Saxonjulin Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) This has been logged on discogs as an official release in 2017 on discogs with people selling them for rediculous amounts of money. Does anyone know anything about this? Are these Warner factory workers sneaking these home and selling them before they get actually released? So many questions. My store called Warner and they had no answer. Doesn't mean a lot though. They hire people behind computers and don't even know what vinyl record are Edited February 7, 2017 by Saxonjulin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glass realms Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 The cover and label copy screams bootleg. I'm pretty sure any archive Smiths release would be done through Rhino/Warner Bros and not just Warner Bros. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkeyelids Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 There Is a lot of discussion about this release on morrissey solo, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus or any real insight if it is real or not. https://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/the-queen-is-dead-12-vinyl-2017-warner-bros-uk-listed-on-discogs-help-needed.139458/ Possible RSD release ?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the industry Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Saxonjulin said: Are these Warner factory workers sneaking these home and selling them before they get actually released? You're a vinyl collector, right? Ask yourself - has that EVER happened before, that you are aware of? Like there aren't other high profile, hotly anticipated vinyl releases that factory workers would be tempted to steal & sell if they could get away with it? Then think about the logistics of pressing up a record. If you're the label, you order a certain amount pressed, maybe a few test pressings but those usually are just plain without artwork. You KNOW how many are supposed to be made cause you are making the order, and you know who you are ordering from. It's not some mystery who pressed your records. If you get your order of whatever, say 300 records and then before the release you see that someone is selling copies of it online when the run was supposed to be limited to 300, then you KNOW something fishy is going on with the pressing plant, and you would contact them, and they would take it pretty seriously as their professional reputation would be at stake. These plants aren't like factories with thousands of untraceable people working in them, and the music business is small - especially with things like this. I mean how many record pressing plants are even out there. Not that many. kannibal and niblips 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nico Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 7 hours ago, glass realms said: The cover and label copy screams bootleg. I'm pretty sure any archive Smiths release would be done through Rhino/Warner Bros and not just Warner Bros. Can you explain this? Why does it scream bootleg? Why are you pretty sure, do you work for Warner Bros? I have a copy and I am 99,9% certain it is real. Also because I knew something was brewing already since my local record store ordered copies from their distributor, but that order was never fulfilled. Also both front and back picture have been used by Morrissey recently during his live shows. The way the names and instruments are written the same way as on the Sweet and Tender Hooligan 12", which was designed by Morrissey back in the day. The sounds is great and mastered perfectly, plus it sounds like a very nicely done edit of the title track. Label design is similar to the classic Warner singles from the late 1950's. But most of all, everything feels and looks real, I have been collecting vinyl for two decades now, so I have seen a lot of counterfeits en bootlegs over the years NO weird matrix scratch outs, fuzzy printing of the sleeve or labels, weird spelling mistakes in titles or names op people, or crappy source material used as source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nico Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 5 hours ago, the industry said: You're a vinyl collector, right? Ask yourself - has that EVER happened before, that you are aware of? Like there aren't other high profile, hotly anticipated vinyl releases that factory workers would be tempted to steal & sell if they could get away with it? Then think about the logistics of pressing up a record. If you're the label, you order a certain amount pressed, maybe a few test pressings but those usually are just plain without artwork. You KNOW how many are supposed to be made cause you are making the order, and you know who you are ordering from. It's not some mystery who pressed your records. If you get your order of whatever, say 300 records and then before the release you see that someone is selling copies of it online when the run was supposed to be limited to 300, then you KNOW something fishy is going on with the pressing plant, and you would contact them, and they would take it pretty seriously as their professional reputation would be at stake. These plants aren't like factories with thousands of untraceable people working in them, and the music business is small - especially with things like this. I mean how many record pressing plants are even out there. Not that many. How about they pressed these up and it got pulled at the last minute or they decided to save them for RSD or the death of the Queen or something else? But a few boxes did got shipped out to distributors? This has happened before on several occasions, one of the most notable one is the Bruce Springsteen - Point Blank 7". It got pulled, since the new record was almost done, but a few boxes of singles did end up with representatives of CBS and in several Dutch stores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown