Awesome (and cheap) Music Download Site

[Pete Hanlin]

I finally gave in and purchased an iPod last Christmas (got one for each member of the family- they were a big hit)...

As much as Apple tries to position itself as "non-conformist," its amazing to me that their devices are MUCH more restrictive than other MP3 players- but enough of my anti-Apple rant.

Anyway, after spending a weekend burning my CD collection to iTunes, which saves them in Apple's stupid .m4a format so you can't burn them to an MP3 disc... :angry: stupid Apple (sorry, rant wasn't quite over :o), I realized I was never going to be able to afford $1.00 a song from the iTune site if I wanted to download all my favorites from the fabulous 80s (which, of course, was the apex of music and cultural expression)!

Then a co-worker informed me of a site called www.gomusic.ru, which allows you to download tunes for only $0.09 a piece! That's about 100 extra tunes per your $10 vs. iStore. Plus, the songs are in .mp3 format- so you can later share or burn them to anything.

Perhaps everyone is already downloading music from similar sources, but I'm just so beside myself with joy as I download obscure tracks from The Kinks, Toto, Men at Work, and Irene Cara that I just had to share.

Enjoy! :p

PS- I'm a 41 year old optician, and I'm a PC. Bite me, Apple!

[GAgal]

all my favorites from the fabulous 80s (which, of course, was the apex of music and cultural expression)!

I couldn't agree more about the 80's! I have about 1000 songs on my ipod from that time period! Thank you so much for the info!

[hcjilson]

Anyway, after spending a weekend burning my CD collection to iTunes, which saves them in Apple's stupid .m4a format so you can't burn them to an MP3 disc... :angry: stupid Apple (sorry, rant wasn't quite over :o), I realized I was never going to be able to afford $1.00 a song from the iTune site if I wanted to download all my favorites from the fabulous 80s (which, of course, was the apex of music and cultural expression)!

Dear Friend Pete!

Perhaps I can put things in their proper context so that you will be able to better understand the complexities of something which is propriatary.

I will freely admit that Crizal Alize Avance is the best AR treatment on the market today, and I am sure I would get no argument on that point from you. That being said:

Have you ever tried to get a Crizal Alize Avance put on a Hoya GPWide lens??

Try it sometime and tell us all what your result is................Then you can complain about the Apple iTune corner on the market.

In the words of a former president, "I feel your pain!"

Now do you get it????:D:D:D

[Ory]

I finally gave in and purchased an iPod last Christmas (got one for each member of the family- they were a big hit)...

As much as Apple tries to position itself as "non-conformist," its amazing to me that their devices are MUCH more restrictive than other MP3 players- but enough of my anti-Apple rant.

Anyway, after spending a weekend burning my CD collection to iTunes, which saves them in Apple's stupid .m4a format so you can't burn them to an MP3 disc... :angry: stupid Apple (sorry, rant wasn't quite over :o), I realized I was never going to be able to afford $1.00 a song from the iTune site if I wanted to download all my favorites from the fabulous 80s (which, of course, was the apex of music and cultural expression)!

Then a co-worker informed me of a site called www.gomusic.ru, which allows you to download tunes for only $0.09 a piece! That's about 100 extra tunes per your $10 vs. iStore. Plus, the songs are in .mp3 format- so you can later share or burn them to anything.

Perhaps everyone is already downloading music from similar sources, but I'm just so beside myself with joy as I download obscure tracks from The Kinks, Toto, Men at Work, and Irene Cara that I just had to share.

Enjoy! :p

PS- I'm a 41 year old optician, and I'm a PC. Bite me, Apple!

Just don't kid yourself that these are "legal" copies. Do you really think that the artist gets anything of that 9 cents you just sent to Russia?

[hcjilson]

I hope you got a chance to see 60 minutes tonight! Leslie Stahl did a segment on this new Cornficker Worm that may be attacking a PC near you sometime around April 1 (NOT an April Fools joke!) We Mac drivers don't have to get bothered everytime this happens. We only have a few virus's that can attack Apple's OS. You have a few hundred million to worry about. Rot's of Ruck with this one!

PC's rule!.....my foot!

