but how come he is the ONLY major artist not to have rereleases wih bonus tracks?

but releasing the 37 track anthology on CD should create more interest...

luvsexy4all said:

In this crazy new world of streaming "sales" does Anthology count as a new Prince album? Is it eligible to chart on Billboard as an "album"? Whatever "album" means now?

Kares said:

If the Japanese can make money on rereleasing totally obscure albums as LP-replica CDs, recreating the original artwork with painstaking accuracy (incl. any postcards, inner sleeves, posters and anything the original release came with) in limited quantities of often just 1000, then I see absolutely no reason why a full catalog rerelease program for Prince's albums wouldn't be financially viable.

.

Even his most obscure albums would easily sell at least 5000 worldwide with zero marketing, especially if they're beautifully made Japanese mini-LPs. Just imagine having his entire catalog as gorgeous, limited edition Japanese mini-LPs in 7" covers, as they did it for some Yes and ELP titles recently. (A 'Bitches Brew' SACD also just came out in 7" mini-LP cover and it's gorgeous, so is the Santana 'Lotus' package from last year.)

.

[Edited 8/23/18 3:32am]

In Japan, 80 percent of sales are still physical CD, that's why we're still getting a lot of re-released/re-packeging deluxe edition CD with sometimes bonus tracks etc. Most of them are really collectable and people here care about products in detail.

http://www.tokyoreview.net/2018/05/its-slow-streaming-for-music-services-in-japan/

sro100 said:

Urine said:

If i recall correctly you can buy whatever ones you don't have in FLAC form from Tidal. There was a question over what the source on either the Slaughterhouse or The Chocolate Invasion (but not both) was because it seemed to be mp3 sourced.

jaawwnn said:

Funkyalien said:

jaawwnn said:

If i recall correctly you can buy whatever ones you don't have in FLAC form from Tidal. There was a question over what the source on either the Slaughterhouse or The Chocolate Invasion (but not both) was because it seemed to be mp3 sourced.

The tidal ones are the original releases. I meant the new sony/legacy ones. Surely they have lossless or hi-res masters somewhere? Why not release them on hi-res and vinyl? I’m sure many princeophiles will buy physical releases or hi-res downloads.

D'ye think they're different sources? I kind of assumed these are the same files that have been sitting around for years, or at least since Prince's camp sent them to Tidal, just waiting to be made available. A vinyl and hi-res series would be a good idea alright.

jaawwnn said:

Funkyalien said:

jaawwnn said: The tidal ones are the original releases. I meant the new sony/legacy ones. Surely they have lossless or hi-res masters somewhere? Why not release them on hi-res and vinyl? I’m sure many princeophiles will buy physical releases or hi-res downloads.

D'ye think they're different sources? I kind of assumed these are the same files that have been sitting around for years, or at least since Prince's camp sent them to Tidal, just waiting to be made available. A vinyl and hi-res series would be a good idea alright.

I don't know what to think, need an expert on this. I assume they are the same sources, but sony/legacy has the rights now, so it is they who will have to release it in whatever lossless form they chose to. Hey, I don't mind properly upsampled stuff either!!

Anybody here with some info on whether at all we will get un-lossy versions of these albums? It's a bad trend, releasing such 78% or 80% lossy compressed files for streaming services, and making them the only source. Some of us listen on good speakers!

I very much liked the warner hi-res releases of the first few albums on hd tracks which were later removed. I think only 'for you' is there now from that lot. Some believe these were upsampled to 24/192, but they sound really, really good. No brickwalling, nice dynamic range, nice pleasant volume.

amokeru said:

Kares said:

If the Japanese can make money on rereleasing totally obscure albums as LP-replica CDs, recreating the original artwork with painstaking accuracy (incl. any postcards, inner sleeves, posters and anything the original release came with) in limited quantities of often just 1000, then I see absolutely no reason why a full catalog rerelease program for Prince's albums wouldn't be financially viable.

.

Even his most obscure albums would easily sell at least 5000 worldwide with zero marketing, especially if they're beautifully made Japanese mini-LPs. Just imagine having his entire catalog as gorgeous, limited edition Japanese mini-LPs in 7" covers, as they did it for some Yes and ELP titles recently. (A 'Bitches Brew' SACD also just came out in 7" mini-LP cover and it's gorgeous, so is the Santana 'Lotus' package from last year.)

.

