Apple iTunes Offers Led Zeppelin Digital Box Set

[Avatar74]

Thank you Mr. RIAA ......



1. There aren't CD Blanks... just plastic pellets
2. CDs can/do go bad over time.. CD-Rs are worse than pressed CDs though..
3. Hard drives aren't forever either..

Sure but hard drives are sealed and, I would argue, more reliable storage than CD's. At any rate, none of it is going to last forever... We'll be replacing all our CD-Rs and other removable media soon.

I think we'll see a lot more of non-removable solid state (flash) memory. Removable media have decreased in usefulness, I think, since the growth of broadband. More devices like iPod touch will surface, but also with the ability to purchase and stream music wirelessly between licensed devices... say from your LAN to your iPhone.

A few years ago I stopped buying CD's, now I've stopped burning them, and pretty soon I'll probably stop storing them locally on portable devices... instead opting to stream them over high speed broadband and wireless (e.g. WiMAX) technologies. I really think that's the next wave.

And just to keep this on topic... LED ZEPPELIN RULES!

 

[Project]

I would rather have the hard copy box set, yeah I may have to encode it, but in terms of resale, its a much better deal. And I get posters, box art, etc. Also disks don't disappear when your HD dies.

CDs wear out too. I have CDs from the 80s that don't work.

Id rather the download. Back it up to an external hard drive. And not have to worry about where to store the box set itself (that will never even get used)

I am soooo over the physical purchase sentimentality.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Pre-order the 'boxed' set in the UK and you'll go into a draw to win one of two prizes consisting of:

• two tickets to the London show
• two tickets to the private dress-rehearsal the night before
• three nights hotel accommodation

I can imagine a couple of people I know probably having a heart attack if they won something like this.

 

[rstansby]

CDs wear out too. I have CDs from the 80s that don't work.

When you bought those CDs you used them as your primary format for playback, you took them out of your house and they took a lot of wear and tear.
In this dicussion we are all planning on listening to the music on our iPods/iTunes, so the CDs won't be exposed to day to day use. Don't you think your CDs from 1985 would still work if you had ripped them when you got them and then stored them in a safe place.

 

[OllyW]

Pre-order the 'boxed' set in the UK and you'll go into a draw to win one of two prizes consisting of:

• two tickets to the London show
• two tickets to the private dress-rehearsal the night before
• three nights hotel accommodation

I can imagine a couple of people I know probably having a heart attack if they won something like this.

Just entered

UK gaming laws mean this competition can't be restricted to those who purchase the downloads only. Keep it quiet though, we'll have more chance of winning

 

[nemaslov]

CDs wear out too. I have CDs from the 80s that don't work.

Id rather the download. Back it up to an external hard drive. And not have to worry about where to store the box set itself (that will never even get used)

I am soooo over the physical purchase sentimentality.

I do understand the download thing and impulse buying. That's great. But I have never had one CD go bad in over twenty years unless I threw it against the wall. I have had three hard drives go bad in the past four years. Luckily I had backups, except one time. Now I have the songs on drives plus the CDs.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Just entered

Good luck.

Of course, if you win you'll take me as the second ticket-bearer, right? After all, it would only be fair...

 

[kfdodgerfan]

Zepplin ripped off folk and blues artists

I can appreciate the artistry of Led Zepplin. But it is widely known that they ripped off a number of songs, especially on Zep 1, from blues and folks singers and didn't credit them in the writing, nor did they pay royalties. If you have the actual LP, you'll see the only ones credited on the album was Page/Plant.

In future releases, they began to credit the original authors of the songs.

A very cheap move. I don't know why this hasn't been brought up more especially since they are so stingy with the use of Zep songs in movies etc.

 

[sportsnut]

Pre-order the 'boxed' set in the UK and you'll go into a draw to win one of two prizes consisting of:

• two tickets to the London show
• two tickets to the private dress-rehearsal the night before
• three nights hotel accommodation

I can imagine a couple of people I know probably having a heart attack if they won something like this.

Hmmm, stop that, comments like that COULD cause flashbacks to those who saw them live and don't remember how they got home.

 

[celavato]

WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY THAT WHEN THET COULD GET THIS AMAZING BOX OF CDS WITH GREAT PACKAGING FOR LESS!!! AT AMAZON:

I suspect most of us will cherrypick songs as usual.

 

[OllyW]

I can appreciate the artistry of Led Zepplin. But it is widely known that they ripped off a number of songs, especially on Zep 1, from blues and folks singers and didn't credit them in the writing, nor did they pay royalties. If you have the actual LP, you'll see the only ones credited on the album was Page/Plant.

In future releases, they began to credit the original authors of the songs.

A very cheap move. I don't know why this hasn't been brought up more especially since they are so stingy with the use of Zep songs in movies etc.

Not quite true. Babe I'm Gonna Leave You is listed as "Traditional arr. by Jimmy Page" and You Shook Me & I Can't Quit You Baby are credited to Willie Dixon (He may have resorted to legal action to achieve this?)

