Mark Ronson - Uptown Special -99p Google Play
789°Expired

Mark Ronson - Uptown Special -99p Google Play

169
Found 29th Apr 2015
The latest Mark Ronson album from Google Play Store for the same price as the single.

Shared Via The HUKD App For Android.

169 Comments

Good find op

Purchased with credit from a previous deal. Cheers OP

This deal is too hot, call the police a and a fireman

uptown funk track appears to be free if you are just after that

unohu

uptown funk track appears to be free if you are just after that



nice one, thanks

Thanks op purchased it with Google credit

Good deal, terrible album. If you think the album is going to be like uptown funk song then your in for a disappointment. The actual songs by themselves are bad and not in the Michael Jackson way (_;)

Ice cold, and I will continue voting these cheap crappy MP3 album deals cold from Google Play.

It's music but not as we know it, cheapening both albums as dispensable, pitiful royalties on digital sales or streaming, and not to mention killing music by offering a lossy format suitable for the right environment which consists of phones, car stereos and MP3 players only.

The usual retort to this is that people cannot hear the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC file....well I can, as can many others on a decent system...why let an algorithm guess work the gaps even if you cannot?

People are prepared to rewind backwards with sonics yet insist on pushing forward in video.

Take for example those on here absolutely obsessed with having 1080p on a 32" TV (redundant) or complaining if a 40" TV or greater particularly is only 720P yet the majority of people sit too far away to even benefit a 1080P signal....or there are those that cannot tell the difference between 720P or 1080P but still obviously want the better 'picture'.

People getting obsessed about 4K which in many a UK home will not even have the real estate to be able to buy a TV big enough to reap the benefits of one, therefore would own a TV with no extra benefit other than the knowledge they own one.

Benefit of the doubt, regardless of whether you can or cannot tell the difference between FLAC or MP3 why the obsession with video but not with music? Why has music become so disposable and cheap?

There was a time not to distant ago, well into the 90s and early 2000s where people would want to buy the best hi-fi equipment they could afford...now people are getting more and more content downloading, whacking it on their mobile phones and streaming it on a 5w speaker dock.

If companies like Google insist on offering albums cheap, regardless of damaging royalties to the artist...how about offering simultaneous FLAC and MP3 downloads, similar to what Amazon do if you buy a CD you get the MP3 free?

I do get the convenience of MP3s and use them myself in the right environment (car, motorbike bluetooth headset and mobile phone)...back in the 70s there was the advert in many a vinyl LP 'Home Taping is Killing Music', there should be a new one 'MP3 is Killing Music'

The damaging graph from 2009, which has gotten worse, walk into any HMV, how much real estate is devoted to music against anything else?

http://cdn2.mos.techradar.futurecdn.net//classifications/home-entertainment/hi-fi-and-audio/images/HMV-store-revenue-2009-650-80.jpg



Edited by: "cicobuff" 29th Apr 2015

heat added - for 99p some new tracks added to my running playlist- can't go wrong - thanks OP

nice one - bargin!

Schlingel

Good deal, terrible album. If you think the album is going to be like … Good deal, terrible album. If you think the album is going to be like uptown funk song then your in for a disappointment. The actual songs by themselves are bad and not in the Michael Jackson way (_;)


