Off-Topic Posts from "A Farewell to Kings"

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

salsdali

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
1,527
Location
Altered State
...in one of his interviews he did mention that fans are getting a lot of material and still complaining...what I call a sense of entitlement....

I understand what you, and Steven are saying, but when an old catalog movie is newly released on blu-ray or 4k and gets a new Atmos or DTS:X surround mix the new release doesn't cost $150, it usually just cost $20. Even the new movie box sets don't cost $150.

Most fans nowadays don't want all that new material (vinyl, remastered cds) they just want the new surround mix. That stuff is just "filler" for the record company to justify their gouging.

If movie companies (who are as greedy as record labels) can release a new surround mix (atmos) for $20 then so should the record companies be able to do also.

The fact that they are not is showing their greed.
 
I understand what you, and Steven are saying, but when a new movie is released on blu-ray or 4k and gets a new Atmos or DTS:X surround mix the new release doesn't cost $150, it usually just cost $20. Even the new movie box sets don't cost $150.

Most fans nowadays don't want all that new material (vinyl, remastered cds) they just want the new surround mix.

If movie companies (who are as greedy as record labels) can release a new surround mix for $20 then so should the record companies be able to do also.

The fact that they are not is showing their greed.

I do find this whole concept of greed a strange perspective....these items are not necessities of life...they are luxury items...it's like complaining about the cost of a Mercedes...it's not like someone is charging $10 for a glass of water(something that you actually need)..this is a hobby...and if you think these record companies are making huge profits on disc based music....you are wrong.. I wish they were making substantial sums on these releases.......making a profit isn't evil.... I want them to be profitable...because if they aren't there won't be any music...there are a lot of things in life I don't do because I can't afford it...that's just life...I don't rationalize by accusing someone of being greedy...I just accept it...I don't need 120 channels on my TV service...but to get the channels I want I have to pay for ones I don't want...that's just the way it is...
 
I do find this whole concept of greed a strange perspective....these items are not necessities of life...they are luxury items...it's like complaining about the cost of a Mercedes...it's not like someone is charging $10 for a glass of water(something that you actually need)..this is a hobby...and if you think these record companies are making huge profits on disc based music....you are wrong.. I wish they were making substantial sums on these releases.......making a profit isn't evil.... I want them to be profitable...because if they aren't there won't be any music...there are a lot of things in life I don't do because I can't afford it...that's just life...I don't rationalize by accusing someone of being greedy...I just accept it...I don't need 120 channels on my TV service...but to get the channels I want I have to pay for ones I don't want...that's just the way it is...

why do all new surround music mixes need to be Mercedes when the movie industry is able to make a profit selling Ford surround mixes?

Part of it is because of illegally downloading music, the record companies are trying to 'compensate" for that loss by "over" pricing their product to balance the equation.

Movie companies don't have to do that nearly as much because they have bigger infrastructure when it comes to surround mixes and people just don't download movies illegally at the rate they do music.

Sorry record companies but that is not a justification for gouging. Record companies just happen to be on the losing end of the mp3 war (as opposed to movie companies) and they can't ethically pass that loss onto consumers. They are just going to have to live with less profit than they made before (illegally) downloading technology. And that's just the way that is..

you can't stuff a Genie back into the bottle no matter how much you "want" to.

Instead of trying to make every new surround mix a Mercedes and release that to a niche market (which hardly exists in this new economy) they need to do the opposite and hire an "assembly line" of surround mixers to release their entire catalog into Ford surround mixes for the masses. The only way is to make money off of "volume" in this day and age, just like they did before illegal downloading.

Like I've said before, they should just "farm out" their new surround mixes to the movie studios.

I like and respect Steven Wilson, Elliot Scheiner, etc but they are not the only mixers in town. Hollywood's full of them.
 
My comment on the release announcement post on Rush's Facebook page:

desperate people (record companies) do desperate things

they were so blindsided by illegal downloading that they just knee-jerk reacted without any logical business strategy and it's why they are continuing to fail to this day.

They just need to step back and say, "wow, we took a huge hit, we need to be humble again and rebuild slowly".

This whole, let's gouge for $150 fast to make up for those downloaders is greedy business strategy that is not sustainable.

