM, Holko said:

I don't think it'd be a huge problem to print, say, 100 copies to keep in stock once interest dies down, sell it over the next years if it slows down that much, or order a bigger batch next time if interest picks up for some reason. But what do I know.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

instead of just calling us selfish (because any approach that leaves any fan with his expansion wishes behind is mean and bad).

Well, none of you really tried to fight Josh for building the selfishness into the answer you picked.

[GerateWohl 4,336]

 

@Holko Yes, sorry. You made a proposal. But I understand that the question how much they print is not only a question of win/loss but also a contractual obligation. Anyway, I did not really notice your proposal.

Still I think, like Josh, digital release plus limited physical would be the best compromise for all. 

 

2 hours ago, Holko said:

Well, none of you really tried to fight Josh for building the selfishness into the answer you picked.

Why would I fight Josh? He is a nice guy and I respect his oppinion like I respect yours. And I find the comments to him particularly insulting and inappropriate.

I even respect those saying that I am a selfish person. Probably, I am. Still I find the way of argumentation here particularly low level. 

 

Yes, Josh's example with the houses was not good, neither was Jerry's litany of the poor and disappointed student just longing for a little expansion, but the evil selfish people dare to find a situation alright where he is taken the chance to ever get what he desires.

 

At the end you and some others took the discussion down to "Who thinks that current situation with limited expansions is not perfect but ok is an asshole".

Actually, I voted after you wrote that, also because I thought, it must be possible here to have a different opinion here without getting offended. Probably, I should not have.

 

I admit, that the situation, that the limited releases are currently the ONLY way to get these expansions, is not good. Digital releases in addition would be the best option, I still think that. But to give then some exclusiveness to the physical releases is ok, since they are not cheap, especially when you purchase them from outside the U.S.

 

And I have to say as well, particularly the reason why I buy expansions is that they are the only available release of a soundtrack. BECAUSE ALL THE UNLIMITED OST ALBUMS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ANYMORE. So much for unlimited releases.

 

Anyway, this is my last post in this thread. I am done with this topic. Really.

[Richard Penna 3,670]

10 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

I said in my very first post in this thread "Sorry, I personally like that they are limited. And I would vote as well for unlimited digital releases in addition. Like amazon does it."

So, why do you assume, that people who voted for limited physical releases are automatically against unlimited digital releases?

I don't get it.

 

I should clarify, I wasn't passively aiming that statement at you or anyone - more expressing my problem with anyone at the most extreme position, which I certainly wasn't suggesting you hold.

 

Limiting the discussion only to the physical part, I'd probably disagree with you, as I don't have a physical collector mentality, but that's fair enough  

 

To be honest, the 'digital' element has somewhat hijacked the original question, but I've been emphasizing that just due to my general reservations about the inefficiencies of making and distributing CDs. I've felt for a while that it would be nice if the labels were able to concentrate more fully on licensing and music issues, and not manufacturing issues, but that's my idealistic pondering.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

5 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

What I don't understand, that nobody tried to convince the limited camp by explaining how the system could work with unlimited releases in their oppinion instead of just calling us selfish (because any approach that leaves any fan with his expansion wishes behind is mean and bad).

You're allowed to be as grounded as you want, however, the way you argue indicates that you have not read the poll question properly which is about preference not possibilities. Even the poll answers are quite clear about that, so if you preferred all releases to be unlimited, even if that is not likely to happen, you would have to choose what the majority of us chose.

[Marian Schedenig 8,173]

2 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

To be honest, the 'digital' element has somewhat hijacked the original question

 

But that wasn't part of the question anyway.

 

The question is "Do you prefer [releases] to be limited or not". No further qualifiers. Most of us who said we'd prefer every release to be unlimited have also explained our positions to make it clear that if the choice is between "limited releases like we currently have" or "unlimited releases, but hardly any, because they wouldn't get (or couldn't afford) the licences", we'd clearly pick the limited option. Adding unlimited digital releases to the question turns it into something completely different, too. (A relevant question that I think is more complicated to decide, but not the question in this poll)

 

And because people have been complaining about things getting too personal (which I believe I've kept out of) and respecting opinions, and just on that very abstract level, without meaning to get personal myself: *If* someone says I want X to be produced in very small numbers because I want to have it and feel special over others who missed out on it, then that's an opinion I *accept*, but not one I have to have *respect* for. Also, everyone (or at least most people - including certainly me) are selfish at times, and that's generally ok, but just because I sometimes *am* selfish I'm not expecting anyone to have respect for it.