[Pete Hanlin]

Have you ever tried to get a Crizal Alize Avance put on a Hoya GPWide lens??
I'll respond (sorry, this will be long and off the thread topic) by noting that- for a lens to be approved for Crizal the manufacturer has to a.) request approval, and b.) provide lenses for testing. Why is it necessary to test lenses? As you probably are aware, Crizal products represent an integrated lens surface- which just means the existing hardcoat has to be stripped from the lens prior to the application of the primer and hardcoat used for all Crizal products. In fact, it is the hardcoat that makes Crizal lenses so durable. Anyway, the lenses must be tested to ensure the original hardcoat can be reliably removed during the stripping process. There are some products which are not reliably strippable (including some of Essilor's own products). Any lens with unstripped hardcoat may cause contamination of the coating system- which basically shuts the unit down at considerable expense and loss of production time.

So, if a product is not available on the Crizal list, it either a.) has never been requested by the manufacturer, and/or b.) has not been validated.
The above is all I can say at this time about your observation. :)

As for Apple- bah humbug. I actually purchased one a couple years ago and couldn't get used to it. I called the Apple store to attend a class, and they were just plain snootish (if that's a word). Is a Mac better than a PC? Who knows... but I'm happy with my PC! I'd rather contribute to the success of an admitted monopoly (Microsoft) than delude myself that I'm participating in some pseudo-counterculture movement (Apple).
:bbg:

[Pete Hanlin]

Just don't kid yourself that these are "legal" copies. Do you really think that the artist gets anything of that 9 cents you just sent to Russia?

The site claims to be legit (big surprise), but that's a notable observation. I would assume something would be done to curtail such activity if it were illegal (especially since Visa and American Express are accepted as payment), but obviously use at your own risk. I wonder what the actual royalties are for a download (i.e., I wonder how much of the $.99 Apple pockets from iTune downloads)?

Two things do make me question the site somewhat... 1.) they have Beatles songs (not that I'd ever be interested in any, but even iTunes doesn't have the Beatles, and 2.) they have individual tracks by Metallica (which only sells its music in album form).

[Jazz-Nut]

"The last word I got back was it's stalled at the whole moment, the whole process," the former Beatle said. "I really hope it will happen because I think it should."
McCartney, who was speaking at the launch of his new album, Electric Arguments, added: "It's between EMI and the Beatles, I think."
The band's holding company, Apple Corps Ltd., has so far declined to allow the Fab Four's music on any Internet music service, including iTunes. The situation has been exacerbated by a long-running trademark dispute between Apple Corps and Apple Inc., which owns iTunes -- a dispute that was resolved last year.
Record label EMI, which owns the Beatles recordings but needs Apple Corps' permission to release the music in new formats, said it was still trying to resolve the matter.

[hcjilson]

You may recall that the Beatles used to record on the Apple label which was, I think, their own recording company. Apple Inc. is the computer company.

[Spexvet]

...As much as Apple tries to position itself as "non-conformist," its amazing to me that their devices are MUCH more restrictive than other MP3 players- but enough of my anti-Apple rant.

Capitalism at its finest!! :p:p

Anyway, after spending a weekend burning my CD collection to iTunes, which saves them in Apple's stupid .m4a format so you can't burn them to an MP3 disc... :angry: stupid Apple (sorry, rant wasn't quite over :o), ...

You can get a free or inexpensive file conversion program. I'm not sure how well they work, but try tucows.com.

You can also try burning a .m4a cd, then rip the cd into .mp3 format using windows media player. I've had success with that method in the past.

Good luck.

[Pete Hanlin]

Thanks, Spexvet! Actually, I did purchase a file converter (I can convert DVDs to play on my iPod or my son's PSP, and I can turn an m4a into a mp3...

I'm just still fuming from the first time I tried to burn a mp3 from my iTunes and realized all the discs I had copied to iTunes were in m4a!

I'm sure Apple is a fine enough company (I've actually visited Cupertino, and its a nice place- considering its in California ;^), and I'd love to use Keynote (which has greater capability than PowerPoint). It's just too bad Bill and Steve couldn't have gotten along better a few decades ago! IMO, however, iPods represent everything that is wrong with Steve Job's way of thinking (seriously, the guy always seems to find a better solution, but then destroys it by trying to restrict its use).

Finally- a serious question... Why would anyone want to download Beatles music? ;)

[Spexvet]

...Finally- a serious question... Why would anyone want to download Beatles music? ;)

Beauty is in the eye (or ear, in this case) of the beholder. I want to download Beatles songs because I like the way they sound.