[Edited 8/23/18 3:32am]

In Japan, 80 percent of sales are still physical CD, that's why we're still getting a lot of re-released/re-packeging deluxe edition CD with sometimes bonus tracks etc. Most of them are really collectable and people here care about products in detail.

http://www.tokyoreview.net/2018/05/its-slow-streaming-for-music-services-in-japan/

.

I don't doubt that.
But we're talking about the profitability of producing CDs, not about market trends or market shares.
.
My point was that even in Japan, where limited edition LP-replica CDs are manufactured to obsessively high standards, often even matching the cardboard stock used for the paper sleeve to the one used for the first LP edition of an album, paying attention to using the right type of lacquer, reproducing every feature of the original first edition LP, they are able to make a profit on a limited run as low as only 1000 copies.
.
Adding a zip to 'Sticky Fingers', recreating the rotating disc of 'Led Zeppelin III' or the see-through box and prints of 'Speaking In Tongues' all cost a lot of money. Yet they are able to make small runs of these unique editions and still make a profit. So I am not buying the popular argument that printing CDs is not worth it today for record companies. It is – you just have to produce them to a very high standard and a modestly sized run WILL sell like hotcakes for collectors. Of course they won't make millions for the record company, but they CAN be financially viable even if they only make 5000 per title.
.

[Edited 8/24/18 6:32am]

Funkyalien said:

jaawwnn said:

D'ye think they're different sources? I kind of assumed these are the same files that have been sitting around for years, or at least since Prince's camp sent them to Tidal, just waiting to be made available. A vinyl and hi-res series would be a good idea alright.

I don't know what to think, need an expert on this. I assume they are the same sources, but sony/legacy has the rights now, so it is they who will have to release it in whatever lossless form they chose to. Hey, I don't mind properly upsampled stuff either!!

Anybody here with some info on whether at all we will get un-lossy versions of these albums? It's a bad trend, releasing such 78% or 80% lossy compressed files for streaming services, and making them the only source. Some of us listen on good speakers!

I very much liked the warner hi-res releases of the first few albums on hd tracks which were later removed. I think only 'for you' is there now from that lot. Some believe these were upsampled to 24/192, but they sound really, really good. No brickwalling, nice dynamic range, nice pleasant volume.

.

There is no such thing as a "properly upsampled" mp3. The information you've lost during the conversion to mp3 cannot be magically recreated in another conversion, and a mushy-sounding high (or low) range cannot be cleared up to be clean and punchy again. (And sorry, but "unlossy" is not a word. "Lossless" compression is the proper term.)
.
Quite often upsampling is a useful process in audio engineering – but it is not used to try to make an mp3 sound better. Upsampling is used, for example, when I want to work on a 16bit/48kHz file (because that's all I have from a DAT-cassette), but I want to avoid a loss of quality every time I make even just the tiniest adjustment to the file, such as adding a fade-out. Some people think that working with a digital audio file is "safe", assuming that you can do anything to it within an audio editor it will retain its quality. Cannot be further from the truth. So to minimize the cascading, degrading effect of the various processes I will apply to the file, first I will upsample it to at least 24bit/96kHz resolution, even if the final product will be a 16bit/44.1kHz CD. So upsampling is only for the work process, and then the final version is downsampled/dithered back to the lower resolution. But this is a totally different subject to mp3-compression.

.

Kares said:

Funkyalien said:

I don't know what to think, need an expert on this. I assume they are the same sources, but sony/legacy has the rights now, so it is they who will have to release it in whatever lossless form they chose to. Hey, I don't mind properly upsampled stuff either!!

Anybody here with some info on whether at all we will get un-lossy versions of these albums? It's a bad trend, releasing such 78% or 80% lossy compressed files for streaming services, and making them the only source. Some of us listen on good speakers!

I very much liked the warner hi-res releases of the first few albums on hd tracks which were later removed. I think only 'for you' is there now from that lot. Some believe these were upsampled to 24/192, but they sound really, really good. No brickwalling, nice dynamic range, nice pleasant volume.

.

