Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They didn't give U2 $100M...the entire iP6 campaign is worth $100M. Read up. And having 16 of the other albums in the iTunes top 100 when a week and half ago they had none, is NOT a backfire. Again, enough with the U2hate.

I said album plus promotion implying campaign so if you're going to get uppity don't misinterpret my comment.
 
This has probably been here over and over, but what the heck, it deserves every repost... :)

BxnShexIQAAMmH5.jpg
 
It's all in the details. A print of the Mona Lisa is nothing like seeing the real thing.

The real thing is actually pretty small and there's usually around 20 people in front of you. So seeing a good print is actually kinda preferable ;)
 
DVD-Audio

When I owned an Acura many years ago, it had this amazing stereo with a DVD-Audio player in it.

Not only is the music sampled at a higher bit rate, it is also in Dolby Surround sound, which sounds phenomenal.

Imagine my disappointment when I found out that the music industry had half assed the launch, not educated the public, and frankly just given up on a botched product roll out. Despite a sound that blew CD and traditional MP3s out of the water, it never caught on.

I thought nothing more about it, until I noticed my Mercedes has the same feature. Of course I was only able to track down four discs to play on it, but still they sound utterly amazing. The Beatles have an album based on the Vegas show where the songs have been remastered in surround and they are awesome.

Long story short, I do hope they can work on a format that can deliver Dolby Surround sound in my car, and ideally with the entire U2 back catalog!
 
Not until the album actually goes on sale in mid-October. FWIW, that's also pushes the official album release date past the Sept 30th deadline for 2015 Grammy nomination eligibility. Assuming anyone cares.

Somewhat related, Sharon Osborne has come out against giving away the album for free with one of her trademarked profanity-laced Twitter tirades. So now I think I'm officially in favor of it. ;)

Even in October, free downloads won't count in billboard 200 album chart, but why would they push it beyond Grammy nomination deadline?

I think the free album promo is mainly for touring, if they haven't announced a your already, I bet on an announcement before year end
 
And in MacOSX 11 and iOS 9 Apple will officially abandon all previous file formats so you have to rebuy all your music in their new wonderful format.

8Track Tape...
Cassette Tapes...
CDs...
DVDs...
BlueRay... ...and all those other formats that never really made it but they suckered people into buying. The industry likes you to rebuy your entire data collection every few years. It's a cheaper way for them to make profits than actually producing great new products.

Et U2?
 
Even in October, free downloads won't count in billboard 200 album chart, but why would they push it beyond Grammy nomination deadline?

The Grammy deadline is based on the date the album goes on sale. Since the album is a giveaway exclusive, it doesn't actually go on sale anywhere (CD, vinyl, or download) until mid-October, so it misses the deadline for the 2015 Grammy show.

In contrast, when Tom Petty gave away a download copy of their new album with every concert ticket, the album was also available for sale in all the usual formats at all the usual places.

TL;DR: If "Songs of Innocence" were to win a Grammy, it couldn't be until the 2016 Grammy show. And, honestly, I expect most of the members to have moved on to newer material by then.
 
Wrong, the BEP have been around just as long as U2. Before they hit it big on the charts, they started off in the making undergriund hip hop records

U2 - started in 76
BEP started in 95

That is 19 years difference!!!

----------

I have never been intrigued - at all - by any music streaming service. If I like an album (or a song), I have to own it.

Guess I'm in the minority.

I am the same. I buy my music because and enjoy it. I don't care for streaming services.
 
I don't think U2 is relevant anymore. Apple has to appeal to a younger generation. Apple missed the opportunity on streaming music services. I just wish they concentrated more on computers again!
 
Does Apple not have a streaming music service? That's the only logical thing this can be about. Netflix changed the game with the way we consume movies/television. Although there's not enough new, good music coming out for me to want to pay for unlimited and on-demand streaming, I'm sure this would appeal to a lot of people. I'm content with free streaming services to find new artists I've never heard before and if I really like them then I'll buy their album.
 
It's all in the details. A print of the Mona Lisa is nothing like seeing the real thing. Music is like that too. A compressed AAC file is deader sounding than an uncompressed AIFF. But AIFF isn't practical when bandwidth and storage is limited. So a new format that is less compressed than AAC but still retains AAC's file size frugality would be a beautiful thing. Personally, I use ALAC right now, a little compressed and somewhat large files, but not as large as AIFF.

That said I don't know how that sells more music b/c the era of big home audio is dead and portables are not going to sound much better even w/ an improved format. The real problem w/ the music industry IMHO is lack of talent. There are a lot of one-song wonders and one decent cut albums out there now, and nothing really new sounding.

I wonder if, rather than audio quality, they mean interactive music files. If Apple sell music to be consumed on Macs, iPhones and iPods, they all have screens.

Maybe it's a music format that has videos, lyrics, photos, vouchers etc, too.
 
I wonder if, rather than audio quality, they mean interactive music files. If Apple sell music to be consumed on Macs, iPhones and iPods, they all have screens.

Maybe it's a music format that has videos, lyrics, photos, vouchers etc, too.

Yes, I think you are right. I read another article on the U2 collaboration elsewhere and it sounded like the new format would be more "interactive" whatever that means in relationship to music. But hopefully, it will also include a bump in audio quality too.
 
Doh! Scooped!

I think that you might be right on the mark with this. Hearing is not the same as listening and I think musicians like me (who took the old "Sight-Singing and Ear-Training" class in college and really, deeply care about this stuff and who dig orchestral music and Sam Cooke's awesomeness, and know who Marc-Andre Hamelin and Dennis Chambers are, etc.) -we're just setting ourselves up for disappointment, you think?

The average purchaser of music has no idea what 128kbps even means. This is why I'm not buying this new format. As long as the audio file they purchase sounds like the song they have in their head, quality, as long as it's an acceptable standard, is not that important because quite frankly most people's hearing acuity when it comes to music is not that great. People aren't going to start paying more because the hi-hats and crashes are slightly crisper and the bass drums punchier. If anything I think it's going to be more to do with the music buying experience than the actual quality of sound.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.