QueenZone discussion #660154
announce hammer to fall (malouf mix)
| The Visible Man 15.11.2005 19:21 |
|
| goleafs17 15.11.2005 22:14 |
Pretty interesting mix Thanks! |
| jackie 16.11.2005 00:36 |
Yes, nice but official (Hollywood Promo from 1991, Rocks CD series from 1991).... |
| maybri 16.11.2005 09:18 |
Yes, this remix is official. Please take it off! |
| The Visible Man 16.11.2005 09:36 |
most promos are only official for radio stations and not for buying. And i think that the promo cd isn't available anywhere. Except internet and collectors. But ok... |
| maybri 16.11.2005 09:47 |
I don´t mean it so serious, but these songs can only the beginning (maybe the end of this great web site!) |
| The Visible Man 16.11.2005 10:01 |
no, it's ok. I just thought, if it's no longer available in the shops it's ok to share it here |
| maybri 16.11.2005 10:11 |
I´ve got this and a edit of the remix. These to remixes of "Hammer To Fall" are the best I know...exapt the "Headbangers Mix". |
| Haystacks Calhoun 16.11.2005 11:09 |
TO my mind, if you cannot walk down to Tower Records or wherever, it is not considered "Officially Released". In other words, if you have to dig around on E-bay to loook for it, it is fair game to post here... |
| John S Stuart 16.11.2005 13:53 |
Haystacks Calhoun wrote: TO my mind, if you cannot walk down to Tower Records or wherever, it is not considered "Officially Released". In other words, if you have to dig around on E-bay to loook for it, it is fair game to post here...Although I see your logic, the RIAA do not. If it has been officially released, then it can not be shared. This self-censorship helps keep this site open, (unlike others which have been forced to close). For obvious reasons, this is a one of the most favourite forums in here, and it's not too difficult to abide by the sloitary simple rule - if it's official, keep it out. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 16.11.2005 19:51 |
I understand perfectly well the "rule", but that does not mean that I have to AGREE with it. If folks up top were so worried about this kind of thing, they would make these tracks accessible, over the internet, at $1.99 a pop. |
| John S Stuart 16.11.2005 23:05 |
Haystacks Calhoun wrote: If folks up top were so worried about this kind of thing, they would make these tracks accessible, over the internet, at $1.99 a pop.I agree with you Mr Haystacks!. But then they would go and do something stupid like making such tracks available only in the US - but not in Europe or Australia. I do not agree with theft, but sometimes, as consumers we are chased down that road. For example, I buy a lot of DVD movies. Sometimes I buy DVDs from the states as they have better (uncut) versions of the film, perhaps more extras, (or more usually) because they come out so much earlier over there. But to stop this free trade, they then came up with regionally encoded discs. I mean if I buy a 'Mary Poppins' DVD from America, how does this effect the Disney company? They still have their profits whether or not my DVD was bought in the UK. However, to circumvent the whole stupid procedure, folks began uploading film to bit-torrent (or wherever), thus bypassing the need to purchase incompatable DVD in the first place! Talk about herding the massing towards downloading! Now I see far more region '0' discs, and a lot less of those stupid encoded ones. (Besides, it was always easy to hack the DVD player in the first place!). I guess what I am saying is that I agree the moronic companies are acting like ludites, and there are far better and efficient ways to deal with the internet as a medium, but until that day arrives - I guess it's better safe than sorry. |
| John S Stuart 16.11.2005 23:10 |
Just out if interest: In Europe, there is a big row brewing between the recording companies and Apple. The record companies want more money - a bigger slice of the pie. £1.99 is NOT enough. But under close examination, what do you get for your money? No disc, no artwork, and minimal information. At least with an 'artifact' you have a product, and a disc, and (usually) nice art, slipcase cover etc. So how can charging more for 'nothing' be ethical? Is the same happening over in the US? Or is this anther case of rip-off Europe, or indeeed rip-off UK? After herding the masses towards iPods and legal download sites, can't they see that the target audience of youngsters just can't afford it - and in effect are chasing them back down the illegal downloads route they are coming from? |
| bitesthedust 17.11.2005 08:06 |
John S Stuart wrote: Just out if interest: In Europe, there is a big row brewing between the recording companies and Apple. The record companies want more money - a bigger slice of the pie. £1.99 is NOT enough. But under close examination, what do you get for your money? No disc, no artwork, and minimal information. At least with an 'artifact' you have a product, and a disc, and (usually) nice art, slipcase cover etc. So how can charging more for 'nothing' be ethical? Is the same happening over in the US? Or is this anther case of rip-off Europe, or indeeed rip-off UK? After herding the masses towards iPods and legal download sites, can't they see that the target audience of youngsters just can't afford it - and in effect are chasing them back down the illegal downloads route they are coming from?I fully agree. I bought a Creative player a few weeks ago and haven't downloaded anything from legal sites to put on it. The songs I have on it are from my own personal cd collection.... |
| PieterMC 17.11.2005 08:52 |
I personally would not pay to download music that I can buy on CD. In my mind 99 cents a track is a rip of. Why would I want to pay $10 for an downloaded album that has not artwork or case? It makes no sense to me. |
| bitesthedust 17.11.2005 09:30 |
PieterMC wrote: I personally would not pay to download music that I can buy on CD. In my mind 99 cents a track is a rip of. Why would I want to pay $10 for an downloaded album that has not artwork or case? It makes no sense to me.exactly...here in the UK, the price for just a single track can vary from 99p to £2...multiply that by 10 or 12 for a whole album and you come to same conclusion you've reached. |
| inu-liger 17.11.2005 10:51 |
In regards to DVD and region encoding, I *think* future movie disc formats such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will scrap the region encoding. I'm assuming so cos I have heard NOTHING about such a system being on either of their discs. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 17.11.2005 14:27 |
So, this being said, it si bad business of the record companies to NOT use the technology of the day to say, for instance, to download an obscure song, that has been out of print for 5-10 years?? Or more??? When that record sells again used, who is reaping the benefit then? The record company??? No, the shop owner does. Dealing with digital files is NO different, and would be a way to increase revenue for those who try to "obey" the law. There is a vast difference between sharing a song like this, and, say, The Darkness' soon to be released album. Somewhere, in some room, you would think record company execs would figure this out. So that, if I wanted to pay .99 to Hollywood Records for this song, I log on to Hollywood Records, purchase it, and download it. If I cannot, then sharing like this should be LEGAL, as it is the same as buying it used from Joe Blow's Record Shop. |