There is no such thing as a "properly upsampled" mp3. The information you've lost during the conversion to mp3 cannot be magically recreated in another conversion, and a mushy-sounding high (or low) range cannot be cleared up to be clean and punchy again. (And sorry, but "unlossy" is not a word. "Lossless" compression is the proper term.)
.
Quite often upsampling is a useful process in audio engineering – but it is not used to try to make an mp3 sound better. Upsampling is used, for example, when I want to work on a 16bit/48kHz file (because that's all I have from a DAT-cassette), but I want to avoid a loss of quality every time I make even just the tiniest adjustment to the file, such as adding a fade-out. Some people think that working with a digital audio file is "safe", assuming that you can do anything to it within an audio editor it will retain its quality. Cannot be further from the truth. So to minimize the cascading, degrading effect of the various processes I will apply to the file, first I will upsample it to at least 24bit/96kHz resolution, even if the final product will be a 16bit/44.1kHz CD. So upsampling is only for the work process, and then the final version is downsampled/dithered back to the lower resolution. But this is a totally different subject to mp3-compression.

.

Wasn't taklking about upsampling mp3s. Was talking about upsampling the lossless (16/44.1) to 24-192. Even that doesn't add extra info, but many say a lot of hi-res releases are upsampled from CD quality this way. Snake oil, probably. As for mp3, you can't do anything with them!

RODSERLING said:

Urine said:

This collection is cool, I think I prefer this to 4ever.

I think this collection Miss the point of what à greatest Hits is supposed to be: attract à large audience. My Guess is that if they had the rights of TMBGITW, they would have released instead à more conventional greatest Hits with Holy River, etc. . Surely, they would have released it physically. . Since they Couldn t, they chose to go with à more "artistical" than à commercial approach. . This anthology is Way too long, and won t impact much the charts. Without impacting the charts, they Can t atract à lot of people to stream the rest of the catalogue. . So they clearly missed the point. Every fan Can make their own playlist, regarding their tastes. [Edited 8/24/18 2:39am]

Agreed.

In no way can this be a greatest hits, as its missing some hits! And includes many tracks which, although maybe ok, were never singles and a matter of personal taste whether they would appeal to the average listener.

RODSERLING said:

sro100 said:

In this crazy new world of streaming "sales" does Anthology count as a new Prince album? Is it eligible to chart on Billboard as an "album"? Whatever "album" means now?

Of course. But too long to generate à lot of streaming. That is fucking non sense what they did with the anthology. . Seriously, Who in the masses are gonna stand 28 minutes of NEWS? Lol

Me

RODSERLING said:

sro100 said:

In this crazy new world of streaming "sales" does Anthology count as a new Prince album? Is it eligible to chart on Billboard as an "album"? Whatever "album" means now?

Of course. But too long to generate à lot of streaming. That is fucking non sense what they did with the anthology. . Seriously, Who in the masses are gonna stand 28 minutes of NEWS? Lol

28 minutes?

I see only West, 14 minutes.

Anyone able to create a better 1995-2010 Anthology in terms of sequencing and song choice? Are we allowed to share spotify(etc.) playlists here?

[Edited 8/25/18 10:28am]

Anthologies arent typically always consisting of only singles released/greatest hits.

akaexodus said:

fabriziovenerandi said:

rdhull said:

RODSERLING said:

rdhull said:

Anthologies arent typically always consisting of only singles released/greatest hits.

So what s the point then? I don t think this collection highlights Prince s carreer from this era. . The tracks are clearly randomly chose, and it lacks many important tracks from this era. It is also Way too long to generate interest for the new and large audience, and contains not enough rare / unreleased tracks to generate interest for the fans. . The poorly Way this catalogue is treated is really disappointing for Prince ' legacy.

The release is fine. Its as any other Anthology from most other artists. Anthologies are like that. Seemingly random. Missing and including 'important tracks.'

Thats why they are called Anthologis and not Kitchen Sinks or Wholekitnkaboodle

rdhull said:

RODSERLING said:

rdhull said: So what s the point then? I don t think this collection highlights Prince s carreer from this era. . The tracks are clearly randomly chose, and it lacks many important tracks from this era. It is also Way too long to generate interest for the new and large audience, and contains not enough rare / unreleased tracks to generate interest for the fans. . The poorly Way this catalogue is treated is really disappointing for Prince ' legacy.

The release is fine. Its as any other Anthology from most other artists. Anthologies are like that. Seemingly random. Missing and including 'important tracks.'

Thats why they are called Anthologis and not Kitchen Sinks or Wholekitnkaboodle

The tracks clearly are not randomly chosen. As much as any of us may disagree with the selection, someone obviously put some thought into it.