downloading mp3s
09/25/2007 11:41 pm
 | Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 09/26/2007 @ 12:13:48 AM |
 |
|---|---|---|
| Are Walmart's all edited? |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 12:29:42 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
DRM is a stupid thing anyway. For starters it only "fools" the dumb people for like a week. Some tech savvy dude cracks it in a few hours and makes a tool for stripping it for other tech savvy people. Within a week someone writes a DRM stripping tool a monkey can use. Besides that, name one other product where the stolen version is MORE useful than the "legit" counterpart. If I'm paying for a song I'm going to play that song where ever I feel like it. It would be like a supermarket selling you a chicken, but at the register they added an additive that made it go bad after 3 days and couldn't be grilled. Or you could steal it and use it however you want. There are SUPPOSED to be advantages to buying things legit, not disadvantages. The first place that sells legit, DRM free files, for 5-10 cents each will rake in money hand over fist for all parties involved. Who would bother with the rigmarole of limewire and crappily encoded/broken/mislabeled files? If you could have your credit card info pre entered and just add a song or two, album or two, or a band's entire catalog for so cheap so easily. People would rebuy music they already had on cd. Hell people might even buy songs they already have as mp3s for the peace of mind, or because they are actually tagged properly. Even for a person like me, who knows how to rip CDs to mp3's, if an album was 60 cents I might not even bother taking the time. (Certainly if I felt like listening to an album I own at work I wouldn't hesitate to drop such a minuscule amount.) The first place to drop the "we have to aim for what we charge for a cd; 10-14 song cds sell for $10-$14 ,so .99 is as low as we can go" and just go for the "bulk" market will rake money in hand over fist and severely lower the amount of music pirating. Until someone comes along with a system so painlessly easy to get music, and so dirt cheap that very few people would even give it a second thought, piracy is going to run rampant. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 09/26/2007 12:34:31 am | ||
 | Jon - 3375 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 05:05:41 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 09/26/2007 @ 12:29:42 AM Until someone comes along with a system so painlessly easy to get music, and so dirt cheap that very few people would even give it a second thought, piracy is going to run rampant. And until they start selling cars for 10 cents apiece, car thieves are going to steal cars. Bustin' Chops! |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 08:01:15 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Yes, that's not apples and oranges at all. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jon - infinity + 1 posts 09/26/2007 @ 09:01:58 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
It's not really apples and oranges. It's cars and songs. Anyway, deep inside my semi-serious comment (which wasn't necessarily disagreeing with all points of your comment) are a couple points. One, the goal of the companies selling music isn't really to stop piracy. It's just to make money. I won't contend that they're maximizing profits, but I imagine they have a decent idea of what they're doing. One reason to not lower the prices might be because there are a large number of people who already download illegally who wouldn't buy their music if it were a penny. Because free is cheaper and/or buying music is for suckers. And on the other end of the spectrum there are probably other people who are fine paying a buck a song and maybe a lot of those people buy a ton of music. So the companies might not have much motivation to change since they're doing as well as they can by charging a dollar a song even if piracy still runs wild. On top of that I imagine there are restraints along the way that prevent the prices from bottoming out. I don't know how the system works by any means, but unless it's the actual musician selling you the music directly, there are some costs along the way that need to be accounted for or people obligated by various agreements to not sell the songs dirt cheap. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 09:39:43 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Well, I have no doubt that people would still use illegal means to get their music. Some people out there would still use p2p programs if amazon paid you to take the music. Some people just know that limewire is where you go to get music, and they never look into it further than that. Other than that I really don't think the music companies look at it as "maximizing profits." (As stupid as that seems) Though I haven't done any research what so ever, I have no doubt that more than 10 people would buy a 10 cent song for every one that buys a $1 song, if a reputable site were running the show. (If an established site, like iTunes, were to offer this deal I would be surprised if the website would even be able to handle the onslaught of traffic for the first few days.) I think the music industry is still at a point where they don't want to undercut their CDs. They sort