Brilliant album, glad it's not all like uptown funk its very varied

cicobuff

Ice cold, and I will continue voting these cheap crappy MP3 album deals … Ice cold, and I will continue voting these cheap crappy MP3 album deals cold from Google Play.It's music but not as we know it, cheapening both albums as dispensable, pitiful royalties on digital sales or streaming, and not to mention killing music by offering a lossy format suitable for the right environment which consists of phones, car stereos and MP3 players only.The usual retort to this is that people cannot hear the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC file....well I can, as can many others on a decent system...why let an algorithm guess work the gaps even if you cannot?People are prepared to rewind backwards with sonics yet insist on pushing forward in video.Take for example those on here absolutely obsessed with having 1080p on a 32" TV (redundant) or complaining if a 40" TV or greater particularly is only 720P yet the majority of people sit too far away to even benefit a 1080P signal....or there are those that cannot tell the difference between 720P or 1080P but still obviously want the better 'picture'.People getting obsessed about 4K which in many a UK home will not even have the real estate to be able to buy a TV big enough to reap the benefits of one, therefore would own a TV with no extra benefit other than the knowledge they own one.Benefit of the doubt, regardless of whether you can or cannot tell the difference between FLAC or MP3 why the obsession with video but not with music? Why has music become so disposable and cheap?There was a time not to distant ago, well into the 90s and early 2000s where people would want to buy the best hi-fi equipment they could afford...now people are getting more and more content downloading, whacking it on their mobile phones and streaming it on a 5w speaker dock.If companies like Google insist on offering albums cheap, regardless of damaging royalties to the artist...how about offering simultaneous FLAC and MP3 downloads, similar to what Amazon do if you buy a CD you get the MP3 free? I do get the convenience of MP3s and use them myself in the right environment (car, motorbike bluetooth headset and mobile phone)...back in the 70s there was the advert in many a vinyl LP 'Home Taping is Killing Music', there should be a new one 'MP3 is Killing Music'The damaging graph from 2009, which has gotten worse, walk into any HMV, how much real estate is devoted to music against anything else?



Regardless of your opinion, it seems the masses disagree.

Hot from me, despite recognising the limitations of the MP3 format. Can always opt to pay more for the CD/LP if that suits and convert to FLAC at one's leisure.

cicobuff

Ice cold, and I will continue voting these cheap crappy MP3 album deals … Ice cold, and I will continue voting these cheap crappy MP3 album deals cold from Google Play.It's music but not as we know it, cheapening both albums as dispensable, pitiful royalties on digital sales or streaming, and not to mention killing music by offering a lossy format suitable for the right environment which consists of phones, car stereos and MP3 players only.The usual retort to this is that people cannot hear the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC file....well I can, as can many others on a decent system...why let an algorithm guess work the gaps even if you cannot?People are prepared to rewind backwards with sonics yet insist on pushing forward in video.Take for example those on here absolutely obsessed with having 1080p on a 32" TV (redundant) or complaining if a 40" TV or greater particularly is only 720P yet the majority of people sit too far away to even benefit a 1080P signal....or there are those that cannot tell the difference between 720P or 1080P but still obviously want the better 'picture'.People getting obsessed about 4K which in many a UK home will not even have the real estate to be able to buy a TV big enough to reap the benefits of one, therefore would own a TV with no extra benefit other than the knowledge they own one.Benefit of the doubt, regardless of whether you can or cannot tell the difference between FLAC or MP3 why the obsession with video but not with music? Why has music become so disposable and cheap?There was a time not to distant ago, well into the 90s and early 2000s where people would want to buy the best hi-fi equipment they could afford...now people are getting more and more content downloading, whacking it on their mobile phones and streaming it on a 5w speaker dock.If companies like Google insist on offering albums cheap, regardless of damaging royalties to the artist...how about offering simultaneous FLAC and MP3 downloads, similar to what Amazon do if you buy a CD you get the MP3 free? I do get the convenience of MP3s and use them myself in the right environment (car, motorbike bluetooth headset and mobile phone)...back in the 70s there was the advert in many a vinyl LP 'Home Taping is Killing Music', there should be a new one 'MP3 is Killing Music'The damaging graph from 2009, which has gotten worse, walk into any HMV, how much real estate is devoted to music against anything else?





I love music, I have an album collection of just over 900 CDs. I love having the album in my hand and seeing the physical goods, the artwork and so on. HOWEVER albums are expensive when they first come out and their value rapidly declines. So what is the harm of buying the mp3 version at a cut price so you can listen to the album, then in a few years time when its a reasonable price. Buy it and add it to the collection. It's actually nice to see google play bring back their 99p albums. Missed them. thanx OP heat from me

lovelybeer

Regardless of your opinion, it seems the masses disagree.Hot from me, … Regardless of your opinion, it seems the masses disagree.Hot from me, despite recognising the limitations of the MP3 format. Can always opt to pay more for the CD/LP if that suits and convert to FLAC at one's leisure.



