TMBG unlimited 2 emusic oddities
Mike Buffington
I was excited to hear the new track Mr. Xcitement, but was disappointed
when I heard Your Mom's All Right. Later I noticed they renamed the mp3
to it's proper title. Didn't they promise Mr. Xcitement though?
The song "All Alone" was not indeed "All Alone", but the Severe Tire
Damage Ad (new album from They Might Be Giants - Severe Tire Damage, the
new release from....) the 35 sec one. Nice quality - better than I've
hard before. Now it's the Brave New World "All Alone"
Did any one else get the ad mp3?
Also, Bangs is a slightly different edit than the 2001 sampler. Linnell
enunciates that line that I still can't understand " a ____ to stage a
face that needs no make up" and the "ana ng" style guitar was not in the
chorus before. I think it's just the first verse that's been redone and
the keyboard is not panned as much to the right and it seems a bit
louder. But I'm just being picky there.
Mr. Me
Steven Shilling
> I was excited to hear the new track Mr. Xcitement, but was disappointed
> when I heard Your Mom's All Right. Later I noticed they renamed the mp3
> to it's proper title. Didn't they promise Mr. Xcitement though?
Yup. It also said in that old email that we were going to get I'm Sick
of This American Life. We already had it, but still... The main TMBG
Unlimited page wasn't updated yet so maybe they're still working on it
or maybe we'll get it next month. I was a little disappointed with this
month's mp3s because they're all songs that are going to be released
somewhere else. They're just songs from the rock album, the no album,
and the mcsweeneys thing. So if we get all those albums, we'll be paying
for them twice. I want to get old songs "from the archive", like old
dial a songs that aren't going to be released anywhere else, or new
songs that were recorded just for TMBG unlimited, like Fang and Drink!
Plus we haven't gotten any Malcolm songs yet. Hopefully next month will
be better.
> Did any one else get the ad mp3?
Yes, I got it. It's different than the one on twistid. The part of
Linnell talking was rerecorded. He says "Recorded live in front of an
audience", but in the old one I believe he said "recorded live in front
of people".
> Also, Bangs is a slightly different edit than the 2001 sampler. Linnell
> enunciates that line that I still can't understand " a ____ to stage a
> face that needs no make up" and the "ana ng" style guitar was not in the
> chorus before. I think it's just the first verse that's been redone and
> the keyboard is not panned as much to the right and it seems a bit
> louder. But I'm just being picky there.
Yeah, I noticed that too.
> Mr. Me
ChessPieceFace
when it "officially" goes up--and is linked from the main TMBG
unlimited page.
Like, they MUST remove the first month's stuff, or everyone here is
going to revolt. I'll be right there with the mob.
It says there are thirteen new songs, where's #13? Actually, where's
#3, as that's the one missing from the numbering scheme. I hope it
appears, and I hope it's an unreleased old track. Or Mr. Xcitement for
real, which seems unlikely since they've modified the text. So when is
Flans name-dropped in a rap in Your Mom's Alright?
Finally, it's a "proscenium to stage a face..." Proscenium being a
(probably misspelled) term for part of the front of a theatrical
stage. Gotta love Linnell's plays on words. What I don't understand is
the "Below my mind your royal flyness, I dig your bangs" line. That's
not what he's really saying, I'm sure. So what is?
Destin
http://members.nbci.com/theymightbe/
Steven Shilling
> It says there are thirteen new songs, where's #13? Actually, where's
> #3, as that's the one missing from the numbering scheme. I hope it
> appears, and I hope it's an unreleased old track. Or Mr. Xcitement for
> real, which seems unlikely since they've modified the text. So when is
> Flans name-dropped in a rap in Your Mom's Alright?
The reason #3 is missing is because it used to be Truth In Your Words.
That song was originally there twice. It was #3 and #8. But then they
fixed it and got rid of #3 so it's only there once now. Those liner
notes are probably for Mr. Xcitement, since it originally said Mr.
Xcitement next to it. So his name is probably name-dropped in that song.
scratch
Yes. But they should put the right song up, not change the notes. I'm
probably responsible for that, I emailed 'em complaining that they put
up the wrong song.
-scratch
scratch
Mike Buffington wrote:
>
> This afternoon at 3:30 Pacific, I got my TMBG unlimited mp3s.
>
> I was excited to hear the new track Mr. Xcitement, but was disappointed
> when I heard Your Mom's All Right. Later I noticed they renamed the mp3
> to it's proper title. Didn't they promise Mr. Xcitement though?
Yes. And the liner notes still describe Mr. Xcitement. Someone at
emusic messed up. What a surprise.
> The song "All Alone" was not indeed "All Alone", but the Severe Tire
> Damage Ad (new album from They Might Be Giants - Severe Tire Damage, the
> new release from....) the 35 sec one. Nice quality - better than I've
> hard before. Now it's the Brave New World "All Alone"
>
> Did any one else get the ad mp3?
I have a CD quality mp3 of the 60 second version...
> Also, Bangs is a slightly different edit than the 2001 sampler. Linnell
> enunciates that line that I still can't understand " a ____ to stage a
> face that needs no make up" and the "ana ng" style guitar was not in the
> chorus before. I think it's just the first verse that's been redone and
> the keyboard is not panned as much to the right and it seems a bit
> louder. But I'm just being picky there.
I didn't listen that carefully but it sounded the same to me.
-scratch
scratch
ChessPieceFace wrote:
>
> This new update has many problems, which will hopefully be corrected
> when it "officially" goes up--and is linked from the main TMBG
> unlimited page.
>
> Like, they MUST remove the first month's stuff, or everyone here is
> going to revolt. I'll be right there with the mob.
>
> It says there are thirteen new songs, where's #13? Actually, where's
> #3, as that's the one missing from the numbering scheme. I hope it
> appears, and I hope it's an unreleased old track. Or Mr. Xcitement for
> real, which seems unlikely since they've modified the text. So when is
> Flans name-dropped in a rap in Your Mom's Alright?
And where are DJ ***** and Chris Maxwell?