of have the "fine, give the babies their bottle" attitude when it comes to MP3's, but they are still doing everything in their power to push us to the cds. The music companies don't want to offer DRM free music because people would offer it up for download, but it's their pricing scheme that is driving that effect more than people's innate desire to be "bad ass music thieves." All they did is move the CD market into the virtual world, except now you don't have the case, booklet, and cd itself, despite paying virtually the same amount. Like 8-tracks and cassette tapes before them maybe cd's time has just come, to an extent. Would the cd market dip if you could buy the album for $.60-$1.50? Maybe, but then again there are so many people getting it for free now. There will always be people that will want to hand over money for an object they can physically hold, so I think we'll be seeing cds for a while no matter what. I really don't think a vast majority of the public have the attitude "paying for music is for suckers." I think it's more along the lines of the "Chumbawumba Effect." People buy an album for the hit song off the radio, the rest of the CD is garbage, and they remember how the one song cost them $18. Now-a-days there is an alternative for getting just the one song you know you like, but that doesn't help the people who are wondering "Will I like the rest of the album?" At $1 a song, you may as well buy the cd, so people don't buy anything and find other means of getting the music. If the music was at a cost that few would second guess they would be more apt to just buy it. Everyone would still get their percentage, I'm not really sure what your point is. They wouldn't have to worry about "covering costs" because they would likely make way more money under this model. You make ten cd's and that costs money, you make 10 mp3's and all you are out is some bandwidth. The only risk they would take is potentially saying goodbye to a share of the cd's market, but the writing is on the wall there anyway. The music companies' biggest mistake is that they view every illegal download as a CD they should have sold the person, which simply isn't reality. Thus they view every online sale as such. People download songs that they wouldn't buy the cd of in a million years all the time, illegal or not. As far as "the man" are concerned that $1 mp3 they sold you is $11+ they aren't going to make since you didn't have to buy the whole cd, so they damn sure aren't going to sell it for a dime. Anyone with half a brain could tell you that's a dumbass way to think about it. It would be like a grocery store (if I may use this again) arguing to get rid of the coolers of 20oz pop under the logic that everyone of those they sold for $1 was a $8 24 pack someone didn't buy. The two things are different products even if the content is the same, one is cold, portable, and ready to drink right now the other has more of the content in a different form. Not only that, but the logic that every 20oz that sold is a 24 pack that didn't is obviously flawed to begin with. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 10 times, last at 09/26/2007 10:10:16 am | ||
|
| Jon - 3375 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 10:22:11 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 09/26/2007 @ 09:39:43 AM Other than that I really don't think the music company looks at it as "maximizing profits." (As stupid as that seems) Though I haven't done any research what so ever, I have no doubt that more than 10 people would buy a 10 cent song for every one that buys a $1 song, if a reputable site were running the show. (If an established site, like iTunes, were do offer this deal I would be surprised if the website would even be able to handle the onslaught of traffic for the first few days.) It sounds somewhat reasonable, but I'm skeptical. For one, I have a hard time believing a company isn't trying to make as much money as possible ultimately. They might use indirect ways to do it, but that's the direction they're heading long term. If they're being stubborn about selling CD's then it's likely because somehow that's a good way for them to make money overall. So, if they're keeping the prices high for fear of undercutting themselves or not, it's kind of the same point: They're better off financially without lowering prices. Otherwise they're just being stubborn for stubborness' sake, and I don't think all the major record companies would simultaneously do that. On top of that, getting 10 times the number of people to do anything seems difficult. I could see those numbers happening on a given song or album, but I don't know if the numbers across the board could increase that much. After a while there are only so many Jay-Z fans to buy his songs at any price. Doubling the number that already buy his albums would be a big feat. Increasing it by a factor of 10 would surprise me. But, I've been surprised before. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 09/26/2007 @ 10:39:37 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Well I don't know. If you look at who the top sellers are at some mp3 sites (legit ones) you'd be surprised who's up there. It's not always the current hit, it's evident some people are buying old favorites, and I have a hunch people would do things like that even more. I guess what I'm saying is it would shift the market a little more toward not always being about the newest people and newest song, and more toward the other content. Maybe 10 times as many people don't buy Jay-z's new hit, but I bet way more people buy the whole album, or another song off the album, or his past work, as a result of the cheaper music. And yes, I realize those two paragraphs contradict each other somewhat. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jon - 3375 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 10:42:55 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 09/26/2007 @ 09:39:43 AM I really don't think a vast majority of the public have the attitude "paying for music is for suckers." I think it's more along the lines of the "Chumbawumba Effect." People buy an album for the hit song off the radio, the rest of the CD is garbage, and they remember how the one song cost them $18. Now-a-days there is an alternative for getting just the one song you know you like, but that doesn't help the people who are wondering "Will I like the rest of the album?" At $1 a song, you may as well buy the cd, so people don't buy anything and find other means of getting the music. If the music was at a cost that few would second guess they would be more apt to just buy it. I don't know how many people think that way. Why not just download it for a buck? I don't see how $1 for the song makes them take the leap to, "I might as well buy the whole cd." But if they do think like that, here's what I'd tell them. Yeah there's always a risk they might want the other songs too, but you can listen to clips on itunes for free and if that's not long enough for you, you can read what other listeners thought. You can also go to the band's myspace page and listen to a couple of the other songs for free. Also, there are podcasts and yahoo personalized stations where if you invest some time you can hear a band's "non-hits" for free and without breaking laws. Not to mention the actual artists regular webpage where they could have the entire album streaming. If that's not enough, sometimes you just have to take a chance. Like ordering a burger without tasting it first. Or not ordering it because you don't think you'll like it. Jeremy Wrote - 09/26/2007 @ 09:39:43 AM The music companies' biggest mistake is that they view every illegal download as a CD they should have sold the person, which simply isn't reality. Thus they view every online sale as such. People download songs that they wouldn't buy the cd of in a million years all the time, illegal or not. As far as "the man" are concerned that $1 mp3 they sold you is $11+ they aren't going to make since you didn't have to buy the whole cd, so they damn sure aren't going to sell it for a dime. Anyone with half a brain could tell you that's a dumbass way to think about it. It would be like a grocery store (if I may use this again) arguing to get rid of the coolers of 20oz pop under the logic that everyone of those they sold for $1 was a $8 24 pack someone didn't buy. The two things are different products even if the content is the same, one is cold, portable, and ready to drink right now the other has more of the content in a different form. Not only that, but the logic that every 20oz that sold is a 24 pack that didn't is obviously flawed to begin with. I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but what proof do you have that they are viewing it that way? You say yourself that anyone with half a brain realizes that's not the right way to think about it. I have a feeling they're not as in the dark as you make them out to be. Just because they don't want you downloading music illegally doesn't mean they think they'd have your business otherwise. Their concern would likely be the people who actually would substitute the purchased one for the one they got illegally if that person knew there was a stiff penalty doing it illegally. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 10:45:03 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - 09/26/2007 @ 10:42:55 AM I don't see how $1 for the song makes them take the leap to, "I might as well buy the whole cd." ... I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but what proof do you have that they are viewing it that way? You say yourself that anyone with half a brain realizes that's not the right way to think about it. I have a feeling they're not as in the dark as you make them out to be. Just because they don't want you downloading music illegally doesn't mean they think they'd have your business otherwise. Their concern would likely be the people who actually would substitute the purchased one for the one they got illegally if that person knew there was a stiff penalty doing it illegally. I meant before $1 was an option for a song this was the case. (A la the Napster days) Read any document put out by the RIAA and it's crystal clear they feel this way. Every song illegally downloaded is reported as the loss of the funds the whole album would garner them, and if you download 5 songs off the album that was 5 copies they didn't sell. Now maybe behind closed doors they don't think like that, and it's just an alarmist "Front" they have to put on, but it's clear someone is arguing that point. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 09/26/2007 10:48:55 am | ||