I don't think it is the cases of masses disagreeing, its more like masses acceptance.

lucyberridge

I love music, I have an album collection of just over 900 CDs. I love … I love music, I have an album collection of just over 900 CDs. I love having the album in my hand and seeing the physical goods, the artwork and so on. HOWEVER albums are expensive when they first come out and their value rapidly declines. So what is the harm of buying the mp3 version at a cut price so you can listen to the album, then in a few years time when its a reasonable price. Buy it and add it to the collection. It's actually nice to see google play bring back their 99p albums. Missed them. thanx OP heat from me



The harm is you are paying for inferior quality and its damaging royalties, as already stated. Why cannot google play give the FLAC files for 99p? Or is it literally a case of buy cheap get cheap?

Besides owning 'physical' copies, that is not really my argument...I get that it is nice owning physical copies, MP3 is just cheapening music in quality, FLAC or 24 bit FLAC are both not, and one actually is pushing music technology past the 1982 CD format.



Edited by: "cicobuff" 29th Apr 2015

cicobuff

I don't think it is the cases of masses disagreeing, its more like masses … I don't think it is the cases of masses disagreeing, its more like masses acceptance.



Times are a-changing. This is simply how it is, whether your or I like it or not, sadly. I appreciate a FLAC rip as much as the next person, but accepted years ago that it was always going to be a format that suited only the very vast minorities.

Google (and others) won't make FLAC an option for a number of reasons:

1. Streaming a FLAC file on a mobile device consumes much more data
2. Not all consumer devices will play FLAC files
3. People don't generally know what FLAC is, but know what MP3 is (not all, but on the whole this is largely accurate)
4. FLAC files take up more server space to keep

Most consumers don't care, so why increase costs and inefficiencies for a small percentage of consumers, who would probably not buy digital in the first instance (instead opting for vinyl and SACD/CD etc)?

lovelybeer

Times are a-changing. This is simply how it is, whether your or I like it … Times are a-changing. This is simply how it is, whether your or I like it or not, sadly. I appreciate a FLAC rip as much as the next person, but accepted years ago that it was always going to be a format that suited only the very vast minorities. Google (and others) won't make FLAC an option for a number of reasons:1. Streaming a FLAC file on a mobile device consumes much more data2. Not all consumer devices will play FLAC files3. People don't generally know what FLAC is, but know what MP3 is (not all, but on the whole this is largely accurate)4. FLAC files take up more server space to keepMost consumers don't care, so why increase costs and inefficiencies for a small percentage of consumers, who would probably not buy digital in the first instance (instead opting for vinyl and SACD/CD etc)?



Times are changing, as I already said, people are dumb enough to accept inferior quality with their music but want to push the boundaries with video. I get the convenience of digital, I use the convenience of digital all the time with FLAC on my Hi-Fi streaming and MP3 for mobile device fodder.

What I don't get is why companies like google are promoting MP3 only digitally pushing back music into the dark ages...and also why bands are getting pittance in royalties from such.

cicobuff

Ice cold, and I will continue voting these cheap crappy MP3 album deals … Ice cold, and I will continue voting these cheap crappy MP3 album deals cold from Google Play.It's music but not as we know it, cheapening both albums as dispensable, pitiful royalties on digital sales or streaming, and not to mention killing music by offering a lossy format suitable for the right environment which consists of phones, car stereos and MP3 players only.The usual retort to this is that people cannot hear the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC file....well I can, as can many others on a decent system...why let an algorithm guess work the gaps even if you cannot?People are prepared to rewind backwards with sonics yet insist on pushing forward in video.Take for example those on here absolutely obsessed with having 1080p on a 32" TV (redundant) or complaining if a 40" TV or greater particularly is only 720P yet the majority of people sit too far away to even benefit a 1080P signal....or there are those that cannot tell the difference between 720P or 1080P but still obviously want the better 'picture'.People getting obsessed about 4K which in many a UK home will not even have the real estate to be able to buy a TV big enough to reap the benefits of one, therefore would own a TV with no extra benefit other than the knowledge they own one.Benefit of the doubt, regardless of whether you can or cannot tell the difference between FLAC or MP3 why the obsession with video but not with music? Why has music become so disposable and cheap?There was a time not to distant ago, well into the 90s and early 2000s where people would want to buy the best hi-fi equipment they could afford...now people are getting more and more content downloading, whacking it on their mobile phones and streaming it on a 5w speaker dock.If companies like Google insist on offering albums cheap, regardless of damaging royalties to the artist...how about offering simultaneous FLAC and MP3 downloads, similar to what Amazon do if you buy a CD you get the MP3 free? I do get the convenience of MP3s and use them myself in the right environment (car, motorbike bluetooth headset and mobile phone)...back in the 70s there was the advert in many a vinyl LP 'Home Taping is Killing Music', there should be a new one 'MP3 is Killing Music'The damaging graph from 2009, which has gotten worse, walk into any HMV, how much real estate is devoted to music against anything else?