And not one single song on the album is credited to Robert Plant due to a previous publishing deal he was still contracted to.

They were very naughty claiming full credit for most of the other songs on the album, there are a lot of blues and folk tunes incorporated in there. Great album though.

 

[bretm]

$99? Wow. Is it the higher quality version? If so, I wouldn't mind my own digital box set.

Not exactly a bargain. They only have 8 real albums plus coda plus a live album. Not sure whats included, but at best $99 is regular price.

 

[bennyboi]

I have listened to Rain Song at 128 and on the CD. I didn't hear it, perhaps you could describe what I'm missing.

And Zeppelin DESERVE a high bit rate out of respect? I hope you say that tongue in cheek. They don't deserve any better than a Miles Davis, Robert Johnson or Bach digital offering.

ok. well, 22 seconds in, the guitar progresses, and I can hear digital artifacting CLEARLY at 128 vs. cd. Are you listening on iPod headphones or stock speakers? I use Sony Studio Monitors for my own personal sound recording at home and Alesis or JBL studio monitors at work when editing video or listening to music. Now, I'm not going to go on and detail every time I hear CLEAR artifacting in the Rain Song. it's a 7 minute song .
But hey, if you don't notice it, awesome. Stick with your 128! Just please don't say there's no difference between a 3 mb 128 sound file vs. uncompressed.

Otherwise I suppose we can all blowup thumbnails of Van Gogh, print them, and frame them on our walls. And call them originals.

EDIT - sry blue velvet, just read your post about keeping bit rates out of thread. but in my opinion, it is relavant with Zeppelin being available for Digital Download.

 

[kfuty]

WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY THAT WHEN THET COULD GET THIS AMAZING BOX OF CDS WITH GREAT PACKAGING FOR LESS!!! AT AMAZON:

Complete Studio Recordings [BOX SET] [ORIGINAL RECORDING REMASTERED]
Led Zeppelin

More about this product
List Price: $129.98
Price: $89.97 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. Details
You Save: $40.01 (31%)

From looking at the track list on iTunes, the iTunes Box Set includes:
Complete Studio Recordings (listed above)
How the West Was Won
Song Remains the Same
BBC Sessions
Mothership (don't know why since these tracks are already in the Complete Studio Recordings, remaster maybe?)

 

[bretm]

Not quite true. Babe I'm Gonna Leave You is listed as "Traditional arr. by Jimmy Page" and You Shook Me & I Can't Quit You Baby are credited to Willie Dixon (He may have resorted to legal action to achieve this?)

And not one single song on the album is credited to Robert Plant due to a previous publishing deal he was still contracted to.

They were very naughty claiming full credit for most of the other songs on the album, there are a lot of blues and folk tunes incorporated in there. Great album though.

On hell, they grabbed a phrase or a lick or two but on general the whole song was new. Most were ridiculously old folk songs that had no true author or were public domain.

 

[benpatient]

Bah.

Wake me up when they remaster them again for DVD-A and/or SACD.

If that never happens, I've still got my CD set. It's been happily residing on iTunes and iPod for years now.

To the guy saying that he wouldn't buy the cheaper physical set from Amazon because it's an "impulse buy" on iTunes and you don't want to wait for things that are impulse buys...not even 3 days for shipping, I have to ask:

Do you really think people are going to "impulse buy" a 100 dollar download? Since when is a pre-order an impulse buy?

If I wanted this set and had the option of:
A. iTunes preorder for 100 dollars, get it when the set is officially unlocked and I download it in a couple weeks

or

B. amazon order the box set of CDs with packaging. books, photos, etc for 90 dollars and get it in 3-4 days, still a week or two before itunes "releases" it.

which one is the impulse again?

Anyway, unless they have been re-mastered again from the multitrack, I'm not interested at all...

 

[mac 2005]

WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY THAT WHEN THET COULD GET THIS AMAZING BOX OF CDS WITH GREAT PACKAGING FOR LESS!!! AT AMAZON:

Maybe because buying the music from iTMS requires no packaging. I don't know about you, but I think packaging continues to be excessive. And guess where it most likely winds up--in landills.

 

[asrai]

This is good news. Nice price on the set.

 

[lifeboy001]

I do understand the download thing and impulse buying. That's great. But I have never had one CD go bad in over twenty years unless I threw it against the wall. I have had three hard drives go bad in the past four years. Luckily I had backups, except one time. Now I have the songs on drives plus the CDs.

I vote for this man...I have a 4-drive enclosure to back up all of my data, including multiple copies of my music. HD space is cheap, you'd be crazy not to back up your music.

Plus, having once owned 500+ cds and 300+ vinyls (and I'm nowhere near what some people have), I am quite happy having sold them. Try moving to a few different states with all that.

 

[wordmunger]

EASIER!!???

You order on Amazon one click. Three or four days later it arrives. You load in the CDs on any computer you like, takes a couple of minutes per album, about the same time as a download. You can have lossless, MP3s or any quality, no limitations. You can take the CD version in your car. You have backup forever, You have great artwork. Don't have to print our on crappy paper or waste colored printer ink. You have this amazing box that sits on your shelf. And again better quality than you most likely ever get by downloading.