> Finally, it's a "proscenium to stage a face..." Proscenium being a
> (probably misspelled) term for part of the front of a theatrical
> stage. Gotta love Linnell's plays on words. What I don't understand is
> the "Below my mind your royal flyness, I dig your bangs" line. That's
> not what he's really saying, I'm sure. So what is?
That's cool, I was wondering about that too. As for your question, I'm
pretty sure that is indeed what he's saying, another play on words,
although far less cool.
-scratch
Sylvan
Actually, #3 isn't missing, just elsewhere. All Alone downloads as track 3.
Why it's listed as its own album is anotehr matter.
--
Sylvan
Three lefts make a right.
Steven Shilling
>
> Actually, #3 isn't missing, just elsewhere. All Alone downloads as track 3.
> Why it's listed as its own album is anotehr matter.
It's it's own album because it's something different. That's not #3 to
TMBG Unlimited because the STD commercial was #2.
Sylvan
It now seems that All Alone is in fact the Vault track. It would have been nice
to get the other BNW material, but I guess they're saving htat for later.
Sylvan
webcasts/giant cams yet, opefully they'll scatter a few more around the month.
Track 13, by the way, seems to be Santa Claus
Well, the second issue has a lot of songs, but it's all stuff that can be
acquired elsewhere-- except possibly Hovering Sombrero. Of course, they can't
really be expected to record 40 songs for that McSweeney's CD _and_
record a
bunch of new songs for TMBGU. There's only so many tracks they can give away
from the upcoming albums, and we're still due something like 60-100 songs,
plus perks. I think in the future we'll have more songs released only on
TMBGU.
But really, it's a lose lose situation for them, in a way. Whenever they
release something only on mp3, the non-techie people and those without credit
cards/fast modem complain bittlerly. Whenever they release somehting in
multiple formats, the obsessive completists complain because they're being
"forced" to buy the same thing more than once. Well I have this to say: aargh.
Thank you.
Mike Wood
Mike Buffington wrote:
> Also, Bangs is a slightly different edit than the 2001 sampler.
it cuts-off at exactly 3:00!! This doesn't seem like an "edit", but rather
a mistake.
It just doesn't sound right... I don't know why they'd want to ditch the
perfectly good ending that was on it before. I loved Linnell's voice going
up a chord for the chorus after the "reach the verdict" line.
I uploaded the full version from the 2001 Sampler to twistid last week;
hopefully he'll post it soon (or, you could just FTP in and get it now).
-Mike
Mike Buffington
Mike Buffington wrote:
> mine is 3:24. I think you must have had an error in downloading
> --
> "It's better to have rocked and lost than never to have rocked at all."
> -John Flansburgh
Mike Buffington
Mike Wood wrote:
--
Mike Buffington
scratch
-scratch
Mike Wood
scratch wrote:
> He won't, he's already stated that he won't.
why not? He already posted Your Mom's Alright, from the same disc
Troy
ChessPieceFace wrote:
> Like, they MUST remove the first month's stuff, or everyone here is
> going to revolt. I'll be right there with the mob.
Personally, I don't care if they leave the old stuff up. In fact, I
hope they do. That way, if something drastic happens a month from now
and my hard drive dies and my CD gets lost and I lose the MP3s, I can
just re-download them.
Sure, somebody could sign up in December and get everything then, but it
would all be old stuff by then. I think it's worth paying $10/month to
get it NOW, instead of 10 months from now, wouldn't you agree? So, you
can pay $20 for a bunch of old stuff (much of which has been available
on CD at your local music store for several months), or you can pay $10
each month for stuff you can't get anywhere else and that you haven't
already heard on the radio. Would you still be upset if they leave the
old stuff up?
Besides, anybody who is going to be so cheap as to not spend $10/month
now isn't going to spend $20 in December; they'll just get everything
from Napster for "free."
--
Troy
scratch
Now that its on TMBGU he'll probably take it down. Bangs has always
been slated for the rock album, so he won't post it.
-scratch
Kevin Sullivan
wrote:
My biggest disappointment with this months issue is the lack of
"archive" material. Before this issue went up they went on about how
the archive songs this months were going to be pretty surprising.
The only thing surprising is that there is only one track....
I don't mind having material that is going to end up being released
later, they just can't make a whole issue comprised entirely of such
stuff. They need to balance it out more.
They have HUNDREDS of DAS demos, stuff that has never been heard
outside of a crappy telephone receiver, both unreleased songs and
demos of songs that went on to be on the albums. THAT is what I signed
up for TMBG UnLTD for. At least one or two of those in the archive
section a month would be nice. TMBG UnLTD is the only place I'd expect
that material to ever see the light of day in a (relatively) high
quality format.
Ahh well, here's to hoping it gets better next month....at the least
we can expect timely updates from here on out.
Kevin Sullivan
>On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 03:40:49 GMT, in "TMBG unlimited 2 emusic oddities,"
>ChessPieceFace wrote:
>
>> Like, they MUST remove the first month's stuff, or everyone here is
>> going to revolt. I'll be right there with the mob.
>
>Personally, I don't care if they leave the old stuff up. In fact, I
>hope they do. That way, if something drastic happens a month from now
>and my hard drive dies and my CD gets lost and I lose the MP3s, I can
>just re-download them.
>
>Sure, somebody could sign up in December and get everything then, but it
>would all be old stuff by then. I think it's worth paying $10/month to
>get it NOW, instead of 10 months from now, wouldn't you agree? So, you
>can pay $20 for a bunch of old stuff (much of which has been available
>on CD at your local music store for several months), or you can pay $10
>each month for stuff you can't get anywhere else and that you haven't
>already heard on the radio. Would you still be upset if they leave the
>old stuff up?
I think the old stuff should still be accessible to those who paid for
it but there is no way that people who sign up in December should get
the whole year's worth of stuff for free. The majority of TMBGUnLtd
material isn't going to be available on CD's by the end of the year or
ever for that matter.
You're paying for the songs not for getting them early or something.
The implication that the songs will be worth nothing in December
because they've already been out for months is ridiculous.
That's like saying we should all be able to walk into a store and just
take a stack of all of TMBG's CD's home for free because they are old.