So why are you complaining on a site dedicated for those looking for cheap deals?

gooeynote

So why are you complaining on a site dedicated for those looking for … So why are you complaining on a site dedicated for those looking for cheap deals?



It's a forum, open to opinion...I happen to have one, and have had many opinions for many years on this forum.

Edited by: "cicobuff" 29th Apr 2015

cicobuff

Times are changing, as I already said, people are dumb enough to accept … Times are changing, as I already said, people are dumb enough to accept inferior quality with their music but want to push the boundaries with video. I get the convenience of digital, I use the convenience of digital all the time with FLAC on my Hi-Fi streaming and MP3 for mobile device fodder.What I don't get is why companies like google are promoting MP3 only digitally pushing back music into the dark ages...and also why bands are getting pittance in royalties from such.



If you want to resort to calling people "dumb" then I doubt you're going to get anyone agreeing with you, no matter how convincing your argument may, or may not be.

You're raising questions on a deal forum, that only Google/Apple/et al can answer. Put simply: you can see video. It's is tangible to that degree and you can point out where something is obviously better than something else.

Sound is a bit more subjective and much harder to compare. Lucky you - you have hearing that can perceive the difference. A lot of people simply don't. A lot of people simply don't own the equipment necessary to perceive the differences for one, nor can many afford it.

Why don't you fire them an email and ask when they're going to support FLAC? While you're at it, ask all the hardware manufacturers why their speakers and ear buds are rubbish too.

Banned

wow what a great deal! cheers thanks

lovelybeer

If you want to resort to calling people "dumb" then I doubt you're going … If you want to resort to calling people "dumb" then I doubt you're going to get anyone agreeing with you, no matter how convincing your argument may, or may not be. You're raising questions on a deal forum, that only Google/Apple/et al can answer. Put simply: you can see video. It's is tangible to that degree and you can point out where something is obviously better than something else.Sound is a bit more subjective and much harder to compare. Lucky you - you have hearing that can perceive the difference. A lot of people simply don't. A lot of people simply don't own the equipment necessary to perceive the differences for one, nor can many afford it.Why don't you fire them an email and ask when they're going to support FLAC? While you're at it, ask all the hardware manufacturers why their speakers and ear buds are rubbish too.



Why get all uptight about my opinion? I have a valid argument I feel...the general public are 'dumb' in their acceptance of inferior quality (I hardly see how that is offensive)...and as stated like FLAC vs MP3 the majority of the general public can't tell the difference between 720p vs 1080p yet are obsessed in wanting to push the boundaries of video. I don't understand the push for video and not for audio, or why people are taking steps backwards with audio...desire to listen on crappy speaker docks or ear buds.

Affordance has nothing to do with people having necessary equipment, people can equally do it with audio as they do with video. As said at one time people that were interested in music strived to afford the best they could sonically. These days its taking a step backwards, I find this both interesting and sad.

Technology should be pushing the boundaries of music, and it can, BD Audio, Multi Channel Flac, 24/96 & 24/192 FLAC and even the increasingly niche dying market of SACD/DSD. Instead the acceptance of MP3 for the masses is killing music, and music production (dynamic range compression more suited for MP3).


Money saving idea - anytime you get the urge to buy Uptown Funk just listen to an old Prince album (Sign of the Times is a good choice) and enjoy something far better!
You're welcome.

