All drama aside (Destiny)
by Fuertisimo, Saturday, September 05, 2015, 20:18 (3603 days ago)
How much of a bummer is it that we might never get to hear music of the spheres?

A huge bummer.
by Xenos , Shores of Time, Saturday, September 05, 2015, 20:22 (3603 days ago) @ Fuertisimo
- No text -

All drama aside
by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Saturday, September 05, 2015, 20:27 (3603 days ago) @ Fuertisimo
How much of a bummer is it that we might never get to hear music of the spheres?
It'll be released. One way or another…
All drama aside
by Fuertisimo, Saturday, September 05, 2015, 20:38 (3603 days ago) @ Cody Miller
Here's hoping.

All drama aside
by Stephen Laughlin
, Long Beach, CA, Saturday, September 05, 2015, 23:19 (3603 days ago) @ Cody Miller
How much of a bummer is it that we might never get to hear music of the spheres?
It'll be released. One way or another…
I can't wait to get my hands on the rare Music of The Spheres bootleg cassette.
Please forward all casettes to Mig for prompt rewinding
by Pyromancy , Sunday, September 06, 2015, 00:45 (3603 days ago) @ Stephen Laughlin
I can't wait to get my hands on the rare Music of The Spheres bootleg cassette.

Screwed over developers unite!
by Grizzlei
, Pacific Cloud Zone, Earth, Monday, September 07, 2015, 11:23 (3602 days ago) @ Stephen Laughlin
How much of a bummer is it that we might never get to hear music of the spheres?
It'll be released. One way or another…
I can't wait to get my hands on the rare Music of The Spheres bootleg cassette.
The final eight minutes of Music of the Spheres is a cassette you scan find playing Metal Gear Solid V.

All drama aside (dupe!)
by narcogen
, Andover, Massachusetts, Monday, September 07, 2015, 10:54 (3602 days ago) @ Cody Miller
How much of a bummer is it that we might never get to hear music of the spheres?
It'll be released. One way or another…
After reading the arbitrator's decision, I highly doubt it.
Also, according to Michael Salvatori's affidavit, you've already heard most of it-- supposedly 40 of 48 minutes were included in the game.
EDIT-- oops, CyberKN already posted this. Sorry.

Fret not. You've already heard (most of) it.
by CyberKN
, Oh no, Destiny 2 is bad, Saturday, September 05, 2015, 20:46 (3603 days ago) @ Fuertisimo
The court documents detail that 40 of the 48 minutes of MotS can be found in the Destiny OST and in-game.

Fret not. You've already heard (most of) it.
by cheapLEY , Saturday, September 05, 2015, 20:49 (3603 days ago) @ CyberKN
I figured as much. I'm more curious as to the arrangement of Music of the Spheres. As good as the actual music is, I don't feel like the Destiny OST flows well. It seems like songs plucked from the game just thrown on a disc, without any real thought. Or not even on a disc, but you get my point.

Yeah, I want to hear it the way the artist intended it to be
by kornman00, Saturday, September 05, 2015, 21:07 (3603 days ago) @ cheapLEY
Wait...spheres? More than one traveler perhaps?

Yeah, I want to hear it the way the artist intended it to be
by cheapLEY , Saturday, September 05, 2015, 21:28 (3603 days ago) @ kornman00
Wait...spheres? More than one traveler perhaps?
Well, to be fair all the planets we visit are spheres, too. That's kind of how I looked at it. Music of our adventures.

It's referring to the planets, but not the bodies' shape.
by Funkmon , Saturday, September 05, 2015, 22:15 (3603 days ago) @ cheapLEY
Pythagoras and his cult came up with a lot of good stuff and a lot of nutso stuff. One thing they did that was nutso is believe the planets created music in proportion to their orbits. This made more sense then, since they were perceived to travel on spheres, and each orbit was a solid sphere which might have resonant frequencies. The concept is called the Music of the Spheres, referring to the celestial spheres on which the planets travel. They actually thought a bunch of crazy stuff about music, and crazy stuff about space, too. Like they thought the Earth revolved around a central fire with an anti Earth at its other side. Anyway, here's an engraving in Church Latin with info on the orbits, their corresponding Classical muses, and their musical signatures.
THIS is the music of the spheres he is talking about and referencing. It's probably a musical theme written for each of the planets in a corresponding scale.
That's awesome. Gives me something to look into in a bit. Thanks!