 | Alex - 3619 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 01:46:49 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
So I'll take that as a no for Jeremy I guess. As far as record companies go, remember, it takes a wise man to play a fool. Although sometimes it's hard to tell if they're acting. Other than that I'd more agree with Jon's comments so far than Jeremy's, and no I don't care to into specifics because it would take too much time and effort (expect that I do agree with Jeremy that DRM is stupid). Which leads to my next point about why I'd consider paying $1 for a song. It's just way more convient (I'm assuming, haven't tried it) and time is money. If I buy it off Amazon instead of downloading for free I don't have to install p2p software on my new computer, I don't have to search for all the songs I want by having to know the song title (better browsing, song previews), I don't have to download each song 10 times in order to find one that works, I don't have to worry nearly as much about viruses/spyware/trojans etc., and I won't be engaging in illegal activity. Also, if comparing buying music to buying cars is apples and oranges, is comparing buying music to buying chicken equal to comparing music to buying soda (aka pop)?  |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 09/26/2007 @ 02:04:29 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Just wanted to add that albums on Amazon seem to be priced from $5.99 to $9.99. So they're not trying to maintain CD prices (unless CDs have gotten cheaper, I honestly wouldn't know). |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 02:37:17 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
His comparison wasn't an analogy of any kind. It was just a Steven Colbert-esq "this will nail him" statement that in reality had nothing to do with anything. If cars cost a dime it would indeed cut down on the thefts, but cars are tangible items that cost money and materials to produce a "copy." If mp3's were a single shiny penny that would still be a penny they didn't have before, and they wouldn't be "out" anything. To answer your question, no I haven't bought music from an online source, but I rarely, if ever, download it by other means either. $6 is pretty cheap for an album, but it still isn't in that "a person wouldn't give it a second thought" range. All I'm saying is this: The retailers have two things they have to accomplish to compete with online piracy. The convenience of finding, and getting a song. As well as the fact that music on "tangible" media is expensive and piracy is free. They have beaten the pants off the P2P programs when it comes to convenience. Downloading music off p2p networks is a shady pain. No one can do a nice album browser because they have to maintain the illusion they don't condone piracy. On a legit retailer you can browse by artist, album, top 40, you name it, you double click, you have it. Next up, they have to deal with the cost. Even at $6 an album that's still over a "well I may as well buy the cd" threshold, in my mind. (Also, generally speaking, if a retailer says "Our such-and-such-type-products are $6-$10" they mean "We have one item at $6 and 95% of them are $10") There are songs out there I would be willing to fork over $1 for sure, but I would go hog wild on a site that charged an amount the was hardly even worth considering. It's just supply and demand. You are going to sell more at a lower price anyway to probably make up the difference, regardless if you convert any music pirates, and I know they would "convert" many of those. It's not like the world is made up of "People who spend $1 on every song ever made" and "People who's life's work is stealing music". |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 09/26/2007 2:41:08 pm | ||
|
| Jon - 3375 Posts 09/28/2007 @ 05:33:28 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I'm basically done with this thread because there's not much left to say, but I do take exception to this: Jeremy Wrote - 09/26/2007 @ 02:37:17 PM His comparison wasn't an analogy of any kind. It was just a Steven Colbert-esq "this will nail him" statement that in reality had nothing to do with anything. It was, in fact, an analogy of some kind and did, in fact, have something to do with something. Analogies aren't necessarily meant to be exact parallels of a situation in every aspect imaginable. Since I was making a point about the idea behind one part of the argument, it only needed to be relevant to that idea. The original statement: Jeremy Wrote - 09/26/2007 @ 12:29:42 AM Until someone comes along with a system so painlessly easy to get music, and so dirt cheap that very few people would even give it a second thought, piracy is going to run rampant. My response: Jon Wrote - 09/26/2007 @ 05:05:41 AM And until they start selling cars for 10 cents apiece, car thieves are going to steal cars. Bustin' Chops! The point: Automakers/dealers aren't trying to eliminate car thefts (or for that matter, to make it painless or easy for people to get cars). If they were they could probably reduce it. But they're more concerned with other things, namely, making money. Likewise, the music industry isn't trying to eliminate piracy, first and foremost. They could probably reduce it if they wanted to (and make it easier to get music). But again, that's not