Greed is never sustainable just like why Capitalism is never sustainable and why America is imploding right now (but that's for a whole 'nother post).
 
why do all new surround music mixes need to be Mercedes when the movie industry is able to make a profit selling Ford surround mixes?

Part of it is because of illegally downloading music, the record companies are trying to 'compensate" for that loss by "over" pricing their product to balance the equation.

Movie companies don't have to do that nearly as much because they have bigger infrastructure when it comes to surround mixes and people just don't download movies illegally at the rate they do music.

Sorry record companies but that is not a justification for gouging. Record companies just happen to be on the losing end of the mp3 war (as opposed to movie companies) and they can't ethically pass that loss onto consumers. They are just going to have to live with less profit than they made before (illegally) downloading technology. And that's just the way that is..

you can't stuff a Genie back into the bottle no matter how much you "want" to.

Instead of trying to make every new surround mix a Mercedes and release that to a niche market (which hardly exists in this new economy) they need to do the opposite and hire an "assembly line" of surround mixers to release their entire catalog into Ford surround mixes for the masses. The only way is to make money off of "volume" in this day and age, just like they did before illegal downloading.

Like I've said before, they should just "farm out" their new surround mixes to the movie studios.

I like and respect Steven Wilson, Elliot Scheiner, etc but they are not the only mixers in town. Hollywood's full of them.


Oh boy...I'm sorry I even responded...this has nothing to do with downloading and you have no idea what price gouging really is...I should have just let you ramble on about greed...instead we are getting an ill conceived manifesto about the record companies...I'm done with this...don't respond to me as I will probably just use the ignore button to stop seeing this mess..
 
I understand what you, and Steven are saying, but when an old catalog movie is newly released on blu-ray or 4k and gets a new Atmos or DTS:X surround mix the new release doesn't cost $150, it usually just cost $20. Even the new movie box sets don't cost $150.

Most fans nowadays don't want all that new material (vinyl, remastered cds) they just want the new surround mix. That stuff is just "filler" for the record company to justify their gouging.

If movie companies (who are as greedy as record labels) can release a new surround mix (atmos) for $20 then so should the record companies be able to do also.

The fact that they are not is showing their greed.


While I would love to have 5.1 Steven Wilson surround mix of this album, I can’t justify paying $150 just to get that one disc, and as evidenced by previous comments, several here won’t/can’t either.

But to claim the “greedy” record company is gouging fans with the super deluxe set is just absurd. I would guess the profit margin on this is rather slim to be honest. And considering all the content in the package, that $150 price tag is reasonable. I buy very little vinyl but it seems double LPs run anywhere from $30–40. So that’s $60-80 right there (they’re charging $80 for the 4LP box). Three CDs—probably $25-30 (they’re charging $30 for the CD box). A blu-ray disc would probably sell as a stand-alone for $25-30. So those three items add up to $140 right there. Add the costs of design and print production of the actual box that houses all the content plus the extra baubles that are included and $150 seems a fair price for the super-duper set. I know, most here aren't interested in those extras but perhaps for die-hard fans they're a nice addition to the package.

This isn’t the first time the surround content of a release is included only in the super-deluxe version—and it won’t be the last. One can make their request for a stand-alone blu-ray or CD/BR only option to the band and/or their record company and perhaps there will be enough to make a change (It worked for Alan Parsons) or at least cause some consideration for those on future releases. Those directing their anger at Steven Wilson’s Facebook page are, well, misdirected.
 
why do all new surround music mixes need to be Mercedes when the movie industry is able to make a profit selling Ford surround mixes?

Part of it is because of illegally downloading music, the record companies are trying to 'compensate" for that loss by "over" pricing their product to balance the equation.

Movie companies don't have to do that nearly as much because they have bigger infrastructure when it comes to surround mixes and people just don't download movies illegally at the rate they do music.

Sorry record companies but that is not a justification for gouging. Record companies just happen to be on the losing end of the mp3 war (as opposed to movie companies) and they can't ethically pass that loss onto consumers. They are just going to have to live with less profit than they made before (illegally) downloading technology. And that's just the way that is..

you can't stuff a Genie back into the bottle no matter how much you "want" to.

