From TheevilD Sent Wed, Sep 29th 1999, 18:11
From TheevilD Sent Wed, Sep 29th 1999, 18:11
Please: I don't have any objection to people not releasing every recorded sound they make (I have stuff myself that I wouldn't let anyone hear, let alone release). Ever wondered why 'previously unheard' Beatles tracks are always crap? That's fine. I'm only questioning the reasons behind people like Skam never releasing anywhere near the number of copies that people want to buy, and then complaining when pirate copies go around. Either one of these taken alone would be sensible: I can understand an artist, or company, not wanting to become too commercial; they would want to remain underground by never selling any records. At the same time, I can understand why artists would object to illegal copies of their work. But it seems to me to be at best misguided to release minute quantities of records, which you then violently object to people copying. Now, can people _please_ stop flaming me over this one. I never suggested sending cat burglars to their studio to search their archives for 'four 30 minute BASF tapes of the two singing after coming home from the pub pissed, a home video of one of their weddings, and their recording of a few songs that they made for their mother 15 years ago, playing a penny whistle and a dustbin.' Thank you Jorkens >Here's a reply to the message "Re: (idm) An announcement from the BOC >website Administrator" you wrote on Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:09:31 EDT: > >>You really have to wonder what their philosophy is: do they auction off >>copies under assumed names? Do they have some interest in only 200 people >>actually hearing their music? I'd love some clarification on this: if we get >>some definitive statement of what their mysterious 'reasons' are, then I'd >>consider changing my point of view. It may be (and heaven forbid that we >>think such ill of anyone) that it's pure bloody mindedness. > >As Lance said, every artist has a back catalogue of personal, private >recordings. What gives the public the right to *demand* that they hear >them? > >I'm starting up my own label next year -- mainly to release music by >friends and such, but I'll also put out some of my own stuff. This >will be my "first" proper solo release. I've also been producing IDM >for the last eight years or so, comprising of well over a hundred >tracks. If I happened to list these tracks on a sort of "retro" >discography, it's understandable that everyone would think I'd been >holding back on stuff, but that's not the case. > >There's just some stuff that artists will never release, for a >multitude of reasons. We've probably only heard about 5% of RDJ's >output, about 30% of Autechre's output, etc. Can you imagine the riots >that would ensue if Booth/Brown posted a full discography of all their >unreleased stuff? We'd never hear the end of it. > >You're looking for reasons why old stuff isn't released? Like I said, >there's countless reasons. Here's a few: > >1) It's old. >2) It's crap. >3) It will impact on sales of newer material. >4) There are so many people involved, sorting out royalties > and ownership will be a nightmare. >5) They just don't want to. > > >-- >Mark Stevens > >http://www.headspin.clara.net/ > >