I would posit, though, that the Beatles had more impact on popular music that any other artist. They took the music from formulaic "songs" to "opuses". They didn't find it necessary to stick to the traditional verse-chorus-verse, etc form, a time limit, or traditional pop instruments.

[Night Train]

Oh Pete Pete Pete...I can see your time In the Pennsylvania education system taught you nothing about good music. Where do i begin? OK...do me a favor..
Listen to the soundtrack of the movie I AM SAM and tell me what you hear. Then, go find the Beatles Anthology CD's and locate the raw, acoustic version of John Lennon actually writing Strawberry Fields. Then, come talk to me.

dwayne

PS Can we throw some other western PA towns into that free to West Virginia deal?

[hcjilson]

Beauty is in the eye (or ear, in this case) of the beholder. I want to download Beatles songs because I like the way they sound.

I would posit, though, that the Beatles had more impact on popular music that any other artist. They took the music from formulaic "songs" to "opuses". They didn't find it necessary to stick to the traditional verse-chorus-verse, etc form, a time limit, or traditional pop instruments.

I think you are forgetting a few artists with that statement. Do the names Gershwin, Bill Haley, Elvis Presley, Dave Brubeck,The Who, ring a bell? Each in their own right did as much to influence and revolutionize popular music as the Beatles have done.

[obxeyeguy]

I think you are forgetting a few artists with that statement. Do the names Gershwin, Bill Haley, Elvis Presley, Dave Brubeck,The Who, ring a bell? Each in their own right did as much to influence and revolutionize popular music as the Beatles have done.

Not a big fan, but don't forget Bob Dylan.

[Spexvet]

IMHO

Gershwin,

He's a little before my time, but I've always regarded him as more of a musical theater and symphony composer. How did he revolutionize popular music?

Bill Haley,

You're right: Bill Haley revolutionized popular music. He was at the forefront of Rock and Roll. The Beatles went on to chang Bill Haley's Rock and Roll to the Rock of 1965 - 1980 bands. I said "the Beatles had more impact on popular music that any other artist" and I guess I meant more impact on the music that I listen to. Someone else might say that the artist who started rap, disco, punk, grunge, or techno had more impact. I acknowledge that Bill Haley changed popular music more than The Beatles.

Elvis Presley,

This won't be popular, but I think Elvis was merely a song stylist, or vocal stylist, and a run-of-the-mill one, at that.

Dave Brubeck,

I love Brubeck, but I don't think he substantially revolutionized popular music. There were plenty of jazz artists around when came onto the scene, and while he experimented with rythm/time, I don't see him as being any more influential than Munk or Davis.

The Who

I love The Who, but, again, I don't think that they were revolutionary. It seems to me that The Beatles laid the groundwork for The Who.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Oh Pete Pete Pete...I can see your time In the Pennsylvania education system taught you nothing about good music. Where do i begin? OK...do me a favor..
Listen to the soundtrack of the movie I AM SAM and tell me what you hear. Then, go find the Beatles Anthology CD's and locate the raw, acoustic version of John Lennon actually writing Strawberry Fields. Then, come talk to me.

dwayne

PS Can we throw some other western PA towns into that free to West Virginia deal?

Are you kidding? We have enough "Uncle Dads" here without adding in the PA ones!!:D

[hcjilson]

IMHO
He's a little before my time, but I've always regarded him as more of a musical theater and symphony composer. How did he revolutionize popular music?

Does Rhapsody in Blue ring a bell??

You're right: Bill Haley revolutionized popular music. He was at the forefront of Rock and Roll. The Beatles went on to chang Bill Haley's Rock and Roll to the Rock of 1965 - 1980 bands. I said "the Beatles had more impact on popular music that any other artist" and I guess I meant more impact on the music that I listen to. Someone else might say that the artist who started rap, disco, punk, grunge, or techno had more impact. I acknowledge that Bill Haley changed popular music more than The Beatles.

This won't be popular, but I think Elvis was merely a song stylist, or vocal stylist, and a run-of-the-mill one, at that.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion albeit one which shows no historical context

I love Brubeck, but I don't think he substantially revolutionized popular music. There were plenty of jazz artists around when came onto the scene, and while he experimented with rythm/time, I don't see him as being any more influential than Munk or Davis.