Instead of trying to make every new surround mix a Mercedes and release that to a niche market (which hardly exists in this new economy) they need to do the opposite and hire an "assembly line" of surround mixers to release their entire catalog into Ford surround mixes for the masses. The only way is to make money off of "volume" in this day and age, just like they did before illegal downloading.

Like I've said before, they should just "farm out" their new surround mixes to the movie studios.

I like and respect Steven Wilson, Elliot Scheiner, etc but they are not the only mixers in town. Hollywood's full of them.



“Assembly line” mixers? Seriously? That just reeks of doing things half-assed and on the cheap.
Do you really want movie studios doing surround mixes for music releases? Or given the analogy being made, maybe the question should be, do you want a Ford technician doing work on your Mercedes?

Yes, surround mixes are for a niche audience. And will continue to be given the way most people listen to music today. Past history of surround music in the marketplace just reiterates that—it’s never caught on on a mass scale and most likely never will. It’s a dead horse that’s been beaten to death over and over on this forum. To think that flooding the market with “assembly line” mixes will change that is merely wishful thinking.
 
Abomination in my book is what they did to the DSOTM SACD.

The thing to remember on Dark Side of the Moon is "they" (i.e. the members of Pink Floyd) did not like the Quad Mix of DSOTM.
So the band (a.k.a. "they") worked with James Guthrie on a new 5.1 mix for the SACD which the band ultimately approved.

You may not like the 5.1 mix that Pink Floyd approved.
But it is their album and they prefer the new 5.1 mix over the Quad mix.

As always, YMMV. :)
 
The thing to remember on Dark Side of the Moon is "they" (i.e. the members of Pink Floyd) did not like the Quad Mix of DSOTM.
So the band (a.k.a. "they") worked with James Guthrie on a new 5.1 mix for the SACD which the band ultimately approved.

You may not like the 5.1 mix that Pink Floyd approved.
But it is their album and they prefer the new 5.1 mix over the Quad mix.

As always, YMMV. :)

Us us us.. and.. They :D
 
The thing to remember on Dark Side of the Moon is "they" (i.e. the members of Pink Floyd) did not like the Quad Mix of DSOTM.
So the band (a.k.a. "they") worked with James Guthrie on a new 5.1 mix for the SACD which the band ultimately approved.

You may not like the 5.1 mix that Pink Floyd approved.
But it is their album and they prefer the new 5.1 mix over the Quad mix.

As always, YMMV. :)

Seriously, Bri, they both sound great on my system with the 'absolute' nod going to Parson's QUAD mix which is wildly discrete and ultimately room filling. Whether the members of PF preferred the 'tamer' Guthrie mix is a moot point since they were probably so 'high on life' [:ugham:] at the time that anything would've sounded good.
 
I don't understand this comment. Care to elaborate a bit?

As someone who LuvsTheirQuad, you should appreciate my candor: I think Alan Parsons, who did engineer DSOTM, was fully capable of remixing it into QUAD and IMO did a stellar job. That PF chose to 'mess' with their classic by having it remixed by Guthrie into 5.1 with, IMO, a more conservative mix points to a momentary lapse of reason on their parts.

Akin to George/Giles Martin stellar Beatles remix for LOVE as opposed to Giles, himself independently remixing Sgt. Pepper into 5.1.......IMO, NO comparison as Giles ultra conservative approach hardly matched Sir George's ultimate vision as to how his producing credentials/skills pointed in a more, shall we say, discrete direction.
 
“Assembly line” mixers? Seriously? That just reeks of doing things half-assed and on the cheap.
Do you really want movie studios doing surround mixes for music releases?

Every day Hollywood pumps out a new surround mix of an old catalog movie using an "assembly line" of mixers and guess what, most sound pretty Damn good.

and btw, in today's world that "Ford" Tech in Hollywood is more skilled than a Mercedes Tech (in England) because mixing a movie in atmos is worlds more difficult than mixing a music album in 5.1

Yes, surround mixes are for a niche audience. And will continue to be given the way most people listen to music today. Past history of surround music in the marketplace just reiterates that—it’s never caught on on a mass scale and most likely never will.

