#151
Epitome (Dave) wrote:
I think they’re all pictures of him trying to find his car keys.
Posted on Sun, 5 February 2012 at 18:14
#152
Squall wrote:
Nope ! Didn’t leave them in this collection of animal masks !
Posted on Sun, 5 February 2012 at 18:49
#153
Squall wrote:
I wonder why Therapy? are on Spotify under ” Therapy?” and ” Therapy “…
Posted on Sun, 5 February 2012 at 18:50
#154
Dermot wrote:
There’s a few bands like that. The Mountain Goats have albums under “Mountain Goats” and “The Mountain Goats” etc.
I do wonder why T?’s official Facebook page is missing the ? mark though!
Posted on Sun, 5 February 2012 at 19:53
#155
MisterHoppy wrote:
Think it’s because someone already had an unofficial Therapy? page with the ?.
Posted on Sun, 5 February 2012 at 19:59
#156
MisterHoppy wrote:
Not that I’d know as I’m not a FB fan but sure I’ve heard that mentioned before.
Posted on Sun, 5 February 2012 at 20:00
#157
Gav wrote:
There is a page called Therapy? that basically has the contents from the Wikipedia page, it has 15,000 likes… the official one has 3,600 :(
There are rules to do with changing the name of the page once you have so many members
Posted on Sun, 5 February 2012 at 20:12
#158
Dermot wrote:
Ah, that explains it. It is annoying though. You’d think whoever set up the unofficial fan page would defer to the real thing!!
Posted on Sun, 5 February 2012 at 21:38
#159
KJC Dublin (Karl) wrote:
Well, the number of likes is growing quite well lately - thing they only started taking FB seriously 6 months ago of so. The upcoming tour will no doubt win some additional likes.
Posted on Mon, 6 February 2012 at 13:55
#160
Gav wrote:
The problem with it (I think) is that people used to list their band likes as plain text, then at some point there was an automated process that tried to link those text interests with actual pages, so I’d assume the vast majority of those 15,000 likes haven’t come from people searching out the ‘Therapy?’ fb page and clicking like - rather that it was linked by facebook itself.
As the page that has all the likes doesn’t seem to hold any actual user generated content (It looks like an auto generated page, pulling in details from the Wikipedia page), its a shame they can’t be swaped over.
I don’t know how facebook handle this kind of thing…
Posted on Mon, 6 February 2012 at 14:00
#161
Alan wrote:
Yeah, I haven’t hit “like” on the unofficial page, yet whenever I make comments on the official page, they automatically end up on the unofficial one?
Strange set-up, I wish they’d (facebook) get it sorted. I did hear somewhere that they were looking at it, as most bands seem to suffer the same issue.
Posted on Tue, 7 February 2012 at 08:18
#162
Alan wrote:
Dermot wrote:
Ah, that explains it. It is annoying though. You’d think whoever set up the unofficial fan page would defer to the real thing!!
The one with 16k likes is the weird auto-wikipedia page, fair enough.
But whoever owns the “Therapy? - The Band” unofficial page, should really close it down - it’s sparse and out-dated, yet still shows up prominently during a search. Quite confusing to the casual facebooker who wants to check out the band.
Posted on Tue, 7 February 2012 at 08:25 in reply to an earlier post
#163
Alan wrote:
Hmm, it seems it is possible afterall for users to migrate all “likes” onto their band page.
Kerbdog managed it recently with the help of a friend of theirs (who happens to be in a band called InMe, remember them?)
Anyway, I’ve asked the guy for tips…
http://www.kerbdog.com/forums/index.php/topic,423.0.html
Posted on Tue, 7 February 2012 at 08:34
#164
CS (Colin S) wrote:
My copy arrived yesterday! Unfortunately being a student I can’t afford any massive sound systems so making do with my laptop :)
It’s immense! The Buzzing is growing on me big style
Posted on Tue, 7 February 2012 at 13:14
#165
Simon (Simon) wrote:
Well my little one has been hogging the record player and is giving the album his seal of approval!
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 07:50
#166
Gav wrote:
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 07:56
#167
Gav wrote:
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 12:09 in reply to an earlier post
#168
Squall wrote:
Damn this album is so good.
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 18:06
#169
KJC Dublin (Karl) wrote:
Went for a spin in the car earlier listening on full blast - is good to finally hear it in CD quality!!!
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 18:09
#170
Squall wrote:
^ That’s why I dont think CDs will be completely wiped out. I will not be happy ONLY downloading an album in 320 with no case or book. If there is an option to download the WAV files - it will be an enormous file and some people might not have the bandwidth or the internet allowance to download 750GB albums…
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 19:13
#171
Squall wrote:
750 MB not GB - that would be rather excessive… :P
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 19:13
#172
Squall wrote:
Maybe albums could be released on flash drives - with all the artowrk as JPEGS and the audio in WAV format.
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 19:14
#173
MisterHoppy wrote:
^ Did notice that :-)
Having said that Bandcamp offer virtually every paid for download at a choice of 320kbps mp3 or FLAC, or OGG, or AAC etc, always go for FLAC myself (and if I’m quick enough 320kbps mp3 as I can usually get both before my download code timeslot expires)
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 19:16
#174
MisterHoppy wrote:
Squall wrote:
Maybe albums could be released on flash drives - with all the artowrk as JPEGS and the audio in WAV format.
This already happens, seen quite a few examples of it over the last couple of years, Toots & The Maytals last album was available like this.
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 19:17 in reply to an earlier post
#175
Squall wrote:
Downloading is just way worse than buying a CD. It seems like everytime technology leaps forward - we also take a massive step back too.
Plus you can accidentally delete MP3 files from your computer. You can’t accidentally delete a CD…
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 19:27
#176
MisterHoppy wrote:
You can accidentally step on it though :D (I’ve done this a few times)
Personally I think CD is way worse than Vinyl, but CD has it’s advantages, just as download does, so long as one doesn’t oust the other it’s all good for me, think so long as there’s still a physical format it’ll be OK.
BTW anyone noticed bands starting to release limited runs of tapes! More for the novelty value I guess.
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 19:31
#177
LoserCop (Stephan Reuss) wrote:
@squall: I agree downloading is worse… but due to the fact I missed to order the CD and now found out that it will last to feb 17 until it’s available
here in Germany I downloaded it… (shame on me) but be sure, buying the CD will be my first move on feb 17…
I already love it. Like always, some songs took their time, but now… it’s a real big one!
btw I think album and lyrics should possibly appear soon in the discography on the official homepage???
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 19:57
#178
KJC Dublin (Karl) wrote:
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 20:13
#179
Epitome (Dave) wrote:
I like CDs, mainly for the packaging and physical aspect of it.
I’ve not bought many download albums, but there have been a few I’ve got when they simply aren’t available on CD. Like MisterHoppy, I download them in FLAC and 320k MP3 from Bandcamp. If for some reason I could only do one, I’d do FLAC, then convert that to MP3 myself. I really only download in FLAC so that I have it when that becomes the norm.
Posted on Wed, 8 February 2012 at 21:22
#180
CS (Colin S) wrote:
Think Therapy? albums are the only albums I’ll bother buying in CD format.
If that makes sense (Drunk Colin)
Posted on Thu, 9 February 2012 at 01:46