pleasures Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) I dare say it looks legit but no one on this board is going to be anymore helpful than the collectors in the Morrissey forum linked to above which have a solid 13 page debate going on (and still haven't reached a consensus!). Edited February 8, 2017 by unknown pleasures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the industry Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 15 minutes ago, nico said: How about they pressed these up and it got pulled at the last minute or they decided to save them for RSD or the death of the Queen or something else? But a few boxes did got shipped out to distributors? This has happened before on several occasions, one of the most notable one is the Bruce Springsteen - Point Blank 7". It got pulled, since the new record was almost done, but a few boxes of singles did end up with representatives of CBS and in several Dutch stores. It's possible but pretty unlikely. That said, I wasn't really commenting on if it's real or not, I was speaking directly to his question about if an employee in the warehouse was stealing them and then selling before they were released - that doesn't seem very likely to me. But I would lean towards it being a fake since there is no info from the label anywhere online and it's such a random release, and the whole origin story of it just seems really shady. Why that song released as a single now? What's the significance of it? Why 3 random instrumentals on the b-side? I could be wrong though. If it was a US release I could find out in a minute if it was legit or not, but Warner UK I'm not as well connected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the industry Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 35 minutes ago, nico said: Also both front and back picture have been used by Morrissey recently during his live shows. The way the names and instruments are written the same way as on the Sweet and Tender Hooligan 12", which was designed by Morrissey back in the day. Label design is similar to the classic Warner singles from the late 1950's. But most of all, everything feels and looks real, I have been collecting vinyl for two decades now, so I have seen a lot of counterfeits en bootlegs over the years 1. That's probably why they chose it, so it had some relation to Moz and people would THINK it was official. So Moz is using the image to promote some recent shows, and now he's gonna re-use that random image as the art for an old, well known Smiths song re-issue? Do you really think he would do that? 2. Again, to me sounds like a too-clever-by-half trick to make you THINK it's real. So what, that's like a thing now? Are they gonna do that for EVERY Smiths release from here on out? Or is it the type of thing you might do if you were a bootlegger trying to get one over on people… 3. Why use a WB label design from the 50's? Unless WB is going retro and using it across their entire line or something, seems weird they would just start using that now for THIS specific release, doesn't it? 4. I think that is the idea, obviously, but the part that is bizarre is that there is no official info coming from anywhere - not the band, the label, or any other sort of official source. You might think they're trying to keep it a secret to surprise people with, but that is VERY hard to do in this business these days. The only real surprise releases were digital only, and for good reason - once you send an album off to be pressed physically, whether it's vinyl CD's or whatever, that's when you start getting leaks. And those surprise releases were big anticipated albums that got a ton of publicity off the surprise of their announcement, not a random old single reissue. If this was real and they surprised people with this release, I think a lot of people would respond like "uhh, ok?" meaning it doesn't have the same impact as a NEW album, or even ONE new song. Honestly, I don't know - I could very well be wrong, I'm just basing it off my instincts having worked in the biz for awhile. Since you have bought it, you are probably experiencing confirmation bias where you WANT it to be real. I can understand that, but imagine this scenario - say it is real, but the run was something like 50,000 units. So once they actually hit the street, this record you (presumably) paid a lot for overnight declines in value exponentially. In that situation, you might prefer it was a very limited bootleg, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nico Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 20 minutes ago, the industry said: 1. That's probably why they chose it, so it had some relation to Moz and people would THINK it was official. So Moz is using the image to promote some recent shows, and now he's gonna re-use that random image as the art for an old, well known Smiths song re-issue? Do you really think he would do that? 2. Again, to me sounds like a too-clever-by-half trick to make you THINK it's real. So what, that's like a thing now? Are they gonna do that for EVERY Smiths release from here on out? Or is it the type of thing you might do if you were a bootlegger trying to get one over on people… 3. Why use a WB label design from the 50's? Unless WB is going retro and using it across their entire line or something, seems weird they would just start using that now for THIS specific release, doesn't it? 4. I think that is the idea, obviously, but the part that is bizarre is that there is no official info coming from anywhere - not the band, the label, or any other sort of official source. You might think they're trying to keep it a secret to surprise people with, but that is VERY hard to do in this business these days. The only real surprise releases were digital only, and for good reason - once you send an album off to be pressed physically, whether it's vinyl CD's or