>Besides, anybody who is going to be so cheap as to not spend $10/month
>now isn't going to spend $20 in December; they'll just get everything
>=66rom Napster for "free."
>
>--=20
>Troy
>
Troy
Kevin Sullivan wrote:
> I think the old stuff should still be accessible to those who paid for
> it but there is no way that people who sign up in December should get
> the whole year's worth of stuff for free. The majority of TMBGUnLtd
> material isn't going to be available on CD's by the end of the year or
> ever for that matter.
So, you're saying that if somebody doesn't know about TMBG Unlimited
until June, they should not be able to get the previous five month's
worth of material just because nobody told them about it? How would you
feel if you had just found out that there were some TMBG songs released
on EMusic a few months before you found out about EMusic, but you
couldn't get them now because you're too late? Or, what about the new
fans who find out about the band thanks to MITM, decide they want
everything they can get, but discover they can't, because TMBG Unlimited
will only allow them to access the current month's catalog.
Is it really right to penalize somebody because they didn't know about
the service?
> You're paying for the songs not for getting them early or something.
> The implication that the songs will be worth nothing in December
> because they've already been out for months is ridiculous.
>
> That's like saying we should all be able to walk into a store and just
> take a stack of all of TMBG's CD's home for free because they are old.
It's not really like walking into a store and taking a stack of TMBG CDs
for free. It's more like saying we should pay less for "Factory
Showroom" now than in 1996 because it's old.
Oh wait, we can get it for less now, can't we? As albums become older,
their prices drop. We gladly pay up to $18 for a CD when it first comes
out. If we wait a little while, though, the price drops to $10. Why
should EMusic be any different?
Besides, we now have full access to the entire EMusic catalog. It's
just as "unfair" for us to pay $10/month to get the same stuff that
people were paying 99 cents a song for not too long ago. I've
personally downloaded hundreds of MP3s from EMusic, so I've gotten quite
a deal and really should piss off a lot of people who would have paid
$100 for the same stuff that cost me $10.
One more thing. If you think the people who wait until December and
just pay $20 to get everything are going to get such a great deal, why
did you sign up so soon?
You can't possibly say it would be unfair for EMusic to offer the entire
catalog in December, because anybody can wait and pay less money, even
you. However, we made a choice to pay an extra $100 (over the course of
a year -- and actually less money when you factor in the fleece and CD)
instead of waiting 11 months. Nobody forced or tricked us into paying
extra.
--
Troy
Kevin Sullivan
>On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 22:09:44 GMT, in "TMBG unlimited 2 emusic oddities,"
>Kevin Sullivan wrote:
>
>> I think the old stuff should still be accessible to those who paid for
>> it but there is no way that people who sign up in December should get
>> the whole year's worth of stuff for free. The majority of TMBGUnLtd
>> material isn't going to be available on CD's by the end of the year or
>> ever for that matter.
>
>So, you're saying that if somebody doesn't know about TMBG Unlimited
>until June, they should not be able to get the previous five month's
>worth of material just because nobody told them about it?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that someone shouldn't be
able sign up in June and get all the previous songs for FREE, which is
what you said. If someone signs up in June they should have to pay the
same $50 that everyone else did for Jan-May. If they choose not to do
that than they will only get the stuff that gets posted after they
subscribe.
I wrote a big thing about this a few days ago arguing that eMusic
*should* keep all of the previous issues up. If people can't get the
songs legitimately from eMusic you can bet your ass they'll get them
elsewhere.
I agree that new subscribers shouldn't be penalized by missing out on
older songs but new subscribers shouldn't be penalized by people
getting for free what we paid up to $120 for. eMusic is automatically
eliminating sales by taking down the previous months issues and not
making them available for latecomers...
Troy
Kevin Sullivan wrote:
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that someone shouldn't be
> able sign up in June and get all the previous songs for FREE, which is
> what you said. If someone signs up in June they should have to pay the
> same $50 that everyone else did for Jan-May. If they choose not to do
> that than they will only get the stuff that gets posted after they
> subscribe.
One problem with this is that it's a lot of trouble for EMusic to keep
track of all this. The second problem is that most people aren't going
to be willing to pay $50 all at once for these songs. It would just be
more of an incentive to use Napster to get the older stuff.
If EMusic limits the availability of the TMBG Unlimited issues to only
the months you pay for, they'd have to limit the rest of their catalog
to stuff that was added after you signed up as well. If you want to
download other artist's songs, if you have to pay extra to get old TMBG
songs, you should have to pay extra for the other stuff, right?
Here's another thing to consider. If somebody signs up today for a
single month and pays $20, should they still only get this month's issue,
even though they're paying the same amount we're paying?
> I wrote a big thing about this a few days ago arguing that eMusic
> *should* keep all of the previous issues up. If people can't get the
> songs legitimately from eMusic you can bet your ass they'll get them
> elsewhere.
>
> I agree that new subscribers shouldn't be penalized by missing out on
> older songs but new subscribers shouldn't be penalized by people
> getting for free what we paid up to $120 for. eMusic is automatically
> eliminating sales by taking down the previous months issues and not
> making them available for latecomers...
What about the people who sign up 5 months from now, but stay on for a
full year? Are you saying they should have to pay an extra $50 to get
the old stuff, for a grand total of $170?
I still have two questions that, until you can answer, just show that
this really isn't unfair.
1) How is paying less for old music on EMusic any different than paying
less for an old CD?
Look at it this way. Somebody who just signed up with BMG Music Service
can get "Then" for the $4 shipping charge. I paid $12 each for "Lincoln,"
"They Might Be Giants," and "Miscellaneous T" on tape. I paid $36 for
something on cassette, and somebody else comes along paying $4 for
something in a better format, with even more songs.
Actually, I paid $48 if you count the second copy of "Lincoln" I bought
when I thought I lost my first copy. I found it later, so now I have
two copies (three if you count the songs on "Then"), but I digress.
2) If people who wait until December and pay $10 are getting such a
great deal, why are you paying $120? Why aren't you waiting?
Since everybody has the same option of waiting and paying less, I really
don't see how this can be considered unfair. By buying a one year
subscription now, you have decided that it's worth paying an extra $100
to not wait until December for the songs, to get the fleece, and to get
the CD.
