that's not indicated on the website

I wouldn't hate this so much if it was less pricey. $175 is over $43 per album.

It also doesn't say if they come with the original album artwork jackets (though they are shown, doesn't necessarily mean they'll be included - see: the Black Clouds and Silver Linings box set)

It also doesn't say how they're stored in the box. I was gifted the Rise Against vinyl box set a few weeks ago and while each album comes in its own sleeve, they're all attached to the box like it's a book. Not a huge deal, but kind of dumb that they can't be taken out individually.

On top of that, I already own Awake and FII. I'll probably pass and hope they release the other two individually.

What's the significance of the ant on the new artwork? I remember ants on the Systematic Chaos cover but not on any of I&W through to Scenes.

Quote from: OpenYourEyes311 on August 28, 2024, 12:53:57 PMI wouldn't hate this so much if it was less pricey. $175 is over $43 per album.

It also doesn't say if they come with the original album artwork jackets (though they are shown, doesn't necessarily mean they'll be included - see: the Black Clouds and Silver Linings box set)

It also doesn't say how they're stored in the box. I was gifted the Rise Against vinyl box set a few weeks ago and while each album comes in its own sleeve, they're all attached to the box like it's a book. Not a huge deal, but kind of dumb that they can't be taken out individually.

On top of that, I already own Awake and FII. I'll probably pass and hope they release the other two individually.

I see what you mean, but remember: These days, 45 $ per album (or thereabouts) is a common price for vinyl, for various reasons

Always fascinated by how albums that I know from CD are separated out on the vinyl releases.

When is the 8-track box set being released?

 

I'm surprised at the negative comments. I would've thought the DT fandom are some of the worst hoarders of ancient LP's and stuff.

I guess not actually, since most if not all of their so called "classic albums" came out at a time (i.e. the mid to late 1990s) when vinyl wasn't nearly as popular as it is now (vinyl being as popular is something I always found strange) The last time I listened to a vinyl album was in 1992 (when I was 2), so that might give you an idea. I'm used to digital (and I've been a fan of DT for well over 25 years)

Them saying this is the studio discography... just makes me worried that this next studio album will be the last one.

I might buy this set though why not?

Quote from: theanalogkid7 on August 28, 2024, 02:15:21 PMjust makes me worried that this next studio album will be the last one.

I wouldn't worry about that.

Quote from: TheOutlawXanadu on August 28, 2024, 12:14:51 PMIs this a bit of a cash grab? Probably. But I spend so little money on music these days, and I do want these albums on vinyl, so I'm fine with biting the bullet.

It probably is, but I am good with that.  In today's market, which is far tougher than it was a decade ago, if a band can find a way to make more money, I say do it.  And I am pretty consistent with these things when I say that if (the general) you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.  It's like when people complain about artists release x-number of vinyl variants.  If you don't like it, don't buy them.  No one is forcing you to buy anything. 

$45 for a double album is pretty out there even for today's prices. I think you're paying a premium for the box and booklet that comes with. Assuming each album gets its own gatefold sleeve, otherwise it's a bit of a ripoff.

Quote from: Mosh on August 28, 2024, 03:42:09 PM$45 for a double album is pretty out there even for today's prices. I think you're paying a premium for the box and booklet that comes with. Assuming each album gets its own gatefold sleeve, otherwise it's a bit of a ripoff.

which again isn't indicated on the press release in the post

Quote from: KevShmev on August 28, 2024, 02:21:40 PMIt probably is, but I am good with that.  In today's market, which is far tougher than it was a decade ago, if a band can find a way to make more money, I say do it.  And I am pretty consistent with these things when I say that if (the general) you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.  It's like when people complain about artists release x-number of vinyl variants.  If you don't like it, don't buy them.  No one is forcing you to buy anything. 

So..I can't bitch about it AND not buy it?

 

I had at least 1500 albums at one time, around 100 now, so this doesn't interest me.  I totally get the interest by some. I also have sympathy for the completists.

I was interested to see how they'd divide up the vinyls.  So, 'Hell's Kitchen' will get an additional few seconds for a proper fade out, or will it just be chopped?  Not having Scenes 7 and 8 together on SFAM just seems odd, but they didn't have much of a choice.