These albums are coming up as £5.49 and £4.99 now
So much for giving me 24hrs to buy...
Edited by: "sd99" 29th Apr 2015

cicobuff

Why get all uptight about my opinion? I have a valid argument I … Why get all uptight about my opinion? I have a valid argument I feel...the general public are 'dumb' in their acceptance of inferior quality (I hardly see how that is offensive)...and as stated like FLAC vs MP3 the majority of the general public can't tell the difference between 720p vs 1080p yet are obsessed in wanting to push the boundaries of video. I don't understand the push for video and not for audio, or why people are taking steps backwards with audio...desire to listen on crappy speaker docks or ear buds.Affordance has nothing to do with people having necessary equipment, people can equally do it with audio as they do with video. As said at one time people that were interested in music strived to afford the best they could sonically. These days its taking a step backwards, I find this both interesting and sad. Technology should be pushing the boundaries of music, and it can, BD Audio, Multi Channel Flac, 24/96 & 24/192 FLAC and even the increasingly niche dying market of SACD/DSD. Instead the acceptance of MP3 for the masses is killing music, and music production (dynamic range compression more suited for MP3).



Well I feel that your argument/opinion, either doesn't deserve to be in this post, or you need to go and repeat the same in every single MP3/digital music thread for consistency.

Your comments about pushing the boundaries have pretty much no place on these sorts of threads really. Do you say the same about "cheap" food, and how we should be pushing for better quality? Probably not.

This is a good deal for what it is. If you can't find it cheaper, then in my opinion, your comments add nothing to the thread. Set up a general discussion elsewhere, however, and you might find that people actually join in with you.

Anyhow - why get all uptight about my comments? It's only my opinion, after all.

lovelybeer

Well I feel that your argument/opinion, either doesn't deserve to be in … Well I feel that your argument/opinion, either doesn't deserve to be in this post, or you need to go and repeat the same in every single MP3/digital music thread for consistency.Your comments about pushing the boundaries have pretty much no place on these sorts of threads really. Do you say the same about "cheap" food, and how we should be pushing for better quality? Probably not.This is a good deal for what it is. If you can't find it cheaper, then in my opinion, your comments add nothing to the thread. Set up a general discussion elsewhere, however, and you might find that people actually join in with you. Anyhow - why get all uptight about my comments? It's only my opinion, after all.



This is no longer a 99p deal...at £5.49 it is 50p less than the physical CD on Amazon with free MP3 download.

I have seen comments in previous google play threads of people buying these albums for 99p because they are cheap (not because they like the content) as if they are collectors cards...I find it odd, and will continue to post opinions on what I find these days is an odd acceptance of music.

Opinions have every sort of place on any thread, HUKD is not just about cheap is defacto standard. Bargains can actually be quantitative on merits. I don't feel MP3s at 99p to be bargains. I have stated my argument with valid links regarding such. And thus do not agree with your counter opinions.

Interestingly, someone like yourself that has been registered here for over a year but never posted any deals is trying to tell someone that has posted many how this forum is run!

Edited by: "cicobuff" 29th Apr 2015

Todays 24 hour album deals are showing up as original prices rather than 99p, have I already missed out??

cicobuff

Interestingly, someone like yourself that has been registered here for … Interestingly, someone like yourself that has been registered here for over a year but never posted any deals is trying to tell someone that has posted many how this forum is run!



Again, zero relevance to the thread. You're making cheap jibes (in addition to calling people dumb), because they have taken your opinion, presented a balanced and informed counter-argument/opinion, and you disagree and dislike.

Says more about you, than I, doesn't it?

If everyone posted only deals and nobody commented, it would be a very different site. I'd imagine there's a Pareto principle to the site in terms of 80% of deals that make it "hot" being posted by a group of 20%.

Happy to be proved wrong, but feel free to PM me on that one, as it also has zero relevance to the thread.

How about expiring the thread instead - I believe (in my limited experience, because I have not posted deals) that it is the done thing when a deal ceases to be a deal.

lovelybeer

Again, zero relevance to the thread. You're making cheap jibes (in … Again, zero relevance to the thread. You're making cheap jibes (in addition to calling people dumb), because they have taken your opinion, presented a balanced and informed counter-argument/opinion, and you disagree and dislike. Says more about you, than I, doesn't it?If everyone posted only deals and nobody commented, it would be a very different site. I'd imagine there's a Pareto principle to the site in terms of 80% of deals that make it "hot" being posted by a group of 20%. Happy to be proved wrong, but feel free to PM me on that one, as it also has zero relevance to the thread.How about expiring the thread instead - I believe (in my limited experience, because I have not posted deals) that it is the done thing when a deal ceases to be a deal.



