Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@deanbmmv: It's more then a container, it's a branding and fixed settings of the H.264/AAC codecs. Devices and software can say they are iFrame compatible to help avoid confusion on if something will work with something else.
If it works or not, only time will tell. Basically think of it like MP3. That name became the easier way of knowing if something worked with MPEG1 Layer 3 Audio encoded at a constant bitrate up to a maximum of 320kbit. #iframevideo
Isn't the question whether this really is a new standard that Apple just "made up", or because it is based on other industry standards does that make it an industry standard by default? Confused yet? I am.
The album lives on in only one format now: Vinyl. For analog nerds and LP collectors. My preferred consumption of music now is lossless DRM-free mp3s and the vinyl for posterity, pretty art, etc.
Albums as a revenue source is kinda laughable at this point in time - but if you are gonna do it, this seems like a better way: [pitchfork.com]
Buy some cool band shit, get the album for free.
Edited by DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his stapler. at 08/11/09 2:55 PM
DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his stapler. was starred
DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his stapler. was unstarred
Eh, we'll see.
I've seen some concepts for "digital albums" that I could really get into. Even the way that iTunes does it now is close but not quite there. You get that little digital booklet but you can't really see it anywhere but on the computer. Make it so that while I'm listening to the song on my iPod Touch I can "flip" through the book and I'm there. I've found myself buying more and more "whole albums" just because by the time I get three or four songs I like its cheaper to complete my album then it is to buy the rest of the songs at their normal price.
i wish i could understand the purpose of this (other than trying to inflate some made up "album sales" category). again, record industry, don't try to give us what you want, give us what we want. i purchase and download only albums, never singles. i know that puts me in some old-fogey demographic, but so be it. that said, even i don't understand any advantage to this. and if the "added value" of purchasing and entire album is extra data (lyrics, album art, liner notes, etc...) then they must be going to "protect" those right? have they learned nothing about DRM yet? if they are NOT going to be protected, then why not just make an online "official" library with the information. when i rip a CD or download an entire album ask me if i want the extra crap. if this new format is to be "album only", meaning you can't listen to tracks discretly from it, then that is really really stupid.
@hdiggity: I think the idea is to encourage listeners to start to (re)appreciate the album as an art form unto itself... there are some classic albums out there that were the sold as only individual tracks would not have achieved the same iconic status -- Sgt Pepper, Dark Side of the Moon, Thriller, etc..
However, I think the 'digital album' format or cocktail is not the way to go -- the real way to get kids interested in downloading whole albums is to make it significantly cheaper.. also, labels need to stomp pumping out albums that consist of 2 "hot tracks" and 9 pieces of shit (i'm looking at you, eminem)...
A quality album can be a thing of beauty, a wonderful artform.. the problem is that far too few albums these days are, and that just encourages the kids to get the one track they heard on the radio, and probably never even hear the rest...
@anfield: I agree, although I also think radio itself is to blame. The whole idea that we can listen to only one song, and then base our expectations off that one song is bad. I think, after being burned by so many albums were there was only one or two good songs, people wisened up and bought only singles. Which really hurts artists like Kanye West, Radiohead, Tool and Nine Inch Nails, all whom make complete albums much better than a single song.
@anfield: i really hope you are right and that is the reason. however, the cynic in me (and that part gets bigger each day) says it's just another attempt to (a) re-sell what they've already sold once (i.e. upgrade from vinyl to CD) or (b) try again to lock down the digital format. i really do hope that something great comes of this, but i highly doubt it.
@hdiggity: I think with how easy it is to rip CD, most people won't be buying both CD and digital. You would choose one or the other, depending on your needs.
The album is not dead. I enjoy taking a 12" slab of pressed vinyl from its sleeve and placing it on the platter. I enjoy having CD jewel cases packed with interesting, tactile packaging. I enjoy having actual album art. The best thing about it is that no one can take it from me, save for breaking into my home and physically removing it from my grasp. Music is to be enjoyed in album form. Can one listen to singles? Sure, but they are not as fulfilling as listening to a coherent, thought-out album. An album is not a collection of singles, an album takes time and care. What would Abbey Road be without the album format? If some people only have a few things to say, then sure, put out a single. But for those who have attention spans longer than 3:45, the album is not dead.
I went to a wildlife park in San Diego and bought a CD of world music that had the videos and menus claptrap on it. Apparently, my "antique" CD player would not play the tunes that were purportedly on the disc. My mac could not play them either, but I did get to see the same rippingly idiotic indian dance video over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ... well, you get the picture. As an oldster, I like getting my tunes on a physical disc, and I just want the tunes on it. I will not buy the same BS in soft-form, either.
@Nick: I love Nick: Dude, that looks like some sort of desert castle where the Crusades might have been fought. Where the heck are you storing your grandparents‽
10/13/09
Odd.
10/13/09
Yep, that's the same resolution that HD discs allow when a Bluray PC player is connected to a non-HDCP display.
10/13/09
Also why 540p? Thats like the ginger kid of 1080i
Currently this new 'standard' is sounding unnecessary.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/15/09
If it works or not, only time will tell. Basically think of it like MP3. That name became the easier way of knowing if something worked with MPEG1 Layer 3 Audio encoded at a constant bitrate up to a maximum of 320kbit. #iframevideo
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
No such thing.
08/11/09
[pitchfork.com]
Buy some cool band shit, get the album for free.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
I've seen some concepts for "digital albums" that I could really get into. Even the way that iTunes does it now is close but not quite there. You get that little digital booklet but you can't really see it anywhere but on the computer. Make it so that while I'm listening to the song on my iPod Touch I can "flip" through the book and I'm there. I've found myself buying more and more "whole albums" just because by the time I get three or four songs I like its cheaper to complete my album then it is to buy the rest of the songs at their normal price.
08/11/09
08/11/09
However, I think the 'digital album' format or cocktail is not the way to go -- the real way to get kids interested in downloading whole albums is to make it significantly cheaper.. also, labels need to stomp pumping out albums that consist of 2 "hot tracks" and 9 pieces of shit (i'm looking at you, eminem)...
A quality album can be a thing of beauty, a wonderful artform.. the problem is that far too few albums these days are, and that just encourages the kids to get the one track they heard on the radio, and probably never even hear the rest...
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
04/18/09
04/18/09
04/17/09