Hugh Syme.  The ant?  Oh, well...

Oh, but we do get a new song included:  'Sunder A Glass Moon'

Seriously, you can't run this by someone other than the 'paid' proofreader before sending it out?  I hate things like this.

Quote from: DragonAttack on August 28, 2024, 04:08:09 PMOh, but we do get a new song included:  'Sunder A Glass Moon'

Never would've happened with MP in the band. 

Quote from: TAC on August 28, 2024, 04:11:39 PMNever would've happened with MP in the band. 

Quote from: DragonAttack on August 28, 2024, 04:08:09 PMI was interested to see how they'd divide up the vinyls.  So, 'Hell's Kitchen' will get an additional few seconds for a proper fade out, or will it just be chopped?

This IS interesting. I actually have FII on vinyl and it's split like this, and it actually has a proper ending to Hell's Kitchen, AND a beginning to Lines in the Sand. There's a few seconds of extra keyboard build up that you don't hear on the CD. Pretty cool, actually. Definitely not $175 cool. But cool.

I own each one of their catalog already so have no interest. But it surprises me (not in a good way) they didn't even made this unique coloured vinyls, so geeks like me might jump on it. Simply black isn't gonna convince much of the collectors I pressume.

Quote from: TAC on August 28, 2024, 04:11:39 PMNever would've happened with MP in the band. 

LOL!

What's funny is that had this happened a year ago today, we know there are a few here who actually would have said your exact post with 100% seriousness.

Quote from: KevShmev on August 28, 2024, 02:21:40 PMIt probably is, but I am good with that.  In today's market, which is far tougher than it was a decade ago, if a band can find a way to make more money, I say do it.  And I am pretty consistent with these things when I say that if (the general) you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.  It's like when people complain about artists release x-number of vinyl variants.  If you don't like it, don't buy them.  No one is forcing you to buy anything. 

For sure. I feel like the band are leaving a lot of money on the table by not doing collector's box sets of their classic albums ala Deep Purple or Pink Floyd.

Do they have a ton of material for that? I know Mike's got "shows", but honestly, at least the Floyd boxes (except for The Wall) had cool stuff: a live show (albeit in pieces), some hard to find stuff...  DT was always so good about that in real time...  I'm not sure I'm buying a box set with the b-sides that I already have in two (sometimes three) versions already.

I hope they re-realese these albums individually.

I already have some of them (the music on vinyl and roadrunner editions sound pretty good) and there are other albums like SC or Astonishing that I'm not interested at all on having them on vinyl.

I really want Awake, TOT and SDOIT, but I don't want to re-buy records.

Quote from: Stadler on August 29, 2024, 06:19:33 AMDo they have a ton of material for that? I know Mike's got "shows", but honestly, at least the Floyd boxes (except for The Wall) had cool stuff: a live show (albeit in pieces), some hard to find stuff...  DT was always so good about that in real time...  I'm not sure I'm buying a box set with the b-sides that I already have in two (sometimes three) versions already.

not too much (if anything) off the top of my head, but Scotty knows about this very well of course

I have a feeling once their career starts slowing down a bit more, they'll start doing 40th Anniversary box sets for their albums, starting with IAW in 2032 (since I doubt the band will try and get the rights back for their debut, unless they expire by 2028 or 2029). I could see that box set including a remaster and/or remix of the album on CD, vinyl, as well as the IAW Demos, and the NYC 93 show.

Basically, they could re-release every album with a new master/mix, demos, and a live show from that tour (preferably one that hasn't been released already, unless it's a hard-to-find live show, or is the definitive representation of that album tour).

Would box sets like these get me to buy their albums again? Perhaps... Rush got me to do it with AFTK, PEW, MP, and Signals (missed out on the 2112 and HEMI box sets, sadly). I think if they include stuff that hasn't been released before (going back to shows MP might have in his archive), it would be worth getting, especially since I haven't double-dipped into the DT discography quite yet.

-Marc.

Oh boy!  $175 for four albums I already owned on inferior media!

Pass....