Does the term progressive jazz do anything to change your mind?

I love The Who, but, again, I don't think that they were revolutionary. It seems to me that The Beatles laid the groundwork for The Who.

And which Rock Opera did the Beatles compose?..That deaf, dumb, blind kid.... sure plays a mean pinball! Da Da Dum Dum.....Dumm!

There are a myriad of other examples. I loved the Beatles. I didn't think much of Elvis but the fact is that he had as much if not more of an influence on popular music than the Beatles. Heck they even fashioned themselves after him. :D

[DragonLensmanWV]

BTW - about Elvis.

Did you know that of all the places that suck, this place sucks so bad Elvis died so he wouldn't have to come here. Seriously, we were his next gig. One of our opticians still has her tickets.

As for who would have the greatest impact on music, I think you would have to categorize them by genre.
i.e like
Early Rock - Bill Haley
Guitar - Jimi Hendrix
Pop music - well you might have to subdivide that one by decades.And the Beatles would rule the 60's.
Gospel/blues/rock - Elvis

Other categories apply, some also need subdividing as needed.

[Jazz-Nut]

Seems to me that the "U.S. Blues", influenced alot of the early great ones, then the "Drugs" took the music to a new level.

My 2 cents

[Pete Hanlin]

Some of the Beatles were good song-writers, that's fairly obvious. However...

Elvis popularized Rock-n-Roll.
The Rolling Stones created an oft-repeated formula for rock bands.
Even Madonna rescued pop music from its "bubblegum period"

In my opinion, the Beatles were just the first "Boy Band" (basically just a really early version of New Kids on the Block). Yes, they actually wrote their own music and had considerably greater reach and staying power, but at the end of the day what did the Beatles really add to popular music that wasn't already there?

As for the greatest lyricist, Billy Joel would have to be on that list.
Glad to see Brubeck mentioned- his "Take 5" (think that is the title) turned me on to jazz!

PS- I'm probably jaded by the fact that I just don't find Beatles music all that appealing. Some of the lyrics are compelling, but mostly it just seems like a lot of random noise.

[Jazz-Nut]

Some of the Beatles were good song-writers, that's fairly obvious. However...

Elvis popularized Rock-n-Roll.
The Rolling Stones created an oft-repeated formula for rock bands.
Even Madonna rescued pop music from its "bubblegum period"

In my opinion, the Beatles were just the first "Boy Band" (basically just a really early version of New Kids on the Block). Yes, they actually wrote their own music and had considerably greater reach and staying power, but at the end of the day what did the Beatles really add to popular music that wasn't already there?

As for the greatest lyricist, Billy Joel would have to be on that list.
Glad to see Brubeck mentioned- his "Take 5" (think that is the title) turned me on to jazz!

PS- I'm probably jaded by the fact that I just don't find Beatles music all that appealing. Some of the lyrics are compelling, but mostly it just seems like a lot of random noise.

Na, I think its against the law to be jaded for ones opinion of music. Too much out there to like it all. I do believe the Beatles are one of the few bands that stood the test of time tho, I bought my first Beatles CD a year ago, and I am pushing 50, but when I play at the pubs, the Beatles and CCR are probably the most requested.

I listen to Jazz at home, check out "Buddy`s Buddies" and "Vital Information".

Regards

[Pete Hanlin]

I'll check out Buddy's Buddies and Vital Information...

I enjoy stuff by "Fourplay," "Spyro Gyro" and "Weather Report," will these be somewhat similar? If not, that's okay too (cause listening to new stuff is how I came to like the groups mentioned above).

As for the Beatles, is there an "ultimate Beatles song" that represents the pinnacle of "Beatleness?" I'd like to "get it" when it comes to the Beatles, but I just don't (its like one of those magic 3D eye posters... people are standing all around going "ooooh" and I just don't see the magic).

[Spexvet]

...Elvis popularized Rock-n-Roll.

At the end of the day what did Elvis really add to popular music that wasn't already there? IMHO, he was a hansome, dancing, performer.

The Rolling Stones created an oft-repeated formula for rock bands.

What was the formula?

Even Madonna rescued pop music from its "bubblegum period"

Early Madonna was pretty "bubblegummy", if you ask me. Remeber "starlight, star bright"?

