RustyShackelford Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 bump for curiosity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecayToDeath Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Okay, so if these are called "official bootlegs", what's the official part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Okay, so if these are called "official bootlegs", what's the official part? They were legally licensed. The idea of an official bootleg is bullshit though. Duff and Klefki 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyHill Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Okay, so if these are called "official bootlegs", what's the official part? They aren't bootlegs, nothing illegal happened since the license to press it was probably bought from Warner. I'm just coming to that conclusion based off Asbestos track record with reissues/releases which have all been legitimate presses with licenses from the likes of Universal and Warner. So to think Asbestos would just start making bootlegs after a couple big releases is kind of silly. The original issue that was raised(and then misconstrued into "official bootlegs") was that the band said in an interview they weren't involved with the reissue and seemed unhappy about it because they didn't get copies. In the same interview it was also said that Warner gave them the rights/artwork/videos to their follow up record White Crosses but didn't offer to give up anything for this record New Wave. Klefki 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecayToDeath Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 They were legally licensed. The idea of an official bootleg is bullshit though. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slushy Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 What record label do you run again? Really dumb comment. Are you one of those people that demands to know what films a person has made if they talk about how they don't like a certain movie as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dethrock Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Really dumb comment. Are you one of those people that demands to know what films a person has made if they talk about how they don't like a certain movie as well? How is my comment dumb? You said that "band copies are always given." This obviously isn't the case since it didn't happen here and there's multiple other examples of reissues on here where this hasn't happened either. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to send them copies. I asked what label you ran since you're commenting on how labels should run. Duff and GradedOnACurve 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFP Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Well I guess we'll have to lock this up due to all the "bootleg" talk now... HA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slushy Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 On VC these things always ride a thin line between an honest concern for morality and a gross obsession with drama. This is a forum that is more about the physical objects the music is stored on rather than people talking about the actual music itself. Is it not expected that the politics and peoples disappointments surrounding the release of said physical objects will be discussed? Also it's not like this is some new ***drama*** exclusive to VC/other similar forums; these kinds of things were hashed out in the MRR letters section years before the internet even existed. Obviously people will look at these things differently. Some people will see things in a very black and white way, in that if someone has the rights to release a record then that's all 100% above board and there is no issue at all. Other people, perhaps people who are artists themselves, would look at this in a way that maybe it would be cool for the artist to be kept in the loop and for it to be more of a collaborative process, even though it doesn't actually technically need to be legally speaking. Like it would just be the nice thing to do, y'know? This case in particular is worthy of thinking about because the artist involved is no longer the person that they were credited as, a person they feel like they never were according to most trans folk. Most trans folk also often talk about how they prefer to not be referred to as the name they previously went by (Laura has mentioned on twitter before that she would prefer her credits on label websites to be changed). If she was spoken to about this and didn't find out about it after the fact, it could have been worked through. But this all really begs the question, is having affordable copies of this album available on vinyl more important that avoiding something that may very well deeply hurt a persons feelings? Obviously some people will care more about adding their sweet new limited edition colour reissue to their collection, but having empathy is not as out of line as some would suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinch Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Are you one of those people that demands to know what films a person has made if they talk about how they don't like a certain movie as well? You were telling someone who runs a label how labels are run, without personal experience. Someone calling you out on it isn't like demanding to know what films you have made if you don't like a certain movie, it's like demanding to know what films you have made if you tell someone who makes movies that they are doing it wrong. There's a difference between "subjectively criticizing something without having the know-how to make that something yourself" and "stating a process to make something is wrong if you have no experience with that or any other process to make that something". Get your comparisons straight. Duff and dethrock 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slushy Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 How is my comment dumb? You said that "band copies are always given." This obviously isn't the case since it didn't happen here and there's multiple other examples of reissues on here where this hasn't happened either. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to send them copies. I asked what label you ran since you're commenting on how labels should run. You were telling someone who runs a label how labels are run, without personal experience. Someone calling you out on it isn't like demanding to know what films you have made if you don't like a certain movie, it's like demanding to know what films you have made if you tell someone who makes movies that they are doing it wrong. There's a difference between "subjectively criticizing something without having the know-how to make that something yourself" and "stating a process to make something is wrong if you have no experience with that or any other process to make that something". Get your comparisons straight. I didn't tell anyone anything. I commented to no one in particular that a band should be given copies of their own records for their own personal collections when said records come into existence. I have only released records as one off releases not attached to a label, and my personal experiences come more from the book publishing side of things, but the etiquette is the same. If an artist creates something and you manufacture copies for sale, you should always send them a handful of copies for their personal collections. Is it really that jarring of a concept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanRees Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konk Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 She's just mad because she wanted to release it herself and now the demand is gone. She can still do Old Wave though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shitty Rambo Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 This is a forum that is more about the physical objects the music is stored on rather than people talking about the actual music itself. Is it not expected that the politics and peoples disappointments surrounding the release of said physical objects will be discussed? Also it's not like this is some new ***drama*** exclusive to VC/other similar forums; these kinds of things were hashed out in the MRR letters section years before the internet even existed. Obviously people will look at these things differently. Some people will see things in a very black and white way, in that if someone has the rights to release a record then that's all 100% above board and there is no issue at all. Other people, perhaps people who are artists themselves, would look at this in a way that maybe it would be cool for the artist to be kept in the loop and for it to be more of a collaborative process, even though it doesn't actually technically need to be legally speaking. Like it would just be the nice thing to do, y'know? This case in particularly is worthy of thinking about because the artist involved is no longer the person that they were credited as, a person they feel like they never were according to most trans folk. Most trans folk also often talk about how they prefer to not be referred to as the name they previously went by (Laura has mentioned on twitter before that she would prefer her credits on label websites to be changed). If she was spoken to about this and didn't find out about it after the fact, it could have been worked through. But this all really begs the question, is having affordable copies of this album available on vinyl more important that avoiding something that may very well deeply hurt a persons feelings? Obviously some people will care more about adding their sweet new limited edition colour reissue to their collection, but having empathy is not as out of line as some would suggest. I bet you have some bulletproof points in these 4 paragraphs. Unfortunately I won't be reading any of them Duff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowty Dollaz Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I bet you have some bulletproof points in these 4 paragraphs. Unfortunately I won't be reading any of them That's a shame. It's readable. Also, should AM! have received copies and been involved? Well, that would have been really nice. Is it mandatory? Of course not. However, IF I operated a label, I would reach out to the artist/ management with a "hi, I recently acquired the rights to _______. Do you have any requests, suggestions, or demands that are feasible/ legally acceptable?. Thanks for creating this and providing my label the opportunity to redistribute it. Best wishes, Love always- $40." Will I ever run a label? Probably not. I'm just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shitty Rambo Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 That's a shame. It's readable. Never said it wasn't, but I don't want to help perpetuate another witch hunt by continuing a discussion about something that doesn't involved anyone here besides Asbestos. No shame in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konk Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I look at it as payback for the Crime cd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impact Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 The original issue that was raised(and then misconstrued into "official bootlegs") was that the band said in an interview they weren't involved with the reissue and seemed unhappy about it because they didn't get copies. To me, it seemed like Laura was unhappy about the re-pressing in general, not because they didn't get any copies. john 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowty Dollaz Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I don't think there is a lot bad blood between LJG and Fllod/ Asbestos : http://www.ticketfly.com/purchase/mobile/index/1028367?utm_medium=459899 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic_ Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I bought a lot that had doubles, anyone need these on the cheap? Against Me | Cavalier Eternal| Gold/1,117| 1st Pressing Against Me | Cavalier Eternal| Opaque Blue/870| 1st Pressing Against Me | Cavalier Eternal| Pink & Green Split/330| 3rd Pressing Against Me | Disco Before Breakdown| Pink & Green Split/330| 3rd Pressing Against Me | Disco Before The Breakdown| Light Yellow/138| 12th Pressing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowty Dollaz Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 <p> I bought a lot that had doubles, anyone need these on the cheap? Against Me | Cavalier Eternal| Gold/1,117| 1st Pressing Against Me | Cavalier Eternal| Opaque Blue/870| 1st Pressing Against Me | Cavalier Eternal| Pink & Green Split/330| 3rd Pressing Against Me | Disco Before Breakdown| Pink & Green Split/330| 3rd Pressing Against Me | Disco Before The Breakdown| Light Yellow/138| 12th Pressing I'll take that CE blue and Disco pink and green. How much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingleberry17 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 To me, it seemed like Laura was unhappy about the re-pressing in general, not because they didn't get any copies. I can't remember the interview i listened to - but laura was upset that the Warner/Sire didnt allow AM! to reissue the album. Sire let them keep the rights to white crosses but not new wave. AM! Had been requesting the licensing rights to repress new wave on vinyl & kept getting denied then all of a sudden they gave asbestos the approval. I dont blame them for being upset - this album was advertised as black/yellow & looks more like black/orange- it looks like shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinch Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I dont blame them for being upset - this album was advertised as black/yellow & looks more like black/orange- it looks like shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monsterrod Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I want to believe that black/yellow black/orange final comment was sarcasm. If so, that was pretty funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolio Posted May 1, 2018 Share Posted May 1, 2018 (edited) A half yellow half black variant /1800 is available here https://www.turntablelab.com/products/against-me-new-wave-colored-vinyl-vinyl-lp Edit: I realized this is the 2015 pressing. Maybe they found some old stock in the back room. Edited May 1, 2018 by coolio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.