Quote from: Max Kuehnau on August 28, 2024, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: Buddyhunter1 on August 28, 2024, 10:35:54 AMI get WDADU is one of their least popular albums, but leaving it out of a boxset like this is a bit silly. Unless that record has some weird rights issues preventing them from including it? Or they're saving it for a "Volume 0"

not weird rights issues by any means, (although that actually boils down to rights issues) to put it simply: WDADU wasn't released by Warner Brothers (or any of their sublabels), so they don't own it, so they can't include it. Universal own the rights to WDADU.

Most of that is correct, but it's really not a rights issue.  For starters, saying that "Universal [owns] the rights to WDADU" is ambiguous.  Universal certainly does not own all of the relevant rights.  The musical composition copyrights for the songs are owned by the members of Dream Theater (either directly or through one of the band's wholly-owned corporations).  The sound recording copyright was originally owned by MCA Records, Inc. (through its Mechanic Records subsidiary).*  In the mid-'90s, Seagram (the booze company) acquired most of the ownership of MCA, and MCA was renamed as Universal Music Group.  It would be reasonable to assume that UMG - either on its own or through a subsidiary - now owns/controls the IP previously owned by Mechanic Records, but I doubt anyone truly owns.  Equally as importantly is that neither DT nor any of its affiliated companies or current or former record companies subsequent to Mechanic has ownership or possession of the original tapes of the songs on WDADU.  In fact, it is possible (although not publicly known) that the tapes were destroyed in the 2008 Universal Studios fire.  It is the ownership and possession of the original tapes - more than any rights issue - that will prevent any sort of re-release of WDADU.

* - For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know, the musical composition copyright is exactly what it sounds like.  It was traditionally - and still typically is - owned by the writer(s) of the song.  The sound recording copyright is a derivative of the musical composition copyright and covers the actual sound recording.  It was traditionally owned by the record company that released the album or other media.  If you look at WDADU's liner notes, you'll see "℗ MCA Records, Inc." (which indicates a sound recording copyright claim) and "All songs published by Tool and Die Music and Ytse Jams, Inc."  WDADU also has "© MCA Records, Inc.," which indicates a claim to ownership of the musical composition copyrights, but that's inconsistent with the records of the U.S. Copyright Office.

The way I understand it, and pg already posted a great "official" explanation, is that the label that released WDADU (or whoever bought them afterwards) owns the rights to the official album recordings/masters, most likely due to some contractual terms the band signed originally with their label deal. The band owns the song rights (think the music and lyric writing), but not he actual recordings that appeared on the album, so they can't just re-release those. They could always re-record the album and release it in any form they'd want to, but they don't seem to care too much about that to do it anyway.

Quote from: pg1067 on August 29, 2024, 09:37:09 AMOh boy!  $175 for four albums I already owned on inferior media!

Pass....



not weird rights issues by any means, (although that actually boils down to rights issues) to put it simply: WDADU wasn't released by Warner Brothers (or any of their sublabels), so they don't own it, so they can't include it. Universal own the rights to WDADU.


Most of that is correct, but it's really not a rights issue.  For starters, saying that "Universal [owns] the rights to WDADU" is ambiguous.  Universal certainly does not own all of the relevant rights.  The musical composition copyrights for the songs are owned by the members of Dream Theater (either directly or through one of the band's wholly-owned corporations).  The sound recording copyright was originally owned by MCA Records, Inc. (through its Mechanic Records subsidiary).*  In the mid-'90s, Seagram (the booze company) acquired most of the ownership of MCA, and MCA was renamed as Universal Music Group.  It would be reasonable to assume that UMG - either on its own or through a subsidiary - now owns/controls the IP previously owned by Mechanic Records, but I doubt anyone truly owns.  Equally as importantly is that neither DT nor any of its affiliated companies or current or former record companies subsequent to Mechanic has ownership or possession of the original tapes of the songs on WDADU.  In fact, it is possible (although not publicly known) that the tapes were destroyed in the 2008 Universal Studios fire.  It is the ownership and possession of the original tapes - more than any rights issue - that will prevent any sort of re-release of WDADU.