Surround mixes were a niche market, just like surround mixes for movies were a niche market 15-20 years ago because the vast majority of people couldn't afford a 5.1 surround system for their movies back then. Also, it was deemed "too complicated" for the masses just like why Quad never caught on 40 years ago.

Now that surround movies are ubiquitous and HT surround systems are much cheaper and easier to setup and use people are realizing they can also use the same system they use for movies for their music (they get a 2fer and people like 2fer's)

So now it's a supply and demand equation and the music industry is not supplying enough to meet the demand because they are living in the past, doing what they've always done, thinking the outcome will be different. There's a phrase for that btw. :)

On the other hand, the movie industry is supplying the demand and is thriving once again. The music industry could learn a thing or two from that.

Walk into any Bestbuy and look at the rows and rows of surround movies and then look at the 1/4 size row of music.

In the old days the music rows were the same size as the movie rows. Gee, I wonder what the music industry could do to make that possible again?
 
I

Most fans nowadays don't want all that new material (vinyl, remastered cds) they just want the new surround mix. That stuff is just "filler" for the record company to justify their gouging.

...

The fact that they are not is showing their greed.


There's a lot to unpack here.

I doubt that we know what "most fans" want. I know what the fans on this forum want, more or less. They made a business decision that they'd sell more with all of the bells and whistles.

I know what I want: I'd love a Jethro Tull / XTC / King Crimson-sized release for this album. But it's not my call. They have to keep the lights on, and I am ignorant of what that will take.

You claim to know what most fans want, and you claim that this decision was pure greed. Show me your data.
 
You claim to know what most fans want, and you claim that this decision was pure greed. Show me your data.

The proof is in the pudding.

The music industry is a paltry shell of what it once was but the movie industry is thriving selling blu-rays with surround for $20 all day long every day.

The music industry just keeps repeating the same old mistakes over and over.

if they got with the times they would thrive again and the proof would be in the pudding, the proof of them back to being to their former glory.

For example, I was a big Jane's Addiction fan and Dave Navarro basically said downloading "disseminated" the music industry and he basically had to change professions and became a TV host (of Ink Master) because there was no future in the music industry the way they were currently operating.

Danny Elfman is much more successful now as a (surround) mixer for film scores than he ever was in Oingo Boingo.

Surround is the only thing that will revitalize the industry because fans demand it now because they've been spoiled by exceptional surround movies. They don't want to go back to crappy stereo on vinyl.
 
As someone who LuvsTheirQuad, you should appreciate my candor: I think Alan Parsons, who did engineer DSOTM, was fully capable of remixing it into QUAD and IMO did a stellar job. That PF chose to 'mess' with their classic by having it remixed by Guthrie into 5.1 with, IMO, a more conservative mix points to a momentary lapse of reason on their parts.

Akin to George/Giles Martin stellar Beatles remix for LOVE as opposed to Giles, himself independently remixing Sgt. Pepper into 5.1.......IMO, NO comparison as Giles ultra conservative approach hardly matched Sir George's ultimate vision as to how his producing credentials/skills pointed in a more, shall we say, discrete direction.

I completely agree, I find the AP Quad mix far superior to the modern 5.1 mix. I think it's pretty remarkable, especially when you consider the year it was done and the equipment they would have had, remember everything in a mix can be automated these days, not so much back then, it's a damn fine effort!
 
The proof is in the pudding.

The music industry is a paltry shell of what it once was but the movie industry is thriving selling blu-rays with surround for $20 all day long every day.

That's not data. That's an assertion. Assertions are not data.

I want to believe you. It would validate many of my hopes.

What led you to this opinion?
 
Do we really have to come to this thread, which by the way, is about a new release...only to have talk about other titles and whether or not this one is too expensive? Good lord. How sad.

There are about 4-5 posts on this thread worthwhile. The first post announcing the release...then Ryan's post saying it contains a new Steven Wilson mix. Then, 2 or 3 others showing where you can order.

That's about it. :mad:@:

Well, there was one other post I made with a link to a youtube video about Forget The Moose (Arthur movie). It got deleted. :) As it should have. Though I still feel it was relevant. :banana:
 
Back
Top