|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newman eh? Thought Horner was attached to it... Too bad but Newman isn't a bad replacement. Newman isn't a "bad" anything...much less "replacement." Horner's not all that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a great score, yes, very much reminiscent of Perdition. Its a very melancholy, and understated , beautiful in parts, and I'm curious as to why its not on iTunes or anywhere else fore that matter. Oh, and thank God Horner didn't get the gig. That's all the world needed, another re-run of Sneakers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My guess is that it might end up as a digital (iTunes/Amazon) release from Universal's digital label. I hope so, its too good not to be released. I just hope its not caught up in copyright hell due to the few rock songs in the film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first new Thomas Newman score in over a year, for a sci-fi tinged thriller, and it's a download only? Aaaaarrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first new Thomas Newman score in over a year, for a sci-fi tinged thriller, and it's a download only? Aaaaarrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!! I share your feelings. I guess we should get accustomed to this because in a few years almost everything will be digital delivery-only. But it's hard to digest, especially for music of composers I like to collect on my bookshelf. I'm already praying all the gods that the two new upcoming Williams' scores (TINTIN and WAR HORSE) will get a physical release... Man, don't even suggest that possibility. (Though since War Horse will be a Touchstone release, there is sadly a chance of a discless release).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$12.99 for a digital download? No me gusta. Yeesh!! I knew it! They started out selling digital downloads relatively inexpensively, since we had the alternative of buying a physical CD. But now they're charging as much as a CD for them. $9.99 is already way too much for something I don't physically own and can't resell, but $12.99 is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 1, 2011 - 1:17 PM
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
I think they're making a mistake with this pricing. And I say that fully acknowledging that the cost of making the physical CD, as important as that is to many of us, is a very small part of the cost of the production of a CD. They're in business to make money, and that's fine. But I do think many will balk at this price. Steve Jobs argued for years to keep the 99¢/song pricing across all songs, and under $10 for albums, because he felt instinctively that that was a price point people were emotionally willing to go for. But in the face of a full-scale revolt from the labels (who are deeply suspicious of Apple, and not without reason given Apple's power), he had no choice but to give in to a three-tiered pricing model. At least at first, the extra 30¢ a label gets from a hit song priced at $1.29 was more than off-set by lower sales of the higher-priced songs. (I haven't read any more recent reports on this, so that may have changed.) I work in television, and have watched powerlessly as the shows we make get shorter and shorter as the networks sell more commercials, to the point where a show is fully one-third commercials. I realize that these commercials pay my salary, but I also believe that the shows have become swiss cheese, too short to tell a compelling story and too full of interruptions to get any momentum going. I know that giving up commercial time is anathema to a network, but I choose to believe that if the shows were longer, the ratings would be higher, and they could charge more for each of the fewer commercials. Similarly, I believe that a lot of downloadable music would sell sufficiently more copies at a lower price point to off-set the lower price. That said, it's not my money I'd be gambling with. They are welcome to charge what they think they can get, even if I find it misguided. I'll probably get "The Adjustment Bureau," because I'm a big Thomas Newman fan. But the $12.99 has given me pause. (At $9.99, I probably would have bought it already.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|