Jump to content

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


Josh500
 Share

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

71 members have voted

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

    • Yes, I like that they're limited. Gives these editions a sense of exclusivity, and obviously raises their value significantly.
    • No, I wish they were not limited. Gives more people a chance to experience these scores (although sure, the general public probably won't embrace them as much).


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Holko said:

In other words, "am I a selfish asshole" vs. "do I want art to be presented properly and accessibly". LLL should get on the digital train after Varese and Intrada, and convince JW too, including the booklets digitally too, THEN limited physical releases would be acceptable. I was insanely lucky to find this site just when all I wanted was about to come out or still available.

 

You do realise these editions are limited? Are you calling the LLL representatives or those who approve of their work assholes? We're all adults to discuss a topic here, no need for any name calling. 

 

That said, I explained the general appeal of limited editions, not just of soundtrack albums but of any product, but especially of music, books, movies, watches, jewelry, cars, etc. (a sense of exclusivity). Also, like I said, if LLL sells 5000 copies of the HP boxset when it's limited, it's not like they'd be selling 50,000 if it wasn't limited. In fact, it's even possible that when it's not limited, fewer people will buy it, because everybody thinks they can buy it anytime and its value just isn't as high. Some people buy it right away because it's a limited special edition, and it's... well, special! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Holko said:

Well it's not like they have a choice. And that's got nothing to do with "feeling a sense of exclusivity and like sitting on more cash", that's the selfish asshole part. YOU get to be in a little exclusive club, others who were born later or didn't find out about these in time can go to hell or buy them from you at their increased value, right?

 

The only asshole is the person who feels the need to call people who has a different opinion names. 

 

Anyway, limited edition (or special edition, or collector's edition etc.) is a standard business practice these days, a marketing incentive to entice a small core group of fans. I don't strictly object to it (and no, I have never resold anything JW related in my life!), although yeah, there are a few cases in the past where I myself missed out on something because something was limited. One business practice I object to way more is "double dipping" or "milking," where a company will release the same product multiple times, with only the slightest changes or improvements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Smaug The Iron said:

They should never be limited. If you are a new John Williams fan you should have the right to have the complete score of your favorite scores in a legal way. 

I never hade the opportunity to buy the Jurassic Park Collection so I had to downloade it illegaly instead. If it was unlimited I would be happy to buy it because I would own the set legaly and I would support La La Land Records. 

 

Everybody has a right to own this...? So you had to act illegally...? 

 

O-kay.  Not sure I agree with this at all. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Holko said:

So you actively want fans to not have access to some of JW's best work.

 

Not at all. I am a fan myself. I try to get everything I can get. So should every other fan. 

 

In a way, that's what's binds us together as a group, like we can witness with every new release of a much-coveted limited edition... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

 

The only asshole is the person who feels the need to call people who has a different opinion names. 

It looks like this is just what you are doing here.

 

24 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

Anyway, limited edition (or special edition, or collector's edition etc.) is a standard business practice these days, a marketing incentive to entice a small core group of fans. I don't strictly object to it (and no, I have never resold anything JW related in my life!), although yeah, there are a few cases in the past where I myself missed out on something because something was limited. One business practice I object to way more is "double dipping" or "milking," where a company will release the same product multiple times, with only the slightest changes or improvements. 

 

The pool is about our preferences as customers, not questioning the reason behind these policies.

We are talking about arts.

Why would anyone prefer other people not to have access to it? 

We love this music so what's my gain if only few hundreds of people can get access to it?

There are a few answers to these questions which justify certain words to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

 

Everybody has a right to own this...? So you had to act illegally...? 

 

O-kay.  Not sure I agree with this at all. 

 

 

 

So you mean I don't have the right to listen to John Williams complete score? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Holko said:

And what about people who will become fans in 5 years when even great releases that haven't come out yet will be sold out?

 

Every release, limited or not, go out of print sooner or later.... Not sure whether a $60 or $100 set will even be available in 5 years even if it's not limited. They won't keep pressing new copies just because a few dozen or even hundred people are asking for it every few years. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smaug The Iron said:

So you mean I don't have the right to listen to John Williams complete score? 

 

What? You think we have a God-given right to own something like music, books, cars etc.? Nobody does. It's just a question of supply and demand. Basic economics. 

 

If a limited edition of a car is sold out, would I claim I have the right to own it and go stealing it somewhere? It's an extreme example, but it proves the same point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Josh500 said:

 

Every release, limited or not, go out of print sooner or later.... No t sure whether a $60 or $100 set will even be available in 5 years even if it's not limited. They won't keep pressing new copies just because a few hundred people are asking for it every few years. 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome to 2021 where you can buy soundtrack digital. You don't have to press new copies every few years if we can buy this digital instead. 

 

2 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

What? You think we have a God-given right to own something like music, books, cars etc.? Nobody does. It's just a question of supply and demand. Basic economics. 

Yes I understand, I can't listen to the scores I like because I didn't have the money at the time to buy it. 