The best overview is in Encyclopedia Britannica
by Funkmon , Saturday, September 05, 2015, 22:54 (3603 days ago) @ cheapLEY
I did a research project on the astronomy of Pythagoreans a couple years ago, and there was basically nothing online. Now, there are Wikipedia articles, but they're kind of badly written and don't explain some fundamentals well.
If you can, go to your library and hit up their Britannica. They have a long article with nifty pictures and stuff. It was the basis on which I wrote much of my paper, and literally ALL of the diagrams I didn't make myself were from that encyclopedia.
I think they have a preview function on their website so like the first article you go to is completely open. They also sell a DVD updated and overhauled this year which is great and $40. They sell the 2012 version for $10 on their website.
- No text -
Thanks, Funkmon!
by DreadPirateWes, Sunday, September 06, 2015, 06:46 (3603 days ago) @ kornman00
Yes, this is very cool. So many things never get talked about in history class.

But those 8 minutes!
by ZackDark , Not behind you. NO! Don't look., Saturday, September 05, 2015, 21:12 (3603 days ago) @ CyberKN
Actually, I'm not even sure if I'm kidding or not.
But those 8 minutes!
by Fuertisimo, Saturday, September 05, 2015, 21:33 (3603 days ago) @ ZackDark
They might be the most brilliant 8 minutes of Marty's career!
It's possible ;).
Music, like all forms of art, is subjective.
The fact that we have "technically" already heard 40 of the 48 pieces of music from Music of the Spheres means nothing to me, because that music has been ripped out of its original context, cut apart, and presented to us out of its intended order.
I still hope they release this thing one day, if not for Marty, then at least for Paul McCartney. He worked on it too, Bungie! I know you're withholding it to spite Marty, but you're spiting one of the Beatles too!
A big one
by Fuertisimo, Saturday, September 05, 2015, 22:03 (3603 days ago) @ car15
Yeah, this is not a good look for Bungie upper management.
I'll grant that there could be some history between Marty and the board that goes beyond the scope of the court case, which could have predisposed them to fire him and treat him like shit, but there is never a justifiable reason to steal property from somebody just because "he's a big meanie" or whatever. Come on, Bungie, you're better than that.
What I find deliciously ironic about the whole situation is that Bungie's stated reason for firing Marty was (in part) the negative impact his behavior had on the game's publicity, but in reality, nothing he did had a more negative impact on the game's publicity than Bungie's poor management. This looks really bad, for both of them, but for Bungie in particular.
I say "deliciously" ironic because I admit that I'm pleased with the poetic justice of thieves being exposed in public. It makes me feel good to see that. You don't get to steal shares from people; that's not how business works. I saw the exact same thing happen years ago with one of the clients at my old firm. (I'm an accountant.) The other members of the firm conspired to take 15% ownership interest from some douchebag on the board for the simple reason that they didn't like him. For the record, the guy was a douchebag, but it was still completely amazing to me that not one of them raised an objection at the thought of stealing from him. They didn't just give him those shares. He paid for them, which provided capital for the company to pursue objectives they would not otherwise have been able to pursue. Stealing them from him shows an utter lack of respect for this transaction.
The company ended up giving them back when he threatened to sue and they realized that they had no actual justification for taking the shares.
A big one
by Fuertisimo, Sunday, September 06, 2015, 12:23 (3603 days ago) @ car15
I had the same thought. Bungie ends up looking far worse than Marty ever could have caused through their quite frankly transparently vindictive handling of the situation. Plus they ended up getting absolutely slaughtered in court, which further underscores how petty and unfounded their aggression was.
No doubt Marty went over the line with his behavior, no matter how passionately he felt about Activision's meddling, but upper management at Bungie dug their own grave with public perception about how they handled his termination.