--
Troy
scratch
Troy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:50:57 GMT, in "TMBG unlimited 2 emusic oddities,"
> Kevin Sullivan wrote:
>
> > No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that someone shouldn't be
> > able sign up in June and get all the previous songs for FREE, which is
> > what you said. If someone signs up in June they should have to pay the
> > same $50 that everyone else did for Jan-May. If they choose not to do
> > that than they will only get the stuff that gets posted after they
> > subscribe.
>
> One problem with this is that it's a lot of trouble for EMusic to keep
> track of all this. The second problem is that most people aren't going
> to be willing to pay $50 all at once for these songs. It would just be
> more of an incentive to use Napster to get the older stuff.
>
> If EMusic limits the availability of the TMBG Unlimited issues to only
> the months you pay for, they'd have to limit the rest of their catalog
> to stuff that was added after you signed up as well. If you want to
> download other artist's songs, if you have to pay extra to get old TMBG
> songs, you should have to pay extra for the other stuff, right?
No. TMBGU tracks are the only subscription based tracks on emusic right
now. All the other tracks are available to be purchased for $.99 each
as well. Anyone who signs up at any time can and should be able to
download Lincoln, or Severe Tire Damage, or any of the other
non-subscription based content on emusic.
> Here's another thing to consider. If somebody signs up today for a
> single month and pays $20, should they still only get this month's issue,
> even though they're paying the same amount we're paying?
Yes they should. We're getting a bulk discount, effectively.
> > I wrote a big thing about this a few days ago arguing that eMusic
> > *should* keep all of the previous issues up. If people can't get the
> > songs legitimately from eMusic you can bet your ass they'll get them
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > I agree that new subscribers shouldn't be penalized by missing out on
> > older songs but new subscribers shouldn't be penalized by people
> > getting for free what we paid up to $120 for. eMusic is automatically
> > eliminating sales by taking down the previous months issues and not
> > making them available for latecomers...
>
> What about the people who sign up 5 months from now, but stay on for a
> full year? Are you saying they should have to pay an extra $50 to get
> the old stuff, for a grand total of $170?
Yes they should, because they'll be getting stuff we don't unless we pay
again. It'll cost us the same amount to get the same stuff.
> I still have two questions that, until you can answer, just show that
> this really isn't unfair.
>
> 1) How is paying less for old music on EMusic any different than paying
> less for an old CD?
But they aren't paying less, they're getting it free. Anyone who signs
up now is paying for February 2001 - February 2002. By your logic, I
should be able to call up National Geographic (only magazine I subscribe
to), and say I bought a subscription for this year, I want every single
back issue since you started.
> Look at it this way. Somebody who just signed up with BMG Music Service
> can get "Then" for the $4 shipping charge. I paid $12 each for "Lincoln,"
> "They Might Be Giants," and "Miscellaneous T" on tape. I paid $36 for
> something on cassette, and somebody else comes along paying $4 for
> something in a better format, with even more songs.
>
> Actually, I paid $48 if you count the second copy of "Lincoln" I bought
> when I thought I lost my first copy. I found it later, so now I have
> two copies (three if you count the songs on "Then"), but I digress.
That's promotional, it's totally different.
> 2) If people who wait until December and pay $10 are getting such a
> great deal, why are you paying $120? Why aren't you waiting?
>
> Since everybody has the same option of waiting and paying less, I really
> don't see how this can be considered unfair. By buying a one year
> subscription now, you have decided that it's worth paying an extra $100
> to not wait until December for the songs, to get the fleece, and to get
> the CD.
Or, we just didn't know they were going to do this. I might have
decided to wait if I knew I could get it all for 1/6th the price. I'm
honestly not sure on that one.
-scratch
scratch
the same, but I'm subscribed to the Object Desktop Network, a software
subscription service. It's run very well, so I'm happy with it.
Emusic, on the other hand... if this was just about any other band I
wouldn't bother with it at all.
-scratch
Matt Garretson wrote:
>
> The long and the short of the issue is that the Unlimited subscription
> is a pretty poor way to release music. Well it's good for emusic.com,
> i suppose. Hopefully the Johns get some money from it, too, but
> nevertheless it sucks for us.
Sylvan
> The long and the short of the issue is that the Unlimited subscription
> is a pretty poor way to release music. Well it's good for emusic.com,
> i suppose. Hopefully the Johns get some money from it, too, but
> nevertheless it sucks for us.
Or, to put it in another light, it's a very cool thing that gives us
access to craploads of music plus the CD and fleece, and which is plagued
by many problems, as one might expect from something which is essentially
the first of its kind. Maybe if everyone stopped bitching they would
realize that this is something which is completely _optional_. If you
didn't want it, you shouldn't have signed up. If you did want it, then be
happy, because now you have it. As Troy said, no one is going to be cheap
and sign up in December to get the full year's mp3s, because the type of
person who would do that would just get everything from Napster. But some
of you are living in a fantasy land if you think that they are going to
be able to get this thing running perfectly from the get go, or that
there aren't things that need to be worked out. If someone does pay $20
for all the mp3s, even though they would still lose the signed CD, the
fleece, and the streaming audio/videos, will it actually affect you in
any way? Of course not. Are you upset about how you're paying? Then
MAYBE, if you didn't think it was worth it, you could have given it a
pass.
. . .
I think my brain just fused.
--
Sylvan
SHUT YOUR WRETCHED PIE TRAP, YOU RIDICULOUS PRICK
Chris Henry
I'm very pleased with the service overall. I have access to anything
on EMusic, including all the TMBG tracks. I think the reverse is true
for all of you with TMBG Unlimited - you have access to any and all
EMusic tracks.
So I would suggest you dig through the EMusic catalog and find some
other things to help justify your monthly subscription fee. And we're
all just going to have to get used to "unlimited" subscription
services. While they might seem unfair to this person or that, the
bottom line is that they give us access to an entire world of music.
And if someone signs up in December and gets a year's worth of stuff
that we've been paying monthly fees for access to all along, that's
just how these things work. Right now, we all have unlimited access
to anything on EMusic released from now going back to the very first
album they put up. In this respect, the person who signs up next
December will have the *exact same* access - the only difference being
that they will have access to more than we do now. And so on and so on
until the end of time (or the end of EMusic, whichever comes first).