And the future generation can not listen to the scores they like because they didn't know or was to young at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

 

What? You think we have a God-given right to own something like music, books, cars etc.? Nobody does. It's just a question of supply and demand. Basic economics. 

 

Technically this is what public domain means: once the copyright expires everyone will have the right to access music, books, movies...(not cars though, that isn't art).

 

28 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

If a limited edition of a car is sold out, would I claim I have the right to own it and go stealing it somewhere? It's an extreme example, but it proves the same point. 

 

Copyright laws and public domains rights don't apply to cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Chewy said:

This is why having those releases available digitally, also with a digital booklet, might be a great solution!

 

Limited physical releases but unlimited digital ones would be a great compromise.

 

Yeah, that's true. And we're definitely moving in that direction, anyway.... 

 

Music, books, games, TV, movies, everything is digital these days. Hell, even money and official documents. It's only a matter of time. I'd still want physical copies, though, I'm old-fashioned that way. Although in a few decades, I have a feeling nothing will be physical anymore, and everything digital. Not sure whether that's gonna be a better place. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh500 said:

They won't keep pressing new copies just because a few dozen or even hundred people are asking for it every few years. 

 

Uhh, yes they would?

 

The maximum quantities are forced upon them for reasons beyond their control; they would take a per unit fee in a heartbeat if that option were available to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chewy said:

 

@Josh500 Give up, vote "No" with all of us so we can have a perfect 100% - 0%!

 

Maybe I will, but if I do, it's because I actually came around, and not because 99% of the masses think so. That's how the biggest problems of the world always starts... blindly following the masses... 

 

That said, I don't have that strong an opinion on this topic anyway (like, "I need them to be limited!"). I think I'd just as be content if these editions weren't limited at all - I'd get them, either way, of course, most of us would. I just wanted to kick off an interesting discussion is all. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically, digital release is the ONLY possible way to release music in an unlimited  way. EVERY physical release is limited naturally. 

And if I just have the choice between a limited physical release and an unlimited digital I would always prefer the limited physical. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Logically, digital release is the ONLY possible way to release music in an unlimited  way. EVERY physical release is limited naturally. 

And if I just have the choice between a limited physical release and an unlimited digital I would always prefer the limited physical. 

 

 

If they ever decide to release these in digital form, they should be a lot less expensive too... 

 

Say, from $60 to $40, and from $100 to $60. The regular 2-disc releases should go from $30 to $20! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, KittBash said:

This question was a lot tougher for me. 

 

On the one hand, of course I want every fan who wants to get the scores they want to have the ability to go and get those scores and enjoy them to the fullest like so many of us have been fortunate enough to do.  This keeps the music alive, preserved and keeps these labels who have dedicated their working lives to these things in business and doing the work that we enjoy the fruits of.

 

While I appreciate this admirable thought (and at its most basic level I agree with it wholeheartedly, of course, who wouldn't?), I'm afraid it's not that easy. This limited edition thing is nothing but a marketing strategy, basic psychology. It's a way to dramatically raise a product's value (or perception thereof) without actually hiking up its price. 

 

The JW diehard fans will pretty much instantly buy every single release, limited edition or not. That's par for the course. But what about the more casual, not-so-diehard fans? Many of them are motivated into buying these expanded releases, precisely because they're limited. If they knew they'd be forever and ever available anyway, would they actually go out of their way to instantly shell out money for The Eiger Sanction, Always, or even Minority Report? Highly doubtful. 

 

So my point is, The JP and HP Collection Soundtracks sold so many copies so fast, precisely because they were limited editions. If they hadn't been, I doubt LLL would have sold 5000 copies of each set even today.... Maybe 3000 or 4000. Or even fewer copies. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thor said:

Poll is missing an option:

 

"Makes no difference to me. Have no interest in them in the first place".

 

Actually, your opinion on this issue is still valid regardless of your being uninterested in the musical contents :) 

 

Or frame it this way - what if the OSTs for JP/TLW were limited editions, and there was now no way to legally buy the scores full stop.

 

My view: these have to be limited for financial/licensing issues, but if they weren't under those constraints, and could print as many as they wanted for as long as there was demand and they could justify from a cash flow perspective, then they absoluely should be un-limited releases.

 

It's astounding that if you live in the UK, you can't legally purchase any more music than the OST for either JP scores.

 

My overarching view on this is shaped however, by my declined interest in needing to own physical CDs. I still buy them where readily available and similarly priced to digital releases, but the logistical and manufacturing demands of pressing CDs feels more burdomsome than ever. Varese is on exactly the right track here - do some CDs for the diehard fans, then release digitally for everyone else. Of course there are reasons Intrada/LLL can't do the same - I'm merely talking about the advantages when the licensing allows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a consumer, of course I'd rather they all be unlimited. But I also understand that the labels are doing what they have to do, and with many of these albums, they can either do a limited release or no release at all. I'll happily take the former over the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jay said:

 

But sadly, they are denied these options by the corporations that own the music, as well as the American Federation of Musicians.