Then you have a bunch of trash to deal with. Not just the packaging for the CDs, but all the packaging it got shipped in. I've already got too many CDs sitting on my shelf. That's why I like iTunes -- no trash, just the music. I don't take CDs in my car, I take my iPod. I never print anything out -- I just play the music, wherever I want it.

If I was going to buy the boxed set, I'd get it digitally, both to avoid all that waste and save myself the time of ripping the CDs. A couple minutes per album is still an hour of my time, worth much more than $10, and all in all, this is much better for the environment.

But I won't buy it anyway. I'm too old for that stuff.

 

[hayesk]

A very cheap move. I don't know why this hasn't been brought up more especially since they are so stingy with the use of Zep songs in movies etc.

So did the Beatles, Elvis, and a lot of other famous acts from the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

 

[Bregalad]

I merely stated you cannot hear the difference. If you think there is a difference, it's in your imagination. Try a double-blind ABX test and see if you can tell which is which with greater than 75% accuracy. I will bet money that you can't.

I could be a real snob and tell you that you're not an audio enthusiast until you listen to everything in 24-bit Linear PCM, which you CAN tell a difference over even 16-bit Linear PCM. But as most audiophiles tend to know nothing about digital audio, I suspect you couldn't give as detailed a breakdown as I can of why this is so.

I remember when the iTunes store first appeared panels of audiophiles and ordinary people sat down and listened to music compressed to 128, 160, 192 and 256kbps using both MP3 and AAC. Every single person claimed to hear differences. While all agreed AAC was superior to MP3 at 128 and 160, a small majority preferred the sound of the 192 bit MP3 over that of AAC. At 256 bits nobody could discern any difference from an uncompressed recording. I can't claim that these "tests" were conducted in a scientific manner. I merely wanted to show that a lot of people think there's a difference in the sound at different bit rates and with different compression algorithms.

I've long debated what encoding to use for my CD collection. It will take a lot of time and I don't want to have to redo it so I'm planning to use a high bit rate AAC. Why "waste" storage space? Because storage keeps getting cheaper every year and because I don't know when I might want to use the file in a way that requires it be converted to another format. While you argue that 128bit AAC is good enough for anyone, anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise and converting that file to MP3 is definitely going to butcher it. A 256 bit MP3 made from a 256bit AAC, on the other hand, is going to sound every bit as good as the original.

 

[whatever]

I have about 6,000 CDs. Some from the beginning... 1983 or 84. Not ONE has worn or oxidized!! I have digitized maybe half but love having the full albums. I find that when I play digitally in random, cuts play that I had forgotten about and I find amazing. Not just the classic cuts that one may purchase. Too many non hit songs will slowly fade.

I have well over 10,000 CDs (with the very first three being: Miami Vice Sound Track, Van Halen 1984 and Whitney Houston (I could have lied and name off some cooler CDs...)) and although those 3 still work, many of them have "worn". For those kids out there that don't remember the digital world in the 80's, we were told that CDs would never wear out, but this was during the cold war and maybe they thought the world was going to end first.

In the last couple of years as I reach deeper into my collection I find that CDs that I haven't listened to for years (crap maybe even decades) either sound like crap (many back catalogs were rushed out to CD in the 80's and they sound like crap) or they're oxidized.

Also I have found that even some of the newer "remastered" classics that I have sound like crap and for some reason their iTunes brothers sound better (if you're looking for an example, listen to Jethro Tull's Agualung, the 1996 Chrysalis remastered sounds like crap on CD and the iTunes version sounds better).

 

[jstad]

any clue on cost!? Led Zeppelin lives I am so pumped for the scheduled reunion concerts

 

[whatever]

I have about 6,000 CDs. Some from the beginning... 1983 or 84. Not ONE has worn or oxidized!! I have digitized maybe half but love having the full albums. I find that when I play digitally in random, cuts play that I had forgotten about and I find amazing. Not just the classic cuts that one may purchase. Too many non hit songs will slowly fade.

I have well over 10,000 CDs (with the very first three being: Miami Vice Sound Track, Van Halen 1984 and Whitney Houston (I could have lied and name off some cooler CDs...)) and although those 3 still work, many of them have "worn". For those kids out there that don't remember the digital world in the 80's, we were told that CDs would never wear out, but this was during the cold war and maybe they thought the world was going to end first.

In the last couple of years as I reach deeper into my collection I find that CDs that I haven't listened to for years (crap maybe even decades) either sound like crap (many back catalogs were rushed out to CD in the 80's and they sound like crap) or they're oxidized.

Also I have found that even some of the newer "remastered" classics that I have sound like crap and for some reason their iTunes brothers sound better (if you're looking for an example, listen to Jethro Tull's Agualung, the 1996 Chrysalis remastered sounds like crap on CD and the iTunes version sounds better).