That's the concept of "unlimited" in a nutshell and I for one, like it
a lot!
And if you think there's nothing on EMusic worthwhile other than TMBG,
keep looking! I was very disappointed when I first signed up, but have
since come to love the service. Here are some EMusic recommendations
to get you going:
Kings of Convenience - Kings of Convenience
Bright Eyes - Fevers and Mirrors
Apples in Stereo - The Discovery of the World Inside the Moone
Big Star - #1 Record/Radio City
Built to Spill - Ultimate Alternative Wavers
Departure Lounge - ...Out of There
Wheat - Hope and Adams
...a bunch by Young Fresh Fellows (referenced by TMBG on Flood)
and tons of other stuff of interest to TMBG/quality pop music fans.
One or two of these gems a month and it's a real bargain even without
the TMBG tracks!
Chris
Kevin Sullivan
>On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:50:57 GMT, in "TMBG unlimited 2 emusic oddities,"
>Kevin Sullivan wrote:
>
>> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that someone shouldn't be
>> able sign up in June and get all the previous songs for FREE, which is
>> what you said. If someone signs up in June they should have to pay the
>> same $50 that everyone else did for Jan-May. If they choose not to do
>> that than they will only get the stuff that gets posted after they
>> subscribe.
>
>One problem with this is that it's a lot of trouble for EMusic to keep
>track of all this. The second problem is that most people aren't going
>to be willing to pay $50 all at once for these songs. It would just be
>more of an incentive to use Napster to get the older stuff.
Well then anyway you look at it people are going to steal it or get it
for free so it doesn't really matter.
>If EMusic limits the availability of the TMBG Unlimited issues to only
>the months you pay for, they'd have to limit the rest of their catalog
>to stuff that was added after you signed up as well. If you want to
>download other artist's songs, if you have to pay extra to get old TMBG
>songs, you should have to pay extra for the other stuff, right?
>
>Here's another thing to consider. If somebody signs up today for a
>single month and pays $20, should they still only get this month's issue,
>even though they're paying the same amount we're paying?
Is that how eMusic charges now? One month for $20? If that's what they
charge than the person should only get the one month.
>> I wrote a big thing about this a few days ago arguing that eMusic
>> *should* keep all of the previous issues up. If people can't get the
>> songs legitimately from eMusic you can bet your ass they'll get them
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> I agree that new subscribers shouldn't be penalized by missing out on
>> older songs but new subscribers shouldn't be penalized by people
>> getting for free what we paid up to $120 for. eMusic is automatically
>> eliminating sales by taking down the previous months issues and not
>> making them available for latecomers...
>
>What about the people who sign up 5 months from now, but stay on for a
>full year? Are you saying they should have to pay an extra $50 to get
>the old stuff, for a grand total of $170?
I'm not sure how this would work. I would imagine that if someone
signed up for TMBGUnLTD in June their subscription would end in
December along with everyone else's. There is no indication that
TMBGUnLTD will even continue on for a second year. I think it would be
easier for them to terminate everyone's subscription at the same time,
rather than require everyone to sign up for one year periods....
>I still have two questions that, until you can answer, just show that
>this really isn't unfair.
>
>1) How is paying less for old music on EMusic any different than paying
>less for an old CD?
>
>Look at it this way. Somebody who just signed up with BMG Music Service
>can get "Then" for the $4 shipping charge. I paid $12 each for "Lincoln,"
>"They Might Be Giants," and "Miscellaneous T" on tape. I paid $36 for
>something on cassette, and somebody else comes along paying $4 for
>something in a better format, with even more songs.
>
>Actually, I paid $48 if you count the second copy of "Lincoln" I bought
>when I thought I lost my first copy. I found it later, so now I have
>two copies (three if you count the songs on "Then"), but I digress.
Well, last time I checked, all of TMBG album's still cost just as much
as they did when I bought some of them ten years ago. More, depending
on where you buy them. CD's don't really go down in price, especially
if the band is still relatively popular.
>2) If people who wait until December and pay $10 are getting such a
>great deal, why are you paying $120? Why aren't you waiting?
>
>Since everybody has the same option of waiting and paying less, I really
>don't see how this can be considered unfair. By buying a one year
>subscription now, you have decided that it's worth paying an extra $100
>to not wait until December for the songs, to get the fleece, and to get
>the CD.
Waiting until December *isn't* an option because as it stands now
someone who signs up in December won't have access to any of the
previous months stuff. If I knew that in December I'd be able to get
all the stuff for $10 I'd be pretty tempted to wait but I think the
price as it stands is pretty fair (even though I'd rather have it be
half the price and not have access to the rest of eMusic which I'm
never going to use anyway). I'm sure most people who signed up for
TMBG UnLTD are rarely if ever going to use the rest of what we are
actually paying for.
Kevin Sullivan
wrote:
This is a good way to look at it but I think for the most part
everyone here signed up for TMBGUnLtd exclusively for TMBG and don't
really have any interest in any of the other stuff on eMusic.
I think TMBG UnLtd should be kept separate from eMusic UnLtd and have
a lower subscription rate. There isn't anything else like TMBG UnLTD
on eMusic so all of these TMBG fans get roped into buying an UnLTD
subscription when they really don't need it or more importantly, want
it. The fact that TMBG UnLtd tracks are the only ones on eMusic that
can't be purchased individually is a pretty good example of how it's
separate from the rest of eMusic.
The sad part is TMBG probably only gets a small amount from all the
TMBG UnLtd subscriptions and their subscribers are almost exclusively
paying $10 a month for just the new TMBG material.
If TMBG set up their own site they could charge people $10 a month
just like eMusic because as it stands most of us are paying $10 just
for the TMBG stuff anyway. That'd be $10 a month per subscriber all
for them. I can't imagine that TMBGUnLtd costs that much money to run.
This months update alone has 12 tracks that have a grand total running
time of under 20 minutes. Very little space must be needed to store
all the site info and songs and how much bandwidth could possibly be
used by people downloading 20 minutes worth of mp3's?
