Michael Kim:
but there are so many horrible records coming out and so few pressings >of
good ones in comparison. why not just make MORE copies of good >records? i
don't think you'll have problems selling reissues of >classics, look how
fast Cybotron - Clear went.
Yeah, but that just shows you how good crossover record Clear is, everybody
buys it: RAP/Hip Hop folks buy it, Miami Bass & breaks people buy it, techno
listeners buy it, hell, even your Polka loving aunt buys it!
But I don't think Hip Hop people would buy reissues from Retroactive
back-catalogue, or other Detroit classics for that matter. There really is
no room for a large amount of old records to be re-released, I think by now
there's enough Transmat classics leftovers in the world that we don't need
to release them in another 15 years.
Some records are purposelly not been re-released. Retroactive is a classic
example I think. I don't think there isn't any problems they couldn't solve
to get them re-released, but Carl knows his cult-status is largely built on
those releases, and there's the tickling sensation about having people pay
crazy money for your releases.
Besides there really isn't that much people who'd buy them (Retroactives)
all the time, maybe 1000-2000 copies would sell quickly, but then they
wouldn't be rare anymore and people would move on to other things.
Another thing is the distributors. They can say to you "this much is going
to sell, we won't buy more that this" no matter how good a record is.
i've seen horrible records sit in shelves for years. a pressing plant >may
be pressing it, but if nobody buys it, somebody's got to pay for >that.
We all have seen the lonely crap records, and it's a sad, sad sight:)
The label will eventually pay for it when the distributor won't buy their
stuff anymore and they might end up with 1000 copies of crap release in
their garage.
also, look at how many Swedish imitation records come out. they sound the
same, no new ideas, more than half of the Swedish sounding >records are
garbage. i mean, do these records really need to be >released constantly?
They found an idea (copying Mills) and made a formula out of it.
Of course there's no need for all those releases, but that's what brings the
food on the table, it's no secret at all.
It's so sad the state of TECHNO, the early 90's innovative years seem light
years away. I mean who of the old guys listens to "techno" anymore? No one,
they've all gone house or to more sophisticated genres.
i really wish record pressing plants would concentrate on making more
copies of good records, and reissuing good older records and >classics that
they KNOW will sell, rather than pressing the latest >record that nobody
will remember or care about two weeks after its >release.
In an ideal world that might work but at the end it's discrimination and
fascism, restricting what people can release and what not.
But the pressing plants live by the capitalist golden rule; to make more
money, and they don't care if all they pressed was bird singing nature
records as long as the customers pay.
yeah, but how many other people here are sick of listening to 50 bad
records to find 1 good one?
That's why I called it the "jungle", because you have to wander thru the
bushes and all the bad sh*t before you find a new rare species or the golden
treasure:)
-Proffit
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