their goal. Making money is. So, obviously that's about as far as the comparison can go, but I don't think it needs to go any further for the point to be valid or not. In your original post, you argued that selling music for really cheap would also make them more money. The analogy wasn't really aimed at that contention, per se (though I did later state my disagreement with that). I guess I could have made that more immediately clear. Anyway, that's why I wasn't concerned with the further parallels of the car and music markets. That didn't matter to the analogy. I was only commenting on a specific part of the entire picture. Which is why I only referenced the one part of your argument that I was responding to. In conclusion, the analogy was limited in scope because that's all it needed to be for the specific point (and/or joke) I was trying to make. Its relevance, however, remains in tact. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jon - 3375 Posts 09/28/2007 @ 06:06:46 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
For the sake of further insight IF the original statement "Until someone comes along with a system so painlessly easy to get music, and so dirt cheap that very few people would even give it a second thought, piracy is going to run rampant." Would have read something like, "Until someone comes along with a system so painlessly easy to get music, and so dirt cheap that very few people would even give it a second thought, piracy is going to run rampant and profits will continue to be lower than their potential due to the high prices." Then I probably wouldn't have chimed in with my analogy. But since I was bustin' chops, I noticed your final statement lacked a certain something and pounced on it in a semi-jokular fashion. The point about it making them money was possibly implied but it wasn't there, so I chimed in. Ridiculousness aside, it's still valid for what it was meant to be. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/28/2007 @ 08:54:28 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
1) I was talking about how they could limit piracy, so sue me if I limited my arguments to what would limit piracy. 2) I read your cars v music comment as an unfair generalization of my argument (ie if products are just given away no one would steal them) So sue me if I misinterpreted it, but I think it's fair to see why I did. 3) I'm still not so sure it's about making the most money, or I should say, not the way we think. I have to imagine "the industry" is under pressure from the Best Buy's of the world to make sure there's always a market for the cds. Perhaps the "sure thing" (ie that Best Buy will buy 20 million copies of a new cd for sale in their stores) is safer than venturing into the unknown "fair market" where an album might bomb. Sometimes companies just can't up and do whatever they want, even at the expense of profits and customers. 4) This really has nothing to do with anything: The reason piracy is a tough battle is because the "rules" walk such a fine line. There are so many ways a person can hear a song if they want, and many of them in an "on demand" fashion. It doesn't make it right, but it's easy to see why many people don't consider it a moral dilemma. If you record a song off the radio are you a pirate? If you listen to legal online radio, and record the stream, are you a pirate? Not all that long ago you could listen to internet radio stations in Windows Media Player, and when the song was done playing it was sitting cached in your temporary files. If you moved that song that was already put there by a legit source into another permanent folder, are you a pirate? If you've ever sailed the seas plundering passing ships for their wealth, are you a pirate? Again it doesn't make it right, or logical, but it's understandable to see why some people have the attitude "I could hear this song a million different ways, why should I pay $1 to hear it on my iPod?" 5) Keep in mind: The advantage of them being dirt cheap isn't just that people would buy more, it's that people would likely REBUY music they already have, like when cassettes replaced cds. 6) No one actually sue me, that's the opposite of the point I'm trying to make. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 09/28/2007 9:21:03 am | ||
|
| Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 09/28/2007 @ 09:14:07 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Excellent post. And by excellent, I mean pretty good. However, three days worth of posts on everything technically wrong with it will follow shortly. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/28/2007 @ 12:13:11 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 09/28/2007 @ 08:54:28 AM 6) No one actually sue me, that's the opposite of the point I'm trying to make. Classic referrence to something that just happened. I love it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 09/28/2007 @ 05:56:04 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Personally, I'm skipping cassettes and waiting until these new things called "vinyl records" come out before I replace all my CDs. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 10/11/2007 @ 11:48:48 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