* - For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know, the musical composition copyright is exactly what it sounds like.  It was traditionally - and still typically is - owned by the writer(s) of the song.  The sound recording copyright is a derivative of the musical composition copyright and covers the actual sound recording.  It was traditionally owned by the record company that released the album or other media.  If you look at WDADU's liner notes, you'll see "℗ MCA Records, Inc." (which indicates a sound recording copyright claim) and "All songs published by Tool and Die Music and Ytse Jams, Inc."  WDADU also has "© MCA Records, Inc.," which indicates a claim to ownership of the musical composition copyrights, but that's inconsistent with the records of the U.S. Copyright Office.

thanks very much, very thorough (and luckily I was mostly correct, I feared for less 

Quote from: gzarruk on August 29, 2024, 10:23:29 AMThe way I understand it, and pg already posted a great "official" explanation, is that the label that released WDADU (or whoever bought them afterwards) owns the rights to the official album recordings/masters, most likely due to some contractual terms the band signed originally with their label deal. The band owns the song rights (think the music and lyric writing), but not he actual recordings that appeared on the album, so they can't just re-release those. They could always re-record the album and release it in any form they'd want to, but they don't seem to care too much about that to do it anyway.

which they did

Quote from: Max Kuehnau on August 29, 2024, 10:25:00 AMwhich they did

Live, yes, but never a proper studio re-recording.

As someone who got a record player again recently I'm super interested. I've had a VERY hard time finding my favorite bands albums on vinyl. I only got lucky with octavarium. So it is awesome for people like me. It's a different experience listening to a vinyl. Kinda forces me to sit down and sink into the music. Thats my experience anyway. Well I'm broke, so maybe I'll let wifey know what I want for Christmas before this sells out 😂

Quote from: pg1067 on August 29, 2024, 09:37:09 AMOh boy!  $175 for four albums I already owned on inferior media!

Pass....



not weird rights issues by any means, (although that actually boils down to rights issues) to put it simply: WDADU wasn't released by Warner Brothers (or any of their sublabels), so they don't own it, so they can't include it. Universal own the rights to WDADU.


Most of that is correct, but it's really not a rights issue.  For starters, saying that "Universal [owns] the rights to WDADU" is ambiguous.  Universal certainly does not own all of the relevant rights.  The musical composition copyrights for the songs are owned by the members of Dream Theater (either directly or through one of the band's wholly-owned corporations).  The sound recording copyright was originally owned by MCA Records, Inc. (through its Mechanic Records subsidiary).*  In the mid-'90s, Seagram (the booze company) acquired most of the ownership of MCA, and MCA was renamed as Universal Music Group.  It would be reasonable to assume that UMG - either on its own or through a subsidiary - now owns/controls the IP previously owned by Mechanic Records, but I doubt anyone truly owns.  Equally as importantly is that neither DT nor any of its affiliated companies or current or former record companies subsequent to Mechanic has ownership or possession of the original tapes of the songs on WDADU.  In fact, it is possible (although not publicly known) that the tapes were destroyed in the 2008 Universal Studios fire.  It is the ownership and possession of the original tapes - more than any rights issue - that will prevent any sort of re-release of WDADU.

* - For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know, the musical composition copyright is exactly what it sounds like.  It was traditionally - and still typically is - owned by the writer(s) of the song.  The sound recording copyright is a derivative of the musical composition copyright and covers the actual sound recording.  It was traditionally owned by the record company that released the album or other media.  If you look at WDADU's liner notes, you'll see "℗ MCA Records, Inc." (which indicates a sound recording copyright claim) and "All songs published by Tool and Die Music and Ytse Jams, Inc."  WDADU also has "© MCA Records, Inc.," which indicates a claim to ownership of the musical composition copyrights, but that's inconsistent with the records of the U.S. Copyright Office.

Yeah, I was wondering about this. I wonder if the band even knows the status of those tapes. Has anyone ever asked them?

Quote from: gzarruk on August 29, 2024, 10:23:29 AMThe way I understand it, and pg already posted a great "official" explanation, is that the label that released WDADU (or whoever bought them afterwards) owns the rights to the official album recordings/masters, most likely due to some contractual terms the band signed originally with their label deal. The band owns the song rights (think the music and lyric writing), but not he actual recordings that appeared on the album, so they can't just re-release those. They could always re-record the album and release it in any form they'd want to, but they don't seem to care too much about that to do it anyway.

When Dream & Day Unite (Taylor's Version)