 

To make these releases happen, they get a license from the corporation that owns the rights to sell music from the score (in the JP set's case, UMG, the entity that owns what was once MCA Records) and the corporation that owns all the music that wasn't on the OST albums (in JP's case, Universal Pictures).  Each of these entities only give licenses for physical units to sell - they don't grant licenses for them to sell their albums digitally.  So that's why they are CD (and sometimes vinyl) only.

 

As for the number of copies, the AFM requires a massive payment to release for sale any music from these scores that wasn't released before (which the specialty label has to pay).  And even making that that payment, the AFM still only grants them to release a certain amount of copies - they don't allow them to just print and sell as many copies as they want.  So that is why all these releases are limited.  If the AFM did not have this stipulation, there'd be no more specialty label sellouts - the specialty labels would continue to keep any title in print that there was clear interest that people still wanted to buy.

 

So if what everything you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you), this leaves only one question. Why do the "corporations" and AFM act in this way, putting up obstacles and hurdles seemingly against the wishes of the artist (John Williams), the specialty label (LLL), and the fans? Selling many copies of the specialty releases can in no way be a reason for the sales of the OS albums to suffer, since most buyers of these specialty releases are the diehard, rather than the casual fans. Doesn't make sense. 

 

There has to be some business strategy behind it. Every corporation wants to make as much money as possible, and it's likely that these corporations believe that by making a release limited, they'll ultimately sell more copies in a short period. I understand that specialty labels want to please the fans and are on "our" side, so to speak, but the corporations that own the music surely have as their first priority turning as big a profit as possible. 

 

I'm still convinced certain niche or specialty products will sell far more copies if it's a limited release... Otherwise, why limit it at all? There'd be no reason at all for doing so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Penna said:

 

Actually, your opinion on this issue is still valid regardless of your being uninterested in the musical contents :) 

 

Thank you. Yes, I think 'indifference' is just as valid and sometimes even more interesting as a 'yes' or 'no'. Hence why many polls include that option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

So if what everything you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you), this leaves only one question. Why do the "corporations" and AFM act in this way, putting up obstacles and hurdles seemingly against the wishes of the artist (John Williams), the specialty label (LLL), and the fans?

 

I have no idea my man.  I am sure whoever is running the AFM thinks this business model makes the most sense, even though everyone here in this forum probably disagrees with them.  

 

28 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

Selling many copies of the specialty releases can in no way be a reason for the sales of the OS albums to suffer, since most buyers of these specialty releases are the diehard, rather than the casual fans. Doesn't make sense. 

 

Yep

 

28 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

There has to be some business strategy behind it.

 

Right, I am sure the people running the AFM who made this decision did it for business reasons, did it for reasons that they think is the most fair to the musicians they represent.  But, I just think they made the wrong decision, and their decision is actually hurting their bottom line.  But maybe they don't think of things the way we do.  I really have no idea.

 

28 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

Every corporation wants to make as much money as possible, and it's likely that these corporations believe that by making a release limited, they'll ultimately sell more copies in a short period.

 

You're conflating two things there.  The AFM is not a "corporation", it's a union.  Their existence is to protect the musicians recording these scores.  These tiny specialty label releases that come out from time to time are a complete afterthought to them, a small blip on their radar.  They setup a business model for how transactions would work with regards to catalog releases of old scores these musicians played on, and that's that.  They spend the majority of their time focusing on every other aspect of the music recording process here, not on this end.  This end of things just happens to be the part of the business more impactful to all of us.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

I understand that specialty labels want to please the fans and are on "our" side, so to speak, but the corporations that own the music surely have as their first priority turning as big a profit as possible. 

 

If we are a small pond to the AFM, we are an even smaller pond to these giant movie studios, which are all now owned by giant corporations.  They absolutely care more about profits than anything else, and that's precisely why they don't care much about us.  Absolutely none of any of these specialty label titles make any noticeable profit for any of these movie studios.  These releases are the tiniest of the tiny blips on their radars. 

 

I am not 100% sure about this part, but I am pretty sure that they make the same amount of money if the labels sell 1 copy of 10,000 copies.  The label pays these corporations for the license, the music data, the photographs in the booklet, and probably some legal fees and such.  But I do not believe they then make extra payments to the studios based on how many copies are sold.  The whole reason these corporations grant these licensees to the specialty labels is so the specialty labels can do literally all the work to make them happen and they don't have to do anything, which keeps their hands of all the other decisions made including how many copies to limit them to, a decision made by the specialty label influenced by the AFM's rules.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

I'm still convinced certain niche or specialty products will sell far more copies if it's a limited release... Otherwise, why limit it at all? There'd be no reason at all for doing so. 

 

The reason they limit them is because the AFM forces them to.  Of course, some might still choose to announce some titles as limited even if they didn't have to, in an attempt to sell more copies, perhaps.  Who knows.  But in the cases of giant, perpetual sellers like Jurassic Park, ET, Jaws, or Harry Potter, I guarantee the labels would love to keep them in print for the whole life of their label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.