 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I suspect Warp might enjoy this too, based on other stuff he's said.
http://www.bl2derunner.com/
Yes, it's one 55-minute long MP3. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Yes, it's one 55-minute long MP3. :-)
This reminded me the time I showed a friend some classical mp3's and he goes
"WTF?! what kind of mp3 takes 40 MBs?!"
and no, this one didn't quite live up to the promise...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> "WTF?! what kind of mp3 takes 40 MBs?!"
One that's encoded at 320 Kbit/sec? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible a écrit :
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> "WTF?! what kind of mp3 takes 40 MBs?!"
>
> One that's encoded at 320 Kbit/sec? ;-)
Or one longer than the 3 minutes-radio-format-cut, in a descent encoding
(200 kbit/sec)
Try just getting a full play of Innuendo (Queen) (6:30)... and good luck!
The first part of the two Passion by J.S. Bach are at least 7 minutes
long each (Mathieu/Mathew being a bit shorter than Jean/Johanes).
And if you are for electronic music (from '70s): the part 1 of
Chronologie (J.M. Jarre) is also 7+...
No one is going to LISTEN to that long nowadays.
--
A good Manager will take you
through the forest, no mater what.
A Leader will take time to climb on a
Tree and say 'This is the wrong forest'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> "WTF?! what kind of mp3 takes 40 MBs?!"
>> One that's encoded at 320 Kbit/sec? ;-)
>
> Or one longer than the 3 minutes-radio-format-cut, in a descent encoding
> (200 kbit/sec)
I just computed that at 320 Kbit/sec, 40MB = 16 minutes. (Depending on
whether you mean 2^20 bits or 10^6 bits.)
> Try just getting a full play of Innuendo (Queen) (6:30)... and good luck!
Or Boheneim Rhaphody? That's the famous one, of course.
> And if you are for electronic music (from '70s): the part 1 of
> Chronologie (J.M. Jarre) is also 7+...
Never mind that. Tangerine Dream have out put numerous albums that
consist of two tracks, simply labelled "part 1" and "part 2", both at 30
minutes or more each.
> No one is going to LISTEN to that long nowadays.
I'm used to being no one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
> No one is going to LISTEN to that long nowadays.
Depends on the genre. Some techno CDs (ambient, trance, goa...) are mixed
so that each song transitions smoothly to the next (beatmatching), and thus
the entire CD becomes effectively one single piece of music. That's up to 70
minutes in the best cases.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron wrote:
> And if you are for electronic music (from '70s): the part 1 of
> Chronologie (J.M. Jarre) is also 7+...
Or Waiting For Cousteau, which has one track something like 47 minutes long.
I swear he did it just to make sure it was impossible to press to vinal.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm used to being no one.
My cousin is in a punk band,
http://www.myspace.com/ridgefieldsmirk
but they're not that popular, and it's sort
of part time, retiring, etc... I'm not sure
why fame and success seem to follow the
least deserving people. Maybe you'll get
a bit of luck soon with a new job Andrew,
you gotta have a little sooner or later.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> of part time, retiring, etc... I'm not sure
> why fame and success seem to follow the
> least deserving people.
Often it is more that the general public is ignorant of the amount of effort
most successful people have put into their lives (I'm not just talking about
musical performers here, but also sports stars, business tycoons, etc).
Sure some people are just hugely lucky and get lots of money for doing
almost nothing, but I would bet that most rich and successful people have
worked damn hard to get there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > of part time, retiring, etc... I'm not sure
> > why fame and success seem to follow the
> > least deserving people.
>
> Often it is more that the general public is ignorant of the amount of effort
> most successful people have put into their lives (I'm not just talking about
> musical performers here, but also sports stars, business tycoons, etc).
> Sure some people are just hugely lucky and get lots of money for doing
> almost nothing, but I would bet that most rich and successful people have
> worked damn hard to get there.
Actually in practice I think it's a combination. Successful people tend to have
worked very hard *and* been lucky to get opportunities along the way. You have
to put the hard work in to make the most of what chance throws at you, but you
also need the chance to use your experience and skills!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