Fair dealing.
by narcogen
, Andover, Massachusetts, Monday, September 07, 2015, 11:05 (3602 days ago) @ car15
I'll grant that there could be some history between Marty and the board that goes beyond the scope of the court case, which could have predisposed them to fire him and treat him like shit, but there is never a justifiable reason to steal property from somebody just because "he's a big meanie" or whatever. Come on, Bungie, you're better than that.
What I find deliciously ironic about the whole situation is that Bungie's stated reason for firing Marty was (in part) the negative impact his behavior had on the game's publicity, but in reality, nothing he did had a more negative impact on the game's publicity than Bungie's poor management. This looks really bad, for both of them, but for Bungie in particular.
Looking at the decision, O'Donnell and Ryan were in agreement in objecting to Activision's handling of the trailer, and even though O'Donnell's public reaction to that seems to have sparked the dispute, the termination is described as being justified by an alleged work slow-down instigated by O'Donnell following that incident. By that time I imagine working relations may have been strained all around, and that's what led to the spectacular mishandling of the severance offer and the subsequent termination and re-issuing of shares.
I'm probably going to write something longer on it, but it is interesting to note that both O'Donnell and Bungie only prevailed on one claim each out of many, and the one that Bungie prevailed on was largely irrelevant.
What's more interesting, though, and not portrayed in the news summaries I've seen, is that O'Donnell prevailed not because what Bungie did actually broke any of the contracts between O'Donnell and Bungie. In fact, two of O'Donnell's claims that alleged that were denied. However, it was within Bungie's power to terminate O'Donnell without depriving him of all his shares, and since the arbitrator is empowered by the agreement and JAMS rules to decide what is fair and equitable, he decided it was fair and equitable to award O'Donnell 60% of his previously unvested shares, and that Bungie had violated the concept of "fair dealing" that underpins all contract law.
By the timing of the termination, Bungie determined whether or not O'Donnell's shares would vest according to the normal schedule or be forefeited by the termination. In light of O'Donnell's past performance, the importance of his work to Halo and Destiny, and the lack of any actual damages to the Bungie-Activision relationship as a result of his public statements, the arbitrator determined that Bungie did not deal fairly with O'Donnell in terminating him in such a way that triggered share forefeiture (and then reissuing all shares in an attempt to ensure O'Donnell got no voting rights as well, should he prevail in arbitration, which he now has).

Fair dealing.
by General Vagueness , The Vault of Sass, Monday, September 07, 2015, 19:26 (3601 days ago) @ narcogen
I'm probably going to write something longer on it, but it is interesting to note that both O'Donnell and Bungie only prevailed on one claim each out of many, and the one that Bungie prevailed on was largely irrelevant.
I'm not sure what constitutes a claim, but the arbitrator found that Bungie was correct in two accusations. Firstly they claimed Marty had their property-- copies of Music of the Spheres-- and the arbitrator agreed and it's now been returned. Secondly they claimed that he violated their copyright by distributing and performing the music without permission, and the arbitrator agreed there too, but because he gave out a copy before the copyright was filed, pursuant to a corner of copyright law I'd never heard of before, they can't get the damages they were seeking-- but they can get other relief, which I wasn't able to find the details of.
What's more interesting, though, and not portrayed in the news summaries I've seen, is that O'Donnell prevailed not because what Bungie did actually broke any of the contracts between O'Donnell and Bungie. In fact, two of O'Donnell's claims that alleged that were denied. However, it was within Bungie's power to terminate O'Donnell without depriving him of all his shares, and since the arbitrator is empowered by the agreement and JAMS rules to decide what is fair and equitable, he decided it was fair and equitable to award O'Donnell 60% of his previously unvested shares, and that Bungie had violated the concept of "fair dealing" that underpins all contract law.
Yeah, it sounded to me like they were trying to argue that because they gave him a performance review and found his performance "unacceptable" they were justified in withholding those things. It sounded like the arbitrator was saying maybe they would have been legally justified if there was anything in writing that said it worked that way, but there wasn't so they had to give him his shares.
I think it's also worth noting Marty had the chance to claim vested shares and have a say in the company, and chose not to. If that was because he doesn't want to try to push people around that don't want him involved, or because he doesn't want to deal with them at all, or because because of the larger cash value, no one can say but him.