In my opinion, the Beatles were just the first "Boy Band" (basically just a really early version of New Kids on the Block). Yes, they actually wrote their own music and had considerably greater reach and staying power, but at the end of the day what did the Beatles really add to popular music that wasn't already there? ...

Boy bands don't write their own music, play their own instruments, and they have to do a dance routine. As for "what did the Beatles really add to popular music that wasn't already there?":

...
I would posit, though, that the Beatles had more impact on popular music that any other artist. They took the music from formulaic "songs" to "opuses". They didn't find it necessary to stick to the traditional verse-chorus-verse, etc form, a time limit, or traditional pop instruments.

Compare the top 40 songs of 1967 with The beatles 1967 Sgt Pepper:

Side one

1. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" – 2:02
2. "With a Little Help from My Friends" – 2:44
3. "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" – 3:28
4. "Getting Better" – 2:47
5. "Fixing a Hole" – 2:36
6. "She's Leaving Home" – 3:35
7. "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" – 2:37

Side two

1. "Within You Without You" (George Harrison) – 5:05
2. "When I'm Sixty-Four" – 2:37
3. "Lovely Rita" – 2:42
4. "Good Morning Good Morning" – 2:41
5. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)" – 1:18
6. "A Day in the Life" – 5:33

1. To Sir With Love, Lulu
2. Happy Together, The Turtles
3. Windy, Association
4. Ode To Billie Joe, Bobby Gentry
5. I'm A Believer, The Monkees
6. Light My Fire, The Doors
7. Somethin' Stupid, Nancy Sinatra and Frank Sinatra
8. The Letter, Box Tops
9. Groovin', Young Rascals
10. Kind Of A Drag, Buckinghams
11. Little Bit O' Soul, Music Explosion
12. I Think We're Alone Now, Tommy James and The Shondells
13. Respect, Aretha Franklin
14. I Was Made To Love Her, Stevie Wonder
15. Come Back When You Grow Up, Bobby Vee and The Strangers
16. Sweet Soul Music, Arthur Conley
17. Can't Take My Eyes Off You, Frankie Valli
18. Never My Love, Association
19. Soul Man, Sam and Dave
20. Expressway To Your Heart, Soul Survivors
21. Apples, Peaches, Pumpkin Pie, Jay and The Techniques
22. Come On Down To My Boat, Every Mothers' Son
23. Incense And Peppermints, Strawberry Alarm Clock
24. Ruby Tuesday, The Rolling Stones
25. It Must Be Him, Vicki Carr
27. For What It's Worth, Buffalo Springfield
28. Gimme Little Sign, Brenton Wood
28. Love Is Here And Now You're Gone, Supremes
29. The Happening, Supremes
30. All You Need Is Love, Beatles
31. Release Me (And Let Me Love Again), Engelbert Humperdinck
32. Your Precious Love, Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell
33. Somebody To Love, Jefferson Airplane
34. Get On Up, Esquires
35. Brown Eyed Girl, Van Morrison
36. Jimmy Mack, Martha and The Vandella
37. I Got Rhythm, Happenings
38. A Whiter Shade Of Pale, Procol Harum
39. Don't You Care, Buckinghams
40. Then You Can Tell Me Goodbye, Casinos

[Pete Hanlin]

Early Madonna was pretty "bubblegummy", if you ask me. Remeber "starlight, star bright"?
I was thinking about that even as I typed it. As I recall, Madonna and Cyndi Lauper emerged almost at the same time- and I seem to remember Lauper made the bigger initial splash. While Lauper started hanging out with the wierd WWF guy with the rubber-band piercings, however, Madonna kicked her music up a notch and started producing some of the 80s best music.

Nothing against the Beatles (other than I don't enjoy their music and therefore they seem over-rated to me). Maybe part of my issue owes itself to being forced to learn Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band in 7th grade as part of a show (that song still gives me a headache).

The other top songs from 1967 seem to make my point- what element of The Beatles offerings weren't included in at least one of the wide variety of other music from 1967 (other than the fact that The Beatles were from the UK and had a different look)? Some of their songs tell a story- but that's covered by the eerie "Ode to Billie Joe" (a song that still gives me the creeps). I've always thought The Monkees represent the same basic formula as The Beatles (they just didn't take themselves so seriously).

Of course, part of this is just to get your goat- since the vast majority of music loving folks out there would agree with you that The Beatles were revolutionary innovators.;)