If I'm gonna pay $10 a month for 20 minutes worth of songs I'd rather
all the money goes to TMBG. If eMusic is going to run it I really wish
they didn't charge so much because $10 a month for 20 minutes of
material is a bit of a ripoff. Especially when the full McSweeney's CD
that most of this months songs were drawn from will undoubtedly be
under $10.
Asa Pillsbury
RamRadio that's already playing the new TMBGU songs. It's composed of about 50%
TMBG, mostly un(officially)released, 35% Beatles (never before did I notice how
much these two sound alike), and other widely varied stuff. I really sound like
I'm affiliated with this station, but I'm not, honest.
--
Something you would do for anybody.
Tim Imlay
Tim
"Asa Pillsbury" <a...@madbbs.com> wrote in message
news:95iod...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Sporkboy00
>everyone here signed up for TMBGUnLtd exclusively for TMBG and don't
>really have any interest in any of the other stuff on eMusic.
Please give us more credit than that. I don't want you to speak most TMBG
fans, because you make it sound like we are all stuck-up elitists who only care
about one band and have no interest in any other music. There is some great
stuff on Emusic and if you or "everyone here" don't want any of that, I'm
sorry. But I definitely agree with Chirs that this is a great service that you
all should be taking advantage of. I think you'll be a lot happier that way,
and I won't have to sift through posts and posts of people complaining that
they're getting screwed over.
that's all-
Matt
Kevin Sullivan
Please, don't put words in my mouth. If there are "posts and posts of
people complaining" then evidently I'm not the only one who feels this
way.
I'm not saying that there's nothing on eMusic that TMBG fans would
like. My point is that TMBG UnLTD is aimed specifically at TMBG fans
and it's kind of silly to lump it in with all the rest of eMusic and
charge way too much for it. I think if eMusic got rid of the access to
the entire catalog of mp3's in TMBG UnLtd and lowered the price to
like $6-$7 a month they'd get alot more people to subscribe. The $10 a
month rate is already turning people away and most of what you're
paying for is being able to access the rest of eMusic.
Here is the main difference between TMBG Unlimited and the rest of
eMusic:
TMBG Unlimited is all unreleased material that can't be found anywhere
else (at least at the time the stuff is posted).
The majority of the rest of eMusic is all mp3's of albums you can buy
in the store.
If I'm interested in a band I'll check out a couple of their songs on
Napster/Gnutella/Aimster/Scour or download a couple free tracks from
their website. If I like them I'll want to go out and buy their CD,
thus making eMusic mp3's pointless. If I don't like them, I delete the
mp3's and that's the end of that. I don't want to have to PAY to
access mp3's of songs that are widely available for purchase on CD.
I'm all for outtakes and demos and such being released in mp3 format
since the cost for putting something like TMBGUnLTD out in CD form
would be prohibitive. I'm not one of those people who think that
everything should be released on CD or not at all. If it isn't going
to get released any other way, then send me the mp3's and I'll be
happy. But if the stuff is available on CD then the mp3's are just
redundant, and that is eMusic in a nutshell.
eMusic is roping in TMBG fans by offering stuff they can't get
anywhere else and making them pay for something they don't need or
want in order to get it. I guess that's business, but I don't have to
like it. I think TMBG would do a lot better for themselves if they ran
TMBGUnLTD on their own...who knows, maybe they will if the first year
with eMusic turns out good.
Eric
>eMusic is roping in TMBG fans by offering stuff they can't get
>anywhere else and making them pay for something they don't need or
>want in order to get it. I guess that's business, but I don't have to
>like it.
This is actually a pretty common economic principle called "bundling".
> I think TMBG would do a lot better for themselves if they ran
>TMBGUnLTD on their own...who knows, maybe they will if the first year
>with eMusic turns out good.
I agree, but I think we all know that they wouldn't be able to handle it by
themselves... they can barely keep the websites updated as it is. It's best
to keep the Internet business to those who know about it (which, as they have
told us many, many times, is not them).
--Eric
Tim Imlay
The price of one month of TMBGU is $9.95. I make that in less than an hour
at work. That is less than the price of any new major label CD.
I understand how some readers here don't have jobs or credit cards. This is
not directed towards you, this is directed to the cheapskates who think
TMBGU is bad deal for the consumer. Especially one with a fast internet
connection and a CD burner.
I have downloaded *gigabytes* of music from Emusic. The selection is huge
and the download speeds are decent (especially if you use FreeAmp to queue
your downloads). You can't possibly tell me that there is NO other music
worth checking out on their site. There are hundreds upon hundreds of bands
that you have heard of with music I'm sure you like. Their jazz catalog
alone is worth the $9.95 a month.
I've got free speakers, and a free MP3 player from them already. And my
fleece. My only real problem with Emusic is the 128kbs joint stereo format.
I would pay more if everything was available at 192kbs or the equivalent
VBR.
Nowadays everyone expects to get everything to be free. If Napster didn't
exist you would be happy with *only* paying $9.95 for more music than you
could listen to for the rest of your life.
Please don't take this as a personal attack.
I'm not trying to offend anybody, it's just my opinion.
Tim
Asa Pillsbury
Tim Imlay <adve...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:238f6.3925$A82.8...@news.uswest.net...
> Looks like he took off the TMBGU stuff after you posted that. :)
Whoops, heh... didn't know he didn't want that publicized. Sorry, Mr. RamRadio.
--
Push me in the face again.
Erik Alexander
> Organization: www.onlynews.com
> Newsgroups: alt.music.tmbg
> Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:28:34 GMT
> Subject: Re: TMBG unlimited 2 emusic oddities
>
> Since everybody has the same option of waiting and paying less, I really
> don't see how this can be considered unfair.
That's a fair argument, if EMusic was advertising it like that.
Honestly, when TMBG Unlimited first came out last December, I'm pretty sure
nobody knew that, nor did EMusic advertise it like that.
It is somewhat misleading of EMusic. Of course they're not going to
advertise it like that, but you can probably bet that most people who signed
up would wait until December....had they known they could.