It takes more than one person to expire a thread, I have done my bit.

cicobuff

Why get all uptight about my opinion? I have a valid argument I … Why get all uptight about my opinion? I have a valid argument I feel...the general public are 'dumb' in their acceptance of inferior quality (I hardly see how that is offensive)...and as stated like FLAC vs MP3 the majority of the general public can't tell the difference between 720p vs 1080p yet are obsessed in wanting to push the boundaries of video. I don't understand the push for video and not for audio, or why people are taking steps backwards with audio...desire to listen on crappy speaker docks or ear buds.Affordance has nothing to do with people having necessary equipment, people can equally do it with audio as they do with video. As said at one time people that were interested in music strived to afford the best they could sonically. These days its taking a step backwards, I find this both interesting and sad. Technology should be pushing the boundaries of music, and it can, BD Audio, Multi Channel Flac, 24/96 & 24/192 FLAC and even the increasingly niche dying market of SACD/DSD. Instead the acceptance of MP3 for the masses is killing music, and music production (dynamic range compression more suited for MP3).



Because its only hardcore audiophiles that will be able to tell the difference between FLAC and 320KB MP3 files listening on high end audio devices (£1000+ or more?)
You can tell the difference between 128KB and 320KB on an average pair of speakers, but 320KB sounds pretty good.
For the typical user who just wants to listen on their iPod, 320KB is fine.

And as for Royalties to the artist - i dont think Mark Ronson is struggling to be honest
I have strongly believed for years that music is overpriced considering that masses of people will buy the music making millions for the artist. Selling albums for 99p seems far more realistic and still gives the artist an ample wage.

initwicked

Todays 24 hour album deals are showing up as original prices rather than … Todays 24 hour album deals are showing up as original prices rather than 99p, have I already missed out??



I think so. I got catfish for 99p, but when i clicked on the 99p button for MR, the payment confirmation was for £5.49 - luckily I saw the change and cancelled.

cicobuff

It takes more than one person to expire a thread, I have done my bit.


As have I - I guess I know a bit more about how the forum works than I thought, eh?

118luke

Because its only hardcore audiophiles that will be able to tell the … Because its only hardcore audiophiles that will be able to tell the difference between FLAC and 320KB MP3 files listening on high end audio devices (£1000+ or more?)You can tell the difference between 128KB and 320KB on an average pair of speakers, but 320KB sounds pretty good.For the typical user who just wants to listen on their iPod, 320KB is fine.And as for Royalties to the artist - i dont think Mark Ronson is struggling to be honest :|I have strongly believed for years that music is overpriced considering that masses of people will buy the music making millions for the artist. Selling albums for 99p seems far more realistic and still gives the artist an ample wage.



It is not audiophiles that just suffer..its everyone....dynamic compression in production for mass consumption via MP3 is killing music.

You are spouting rubbish, compare graphs on royalties.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/selling_out_550.png

Edited by: "cicobuff" 29th Apr 2015

Has this expired? It's showing £5.49 for me..

That was a very quick 24 hours! I only got yesterday's deals in the afternoon....very cheeky advertising under 99p deal if it's going to charge you full price

lovelybeer

As have I - I guess I know a bit more about how the forum works than I … As have I - I guess I know a bit more about how the forum works than I thought, eh?



Then why ask?

mattbme

Has this expired? It's showing £5.49 for me..



Yes, it has expired.

cicobuff

Then why ask?



Because you deemed it necessary to make a point of highlighting my lack of deal posting. I presume, to highlight the fact that you have posted many. And you have a special badge by the looks of things (seems pretty fancy to me).

It's a bit naughty how the stores are still advertising these as 99p deals, but when you try and buy them the price is hiked.

sd99

It's a bit naughty how the stores are still advertising these as 99p … It's a bit naughty how the stores are still advertising these as 99p deals, but when you try and buy them the price is hiked.


I guess they are timed deals, and the pages that refer customers to them are not updating to reflect that. I suppose you could deem it a form of click-bait!
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text