Fair dealing.
by narcogen
, Andover, Massachusetts, Monday, September 07, 2015, 22:54 (3601 days ago) @ General Vagueness
I'm probably going to write something longer on it, but it is interesting to note that both O'Donnell and Bungie only prevailed on one claim each out of many, and the one that Bungie prevailed on was largely irrelevant.
I'm not sure what constitutes a claim, but the arbitrator found that Bungie was correct in two accusations. Firstly they claimed Marty had their property-- copies of Music of the Spheres-- and the arbitrator agreed and it's now been returned. Secondly they claimed that he violated their copyright by distributing and performing the music without permission, and the arbitrator agreed there too, but because he gave out a copy before the copyright was filed, pursuant to a corner of copyright law I'd never heard of before, they can't get the damages they were seeking-- but they can get other relief, which I wasn't able to find the details of.
Bungie made several counter-claims; one based on the confidential information (Section 11c) of O'Donnell's contract. The arbitrator found that O'Donnell had NOT violated it by distributing Spheres, and the order to O'Donnell to return any work product not as relief because Bungie had suffered damage, or punishment because O'Donnell had violated, but merely because copies of Spheres were Bungie's property. O"Donnell claims he had already done so before litigation began and that the only remaining copy has held by counsel.
Bungie also claimed that O'Donnell's unauthorized distribution of Spheres constituted copyright infringement and sought statutory damages. However, the arbitrator found that while O'Donnell's distribution of the entire work exceeded any reasonable fair use exemption, that Bungie was unable to recover any damages for the following reasons: 1) You cannot seek both real and statutory damages; 2) as Spheres was unpublished (and still is) there is no method for assessing real damage, and 3) because O'Donnell's infringement began before the copyright on Spheres was registered and continued after registration, Bungie is not eligible to recover statutory damages (17 U.S.C. Sec 504).
So you can technically call claim E a "win" because it found O'Donnell did infringe, but since Bungie was seeking statutory damages in an amount that would likely have wiped out any potential payments by Bungie under other claims, I call it a loss. Bungie essentially got nothing out of both claims D and E.
What's more interesting, though, and not portrayed in the news summaries I've seen, is that O'Donnell prevailed not because what Bungie did actually broke any of the contracts between O'Donnell and Bungie. In fact, two of O'Donnell's claims that alleged that were denied. However, it was within Bungie's power to terminate O'Donnell without depriving him of all his shares, and since the arbitrator is empowered by the agreement and JAMS rules to decide what is fair and equitable, he decided it was fair and equitable to award O'Donnell 60% of his previously unvested shares, and that Bungie had violated the concept of "fair dealing" that underpins all contract law.
Yeah, it sounded to me like they were trying to argue that because they gave him a performance review and found his performance "unacceptable" they were justified in withholding those things. It sounded like the arbitrator was saying maybe they would have been legally justified if there was anything in writing that said it worked that way, but there wasn't so they had to give him his shares.
Hmm... not quite. Bungie actually was legally justified in most of what they did, at least, to the letter. However, the employment contract has a binding arbitration clause that brings a dispute like this to the company JAMS, and empowers that arbitrator to do what they think is fair and equitable, and when arbitrating a dispute that hinges on the actions of Bungie's board sub-committee that determines things like profit sharing participation (which is what the bad review was to prevent) the arbitrator is empowered to do what they were. So since the committee COULD have fired O'Donnell AFTER his shares vested rather than before, and the arbitrator considers it fair and equitable that O'Donnell get a portion of his stock vested, that was what he was awarded, in recognition of the fact that Bungie did not deal fairly with O'Donnell.
I think it's also worth noting Marty had the chance to claim vested shares and have a say in the company, and chose not to. If that was because he doesn't want to try to push people around that don't want him involved, or because he doesn't want to deal with them at all, or because because of the larger cash value, no one can say but him.
I'm guessing it's more useful to him to roll into Highwire; I also believe he is still eligible for the profit participation plan in the future.

More detail on arbitrator's award
by narcogen
, Andover, Massachusetts, Tuesday, September 08, 2015, 02:59 (3601 days ago) @ narcogen
I'm probably going to write something longer on it, but it is interesting to note that both O'Donnell and Bungie only prevailed on one claim each out of many, and the one that Bungie prevailed on was largely irrelevant.
I've written a blog post based on the arbitrator's award, with a link to the award itself.
Arbitrator Partially Restores Composer O'Donnell's Bungie Shares
In short, it appears Bungie's attorneys made mistakes in drafting various agreements, some large and some small. Some, the arbitrator waved away as minor and not transforming the character of the agreement in the manner O'Donnell alleged, and one opened up a loophole that let the arbitrator give O'Donnell anything the board could have, but didn't-- leaving it up to the arbitrator to decide what was fair and equitable.
In short, either Ryan got bad advice from counsel, or got good advice and didn't listen to it.
I guess I missed it?
by Earendil, Sunday, September 06, 2015, 00:42 (3603 days ago) @ car15
Music, like all forms of art, is subjective.
The fact that we have "technically" already heard 40 of the 48 pieces of music from Music of the Spheres means nothing to me, because that music has been ripped out of its original context, cut apart, and presented to us out of its intended order.
I still hope they release this thing one day, if not for Marty, then at least for Paul McCartney. He worked on it too, Bungie! I know you're withholding it to spite Marty, but you're spiting one of the Beatles too!
When did we find out it was Bungie preventing Marty from releasing it, and not vice versa?
Or that they both want to release it but haven't agreed on terms?
It's all there. Read it and weep.

I guess I missed it?
by narcogen
, Andover, Massachusetts, Monday, September 07, 2015, 11:14 (3602 days ago) @ car15
It's all there. Read it and weep.
That's the best current article but you're better off reading the decision itself. It's linked in the article.