Erik
Troy
Erik Alexander wrote:
> > Since everybody has the same option of waiting and paying less, I really
> > don't see how this can be considered unfair.
>
> That's a fair argument, if EMusic was advertising it like that.
>
> Honestly, when TMBG Unlimited first came out last December, I'm pretty sure
> nobody knew that, nor did EMusic advertise it like that.
>
> It is somewhat misleading of EMusic. Of course they're not going to
> advertise it like that, but you can probably bet that most people who signed
> up would wait until December....had they known they could.
When I heard about it, I was under the impression that I could have
waited until December and got everything. It was advertised as having
new stuff every month, but nothing in the advertising implied that you
would get everything. After all, it said, that you would get "unlimited
downloadable access to every MP3 on EMusic."
If you were concerned about spending $120 over the course of a year,
only to have people pay $20 in December to get all the stuff you paid
for for "free," you could have sent an email to EMusic asking if the
early editions of TMBG Unlmitied would be available to somebody who
signed up in December. EMusic did answer email queries about the
program. People were concerned that there was a $120 up-front charge,
but they let us know it was only going to be $10/month. Had you just
sent an email, you would have known if you could have waited until
December, and you could have made a decision about it.
I was under the impression that I could wait until December, but I
didn't want to. I wanted the Fleece and the CD (to some people, these
two things alone would be worth $120), and I wanted the music NOW, not a
year from now.
--
Troy
Troy
scratch wrote:
>
>
> Troy wrote:
> > What about the people who sign up 5 months from now, but stay on for a
> > full year? Are you saying they should have to pay an extra $50 to get
> > the old stuff, for a grand total of $170?
>
> Yes they should, because they'll be getting stuff we don't unless we pay
> again. It'll cost us the same amount to get the same stuff.
If you recall, before TMBG Unlimited was officially launched, somebody
asked EMusic if the $120 was going to be an up-front charge, or just
$10/month. EMusic responded by saying that $120 would be too much to
charge anybody up-front, so it would be $10/month. By charging people
$50 up-front to get the old songs, they would be going against their
philosophy of keeping the amount of money somebody gets charged up-front
to a minimum.
> > I still have two questions that, until you can answer, just show that
> > this really isn't unfair.
> >
> > 1) How is paying less for old music on EMusic any different than paying
> > less for an old CD?
>
> But they aren't paying less, they're getting it free. Anyone who signs
> up now is paying for February 2001 - February 2002. By your logic, I
> should be able to call up National Geographic (only magazine I subscribe
> to), and say I bought a subscription for this year, I want every single
> back issue since you started.
They aren't getting it free. They're paying for it. They're paying $20,
while we're paying $10 in December.
It's not like getting all the back issues of National Geographic for
free. It's more like buying the current issue, then going to a
second-hand store and buying a bunch of back issues for a few dollars.
> > Look at it this way. Somebody who just signed up with BMG Music Service
> > can get "Then" for the $4 shipping charge. I paid $12 each for "Lincoln,"
> > "They Might Be Giants," and "Miscellaneous T" on tape. I paid $36 for
> > something on cassette, and somebody else comes along paying $4 for
> > something in a better format, with even more songs.
> >
> > Actually, I paid $48 if you count the second copy of "Lincoln" I bought
> > when I thought I lost my first copy. I found it later, so now I have
> > two copies (three if you count the songs on "Then"), but I digress.
>
> That's promotional, it's totally different.
This is promotional. I really don't think it's any different, either.
Somebody can get music that cost me $36 for $4 Even if you don't count
BMG as an option, you can get a used copy of Then for $10 or $15,
compared to my $36 for a cassette copy of the three albums. The
difference is that I got the music when it was new and fresh. It is
really not much different than somebody getting all the music you're
getting for $120 through TMBG Unlimited for $20. You're getting the
music when it's new, and you're getting the fleece and signed CD.
> > 2) If people who wait until December and pay $10 are getting such a
> > great deal, why are you paying $120? Why aren't you waiting?
> >
> > Since everybody has the same option of waiting and paying less, I really
> > don't see how this can be considered unfair. By buying a one year
> > subscription now, you have decided that it's worth paying an extra $100
> > to not wait until December for the songs, to get the fleece, and to get
> > the CD.
>
> Or, we just didn't know they were going to do this. I might have
> decided to wait if I knew I could get it all for 1/6th the price. I'm
> honestly not sure on that one.
An email to EMusic before you signed up would have cleared up any
questions about this. They've answered other pre-sales inquiries, they
would have answered this one.
--
Troy
scratch
Troy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:27:17 -0500, in "TMBG unlimited 2 emusic oddities,"
> scratch wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Troy wrote:
>
> > > What about the people who sign up 5 months from now, but stay on for a
> > > full year? Are you saying they should have to pay an extra $50 to get
> > > the old stuff, for a grand total of $170?
> >
> > Yes they should, because they'll be getting stuff we don't unless we pay
> > again. It'll cost us the same amount to get the same stuff.
>
> If you recall, before TMBG Unlimited was officially launched, somebody
> asked EMusic if the $120 was going to be an up-front charge, or just
> $10/month. EMusic responded by saying that $120 would be too much to
> charge anybody up-front, so it would be $10/month. By charging people
> $50 up-front to get the old songs, they would be going against their
> philosophy of keeping the amount of money somebody gets charged up-front
> to a minimum.
I guess, maybe they could continue paying for an extra 5 months but
recieve no new stuff?
> > > I still have two questions that, until you can answer, just show that
> > > this really isn't unfair.
> > >
> > > 1) How is paying less for old music on EMusic any different than paying
> > > less for an old CD?
> >
> > But they aren't paying less, they're getting it free. Anyone who signs
> > up now is paying for February 2001 - February 2002. By your logic, I
> > should be able to call up National Geographic (only magazine I subscribe
> > to), and say I bought a subscription for this year, I want every single
> > back issue since you started.
>
> They aren't getting it free. They're paying for it. They're paying $20,
> while we're paying $10 in December.
>
> It's not like getting all the back issues of National Geographic for
> free. It's more like buying the current issue, then going to a
> second-hand store and buying a bunch of back issues for a few dollars.