As a follow up: I signed up for emusic.com after I found a couple cds I want on it. It's mostly indie stuff though. 9.99 a month for 30 downloads, and I got 50 free for being referred...so if any of you find anything you want we can both get 50 free. They are loaded with Dashboard Confessional, including the brand new album that is 8.99 on Amazon's mp3 site by itself. They have more comedy albums than they know what to do with. Other than that they have some popular band's early work. If I wouldn't have blown so many of my downloads on two Jim Gaffighan albums I could practically already recite I probably could have gotten everything I wanted and gotten out. (You can take your 50 free and run too, FYI) I also just bought radiohead's new album They let you name your price (and add a small processing fee). The site is sort of struggling to keep up with the demand though. For the record: I gave them a pound. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 10/11/2007 @ 12:01:03 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| how about you just crack them and let me "borrow" all of them |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/11/2007 @ 12:04:29 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| They are all DRM free. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 10/11/2007 @ 01:13:54 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Also, you can technically give radiohead nothing and get it, legitimately, for free. (The processing fee is for using the credit card since it wouldn't make much sense for them to pay .30 to process an order that could be .01) A lot of people are giving them 5+ pounds even though they don't even like radiohead just to support the concept. (I myself am not a huge fan, though Pablo Honey is awesome, but I wanted to toss them something for the idea.) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 10/11/2007 1:14:27 pm | ||
 | Carlos44ec - Tater Salad? 10/11/2007 @ 02:13:45 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| its a good idea, until all the warm and fuzzy feel-good donors stop donating |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/16/2007 @ 02:57:09 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
All numbers are estimates and assumptions, but it would appear that Radiohead is indeed raking it in. 1.2 million downloads with surveys showing fans paid an average of 4 pounds (about $9.00) It will be very interesting to see what the final figures are, if they are ever released. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 10/16/2007 @ 03:56:46 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Also that very first question I asked was legitimate and it would appear that yes, Walmart's mp3's are edited too, or at least they offer edited versions. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 10/18/2007 @ 09:54:46 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Does emusic have Foo Fighters? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/18/2007 @ 10:30:14 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| They have this |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - 3619 Posts 10/19/2007 @ 12:39:48 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I was thinking more like the new one, The Pretender is a great song. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Carlos44ec - You had me at "Hello" 10/19/2007 @ 03:08:53 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I have the cd, its probably the only solid song on it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - 3619 Posts 10/24/2007 @ 07:17:33 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
You couldn't have posted that 3 hours earlier  !I picked it up after work Friday in preparation for a 45 minute drive to my parents. I had only heard The Pretender (although I was looking at buying the album online the night before and could've easily previewed the other songs, such a moron) and so I was ready to rock out. That's the first song on the album so all was well but the rest of the songs really have a totally different mood. So I wouldn't say I was disappointed, but I was very thrown off and didn't really form any opinion on any of the other songs. So I'm working through it again and I think I actually kind of like it more than I would've thought I would. But I'm not sure there's really another big single on there and a lot of people probably won't give it a chance if they bought it just for The Pretender. Total n00b question time. Can I rip a DVD album to mp3? I have In Your Honor too (the last CD I bought before this, which is actually a DVD I guess) and I want to rip that and get some more Foo on my phone. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/24/2007 @ 08:01:01 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| If you listened to it in your car it's not a dvd. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 10/25/2007 @ 12:18:00 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Media player sure seems to think it is. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/25/2007 @ 08:49:46 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| It's probably half and half. Throw it in CDex and see what it has to say about it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
Leave a Comment of your very own
| Name: | |||
| Comment: | |||
| |||
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.
Fetching Nutcan Content....
Rated 0 times.