I guess I missed it?
by narcogen
, Andover, Massachusetts, Monday, September 07, 2015, 11:13 (3602 days ago) @ Earendil
Music, like all forms of art, is subjective.
The fact that we have "technically" already heard 40 of the 48 pieces of music from Music of the Spheres means nothing to me, because that music has been ripped out of its original context, cut apart, and presented to us out of its intended order.
I still hope they release this thing one day, if not for Marty, then at least for Paul McCartney. He worked on it too, Bungie! I know you're withholding it to spite Marty, but you're spiting one of the Beatles too!
Did you hear that track? Just curious.
When did we find out it was Bungie preventing Marty from releasing it, and not vice versa?
Or that they both want to release it but haven't agreed on terms?
The arbitrator's decision includes that information.
Bungie alleged O'Donnell was giving priority to the Spheres project, which Activision was not interested in having Bungie spend time and effort on. Following his termination, O'Donnell distributed electronic copies of Spheres in an attempt to interest outside publishers, and apparently did so without Bungie's permission (Destiny's soundtrack is a work for hire owned by Bungie, not O'Donnell) and without NDAs enjoining those third parties.
This is the only counterclaim by Bungie that was upheld; O'Donnell was ordered to return all work materials to Bungie (which he apparently had already done) and was ordered not to seek publication for Spheres without Bungie's express permission.
GIven that O'Donnell is now getting a portion of his shares vested (although I do understand he's accepting the value equivalent and not the shares) and profit participation in Destiny, it seems unlikely to me that Bungie would proceed with Spheres over Activision's objection. What is unclear to me is whether they can or would proceed without O'Donnell's involvement; it is clear he cannot publish the project without Bungie, but I am not sure if the reverse is true.

I guess I missed it?
by General Vagueness , The Vault of Sass, Monday, September 07, 2015, 19:29 (3601 days ago) @ narcogen
Music, like all forms of art, is subjective.
The fact that we have "technically" already heard 40 of the 48 pieces of music from Music of the Spheres means nothing to me, because that music has been ripped out of its original context, cut apart, and presented to us out of its intended order.
I still hope they release this thing one day, if not for Marty, then at least for Paul McCartney. He worked on it too, Bungie! I know you're withholding it to spite Marty, but you're spiting one of the Beatles too!
Did you hear that track? Just curious.
I thought he worked on more than just the one track. Marty said stuff about McCartney giving him tips on some things.

I guess I missed it?
by Leviathan , Hotel Zanzibar, Monday, September 07, 2015, 20:37 (3601 days ago) @ General Vagueness
Music, like all forms of art, is subjective.
The fact that we have "technically" already heard 40 of the 48 pieces of music from Music of the Spheres means nothing to me, because that music has been ripped out of its original context, cut apart, and presented to us out of its intended order.
I still hope they release this thing one day, if not for Marty, then at least for Paul McCartney. He worked on it too, Bungie! I know you're withholding it to spite Marty, but you're spiting one of the Beatles too!
Did you hear that track? Just curious.
I thought he worked on more than just the one track. Marty said stuff about McCartney giving him tips on some things.
Bits of the Hope for the Future melody can be heard in the rotating Tower music. I think Except from The Hope is the track on the OST that contains it. You can hear a slow version of the "Some wait for the future, some..." part within the first minute.

I guess I missed it?
by car15, Monday, September 07, 2015, 21:56 (3601 days ago) @ General Vagueness
edited by car15, Monday, September 07, 2015, 22:00
As I understand it, Paul worked closely with Marty on the entirety of Music of the Spheres, and then did the song as sort of a bonus "here's something fun to cap off the whole experience" type of thing.
Paul's name appears as co-writer on all excerpts from MotS that were included in the OST (EDIT: Most of the excerpts - not all), as well as on a couple of other tracks.

I guess I missed it?
by narcogen
, Andover, Massachusetts, Tuesday, September 08, 2015, 02:55 (3601 days ago) @ General Vagueness
Music, like all forms of art, is subjective.
The fact that we have "technically" already heard 40 of the 48 pieces of music from Music of the Spheres means nothing to me, because that music has been ripped out of its original context, cut apart, and presented to us out of its intended order.
I still hope they release this thing one day, if not for Marty, then at least for Paul McCartney. He worked on it too, Bungie! I know you're withholding it to spite Marty, but you're spiting one of the Beatles too!
Did you hear that track? Just curious.
I thought he worked on more than just the one track. Marty said stuff about McCartney giving him tips on some things.
Presumably he did, but I was just wondering if, after hearing the one track with McCartney's vocals that was released, your reaction was that you wanted more of that.
Again... just curious.