No it's not, because they're getting the back issues included with the
price of the new issue.
> > > Look at it this way. Somebody who just signed up with BMG Music Service
> > > can get "Then" for the $4 shipping charge. I paid $12 each for "Lincoln,"
> > > "They Might Be Giants," and "Miscellaneous T" on tape. I paid $36 for
> > > something on cassette, and somebody else comes along paying $4 for
> > > something in a better format, with even more songs.
> > >
> > > Actually, I paid $48 if you count the second copy of "Lincoln" I bought
> > > when I thought I lost my first copy. I found it later, so now I have
> > > two copies (three if you count the songs on "Then"), but I digress.
> >
> > That's promotional, it's totally different.
>
> This is promotional. I really don't think it's any different, either.
> Somebody can get music that cost me $36 for $4 Even if you don't count
> BMG as an option, you can get a used copy of Then for $10 or $15,
> compared to my $36 for a cassette copy of the three albums. The
> difference is that I got the music when it was new and fresh. It is
> really not much different than somebody getting all the music you're
> getting for $120 through TMBG Unlimited for $20. You're getting the
> music when it's new, and you're getting the fleece and signed CD.
It most certainly isn't promotional, they didn't mention it at all
because they knew if they did just about everyone would have gone for
it.
> > > 2) If people who wait until December and pay $10 are getting such a
> > > great deal, why are you paying $120? Why aren't you waiting?
> > >
> > > Since everybody has the same option of waiting and paying less, I really
> > > don't see how this can be considered unfair. By buying a one year
> > > subscription now, you have decided that it's worth paying an extra $100
> > > to not wait until December for the songs, to get the fleece, and to get
> > > the CD.
> >
> > Or, we just didn't know they were going to do this. I might have
> > decided to wait if I knew I could get it all for 1/6th the price. I'm
> > honestly not sure on that one.
>
> An email to EMusic before you signed up would have cleared up any
> questions about this. They've answered other pre-sales inquiries, they
> would have answered this one.
Yes, but I didn't even think this was a possibility, seeing what they've
done with the free stuff.
-scratch
Troy
Kevin Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:28:34 GMT, Troy <gimm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how this would work. I would imagine that if someone
> signed up for TMBGUnLTD in June their subscription would end in
> December along with everyone else's. There is no indication that
> TMBGUnLTD will even continue on for a second year. I think it would be
> easier for them to terminate everyone's subscription at the same time,
> rather than require everyone to sign up for one year periods....
Actually, you have to sign up for a full year to get the $10/month price.
So, if TMBG Unlimited ends in December, and there is no 2002 edition, if
you sign up in June, you'll still be paying $120, but only getting 7
months worth of stuff. This is just an argument for keeping the old
stuff available.
> >1) How is paying less for old music on EMusic any different than paying
> >less for an old CD?
>
> Well, last time I checked, all of TMBG album's still cost just as much
> as they did when I bought some of them ten years ago. More, depending
> on where you buy them. CD's don't really go down in price, especially
> if the band is still relatively popular.
Severe Tire Damage is $13.49 at CDNow. Factory Showroom, John Henry,
and Apollo 18 are $11.49 each on CD or $5.49 on tape. Live and Best of
the Early Years are each $6.89 CD and $2.49 tape. That's much less
expensive than when they first came out.
You can find them for even less in a regular music store. If you want
them used, you're talking even less money (if you can find them). Music
does go down in price, to a certain extent. Publishers and record
stores want to get rid of their old stock to make room for the new stuff
that sells millions of copies. The only time the prices stop dropping
(and can actually start climbing) is when the album is out of print,
hard to find, and a collector's item.
> >2) If people who wait until December and pay $10 are getting such a
> >great deal, why are you paying $120? Why aren't you waiting?
> >
> Waiting until December *isn't* an option because as it stands now
> someone who signs up in December won't have access to any of the
> previous months stuff. If I knew that in December I'd be able to get
> all the stuff for $10 I'd be pretty tempted to wait but I think the
> price as it stands is pretty fair (even though I'd rather have it be
> half the price and not have access to the rest of eMusic which I'm
> never going to use anyway). I'm sure most people who signed up for
> TMBG UnLTD are rarely if ever going to use the rest of what we are
> actually paying for.
Actually, it looks like the stuff from last month is still available, so
it looks like everything will remain available.
Do you honestly think you would have waited, though? Would anybody in
here have waited? We're talking about those of us who have to have
EVERYTHING by TMBG that we can get, and we want it now.
How many people have paid extra to get a pre-release CD off Ebay? This
isn't much different than that. They've already put some of the stuff
from their new CD on the site, and we're basically paying extra for that.
As for using the rest of EMusic, I've already downloaded many, many
songs from other artists. Some of it was junk, but some has been pretty
good. By the end of the year, I should have enough quality material to
fill at least 20 audio CDs (probably much more). $6.00 a CD is a pretty
good deal, if you ask me. Just look around EMusic, and you'll see some
names you recognize. You might even find something you like.
--
Troy
Lior Gallimidi
Can I download this from anywhere?
Lior Gallimidi
www.galga.net
"Asa Pillsbury" <a...@madbbs.com> wrote in message
news:95laj...@enews3.newsguy.com...
scratch
-scratch
Bryce
into, especially when taken out of context. (Even though some of my tie-ins have been pretty shaky.)
Bryce
What he said.
Asa Pillsbury:
Matt Garretson
hour
> at work. That is less than the price of any new major label CD.
That equates to nearly $120 a year, perhaps the equivalent of
7 or 8 CD albums. Does anyone typically buy that many TMBG albums
per year? Or that many albums from any other one band per year?
Can you imagine having to pay $10 a month for every band you
liked to hear all their new stuff? And can you imagine if all
music from all artists sounded as lousy as MP3s do?
> this is directed to the cheapskates who think
> TMBGU is bad deal for the consumer
And this is directed to all the chumps who think it's a great deal.
> Please don't take this as a personal attack.
Ditto. ;-)
Asa Pillsbury
Bryce wrote:
> Hey Asa, I'm diggin' your new disposable sig scheme, keep it up.
Okay.
--
I don't get around how you get around.