I really don't get why people are so amused by this. I would want them to be sold just like any other track. If I buy an album that has silent tracks, I better get the silent tracks! I know a Dave Matthews album has a whole bunch of silent tracks so I think #34 is track 34. I like that.
Also they label albums as explicit, not individual songs I'd guess. I just don't get why this is making such big news, it makes sense for them to have them.
I really don't get why people are so amused by this. I would want them to be sold just like any other track. If I buy an album that has silent tracks, I better get the silent tracks! I know a Dave Matthews album has a whole bunch of silent tracks so I think #34 is track 34. I like that.
Also they label albums as explicit, not individual songs I'd guess. I just don't get why this is making such big news, it makes sense for them to have them.
agreed. to do anything different would edge into "what makes a song worth a particular amount?" if it's longer, is it worth more? how about chord complexity? are instrumentals and vocal-only tracks worth less than tracks that feature both?
all in all, keep it $.99 each and avoid the issue altogether.
Well I mean it's interesting, but don't see why news.com would run a article about it. Do not other download services do the same? If not then I'd say this is an advantage to the iTMS.
I think the tracks should be listed, but should they really be sold? I hope the price setting folk have the foresight to make those tracks cost nothing when sold in as an album. For example, Apple's pricing policy is that no album may sell for less than the sum of the individual tracks put together.
Theoretically, the label could charge $10.89 for that when you're really only getting five songs. The only way to get all five is to by the album too.
I don't think it needs to be a policy, because they could easily get around it by making garbage tracks, but it's something to keep an eye on in the future.
I dunno what the fuss is. The whole system is likely pretty well automated and I somewhat doubt every album gets listened to or even looked at ahead of posting. They'd just add it and price it based on what the recording companies say.
Comments
Also they label albums as explicit, not individual songs I'd guess. I just don't get why this is making such big news, it makes sense for them to have them.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
I really don't get why people are so amused by this. I would want them to be sold just like any other track. If I buy an album that has silent tracks, I better get the silent tracks! I know a Dave Matthews album has a whole bunch of silent tracks so I think #34 is track 34. I like that.
Also they label albums as explicit, not individual songs I'd guess. I just don't get why this is making such big news, it makes sense for them to have them.
agreed. to do anything different would edge into "what makes a song worth a particular amount?" if it's longer, is it worth more? how about chord complexity? are instrumentals and vocal-only tracks worth less than tracks that feature both?
all in all, keep it $.99 each and avoid the issue altogether.
though "explicit silence" is pretty amusing.
Originally posted by rok
though "explicit silence" is pretty amusing.
Well I mean it's interesting, but don't see why news.com would run a article about it. Do not other download services do the same? If not then I'd say this is an advantage to the iTMS.
Imagine the following album:
1. Song #1 - $0.99
2. Song #2 - $0.99
3. Song #3 - Album Only
4. Song #4 - $0.99
5. silence - $0.99
6. silence - $0.99
7. silence - $0.99
8. silence - $0.99
9. silence - $0.99
10. silence - $0.99
11. Song #5 - $0.99
Theoretically, the label could charge $10.89 for that when you're really only getting five songs. The only way to get all five is to by the album too.
I don't think it needs to be a policy, because they could easily get around it by making garbage tracks, but it's something to keep an eye on in the future.