 

For the choice in question, many of us evidently think that the choice comes down to "let everyone have it if possible" or "make it limited so I can feel special for having it", and that the second option is quite clearly on the selfish end.

 

As to that other thing: Realistically, nothing is truly unlimited anyway. Many OST releases have long been out of print not because they were officially "limited", but simply because the labels didn't think they'd sell enough further copies to warrant another pressing. Rather like Intrada's "while quantities and interest remain", with the distinction that Intrada have to take their own limited space into account (while big record companies of the past kept the remaining copies in warehouses or - in actual stores). Considering how little of this stuff gets a regular release at all these days, I wouldn't be surprised if a limited release of 10k copies actually lasts *longer* than a not officially limited release by a random company who presses just a small batch and never bothers to do a followup pressing for the few hundred people who missed out on the first batch. And not even because they're greedy, or ignorant, but simply because they have to balance their production capacities between hundreds (thousand? tens of thousands?) other releases that are in much higher demand. Even the Labels often have to leave us waiting for followup pressings because their own capacities can't keep up with their relatively large number of relatively limited albums.

 

[Holko 9,499]

13 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

many of us evidently think that the choice comes down to (...) or "make it limited so I can feel special for having it", and that the second option is quite clearly on the selfish end.

Yeah, that's literally what the "yes" option says.

[Josh500 1,615]

15 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Why would I fight Josh? He is a nice guy and I respect his oppinion like I respect yours. And I find the comments to him particularly insulting and inappropriate.

I even respect those saying that I am a selfish person. Probably, I am. Still I find the way of argumentation here particularly low level. 

 

Yeah, like I said, these are generally intolerant and narrow-minded people incapable of  understanding that other people might have different opinions. Not only that, they start being insulting and obnoxious, too, calling names--the first very answer to this thread is the best example. That really set the tone for this entire thread. 

 

But that seems to be the trend these days. Regardless of the topic--be it politics, Corona, international affairs, climate change etc.--people are becoming more and more intolerant and obnoxious, or in the words of a certain prolific participant of this thread, "assholes." 

 

15 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Yes, Josh's example with the houses was not good... 

 

Yeah, I realised that too, halfway through. Buying expanded soundtracks and houses are in no way comparable (and I admitted that it's not a good comparison, too), but I was merely trying to illustrate how a product can become more or less valuable based on external factors. Limited editions can, and most times are, more valuable because of how people perceive it, not because the product itself changes. 

 

Anyway, I understand and respect the fact that most people here have the shared opinion that these expanded soundtracks should be unlimited. That's fine. I happen to have a slightly different opinion, but like I also said before, I don't have an extreme view on this subject, like, "These releases absolutely need to be limited"! If LLL and other specialty labels should decide all of a sudden to make all their products unlimited, I'd be pleasantly surprised and in no way feel less inclined to cherish these much-coveted releases. 

[HunterTech 987]

Ya know, if you wanted us to engage more properly, calling us "intolerant and narrow-minded" probably isn't the best idea. (Also, given recent rule changes, you may want to cut back on some of the subjects you mentioned in that post.)

 

I personally just don't understand what the ultimate appeal is with having a limited item in this scenario, given that I thought it was the music and the art of the packaging (most of the time) that we are admiring at the end of the day. To give this much value towards the quantity of the item honestly seems a bit disrespectful to the hard work the labels put in, since they more likely want you to think about the general quality of the product than the legal production behind it. I just find I haven't seen an adequate enough justification for it to be appealing in this case (without pulling the card the others already have).

[crocodile 7,984]

All great music should be readily available in any format of listener's choosing - physical or not. 

 

Karol