whatever, that's when you start getting leaks. And those surprise releases were big anticipated albums that got a ton of publicity off the surprise of their announcement, not a random old single reissue. If this was real and they surprised people with this release, I think a lot of people would respond like "uhh, ok?" meaning it doesn't have the same impact as a NEW album, or even ONE new song. Honestly, I don't know - I could very well be wrong, I'm just basing it off my instincts having worked in the biz for awhile. Since you have bought it, you are probably experiencing confirmation bias where you WANT it to be real. I can understand that, but imagine this scenario - say it is real, but the run was something like 50,000 units. So once they actually hit the street, this record you (presumably) paid a lot for overnight declines in value exponentially. In that situation, you might prefer it was a very limited bootleg, right? 1. Those are not random image, like almost all Smiths releases and a lot of the Morrissey outings, the images/still was choosing from 50 and 60's movies, celebraties and artists. 3. Why did HMV/Victor reinstated the old logo for the Morrissey releases? Well Morrissey wanted it. Sames goes for those singles on Decca, they did return to the old 60's design of the labels for the Morrissey singles. 4. Well I did show up on those Warner lists from that Slovenian distributor, also I got confirmation from my local record store it was available for pre-order from their local distributor. So no I don't have the president of Warner given me a written testimony on the legitimateness of this release. But there are clear indications that something was in production. Are you aware how the record industry works in Europe? I didn't paid a lot for it, (retail plus shipping from a foreign country) but I would like confirmation it is real since I get annoyed with everyone making assumptions it is fake, only because it fits their story/truth more for obvious reasons without giving solid proof why it is fake. If it turns out to be a cancelled/pulled release then cool, if it us regular release, that will regular available that would be great too, regardless if the current market value will drop. If it is a bootleg that would be kind of sad, since I for fell for it, but hats off to the bootlegger for making such of a convincing bootleg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxonjulin Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 12 hours ago, the industry said: You're a vinyl collector, right? Ask yourself - has that EVER happened before, that you are aware of? Like there aren't other high profile, hotly anticipated vinyl releases that factory workers would be tempted to steal & sell if they could get away with it? Then think about the logistics of pressing up a record. If you're the label, you order a certain amount pressed, maybe a few test pressings but those usually are just plain without artwork. You KNOW how many are supposed to be made cause you are making the order, and you know who you are ordering from. It's not some mystery who pressed your records. If you get your order of whatever, say 300 records and then before the release you see that someone is selling copies of it online when the run was supposed to be limited to 300, then you KNOW something fishy is going on with the pressing plant, and you would contact them, and they would take it pretty seriously as their professional reputation would be at stake. These plants aren't like factories with thousands of untraceable people working in them, and the music business is small - especially with things like this. I mean how many record pressing plants are even out there. Not that many. This actually HAS happened before. 3 months before it's Reissue there was a melvins - Houdini with a third man record label on eBay for $200. I was scratching my head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxonjulin Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 12 hours ago, the industry said: You're a vinyl collector, right? Ask yourself - has that EVER happened before, that you are aware of? Like there aren't other high profile, hotly anticipated vinyl releases that factory workers would be tempted to steal & sell if they could get away with it? Then think about the logistics of pressing up a record. If you're the label, you order a certain amount pressed, maybe a few test pressings but those usually are just plain without artwork. You KNOW how many are supposed to be made cause you are making the order, and you know who you are ordering from. It's not some mystery who pressed your records. If you get your order of whatever, say 300 records and then before the release you see that someone is selling copies of it online when the run was supposed to be limited to 300, then you KNOW something fishy is going on with the pressing plant, and you would contact them, and they would take it pretty seriously as their professional reputation would be at stake. These plants aren't like factories with thousands of untraceable people working in them, and the music business is small - especially with things like this. I mean how many record pressing plants are even out there. Not that many. This actually HAS happened before. 3 months before it's Reissue there was a melvins - Houdini with a third man record label on eBay for $200. I was scratching my head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxonjulin Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 If you are going to go the bootleg route than why go through the trouble of making it look this good and only press a few copies? It just doesn't happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glass realms Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Okay, I was wrong. I just got word from my contact at Warners UK that this is indeed a legit release that got pulled. It was meant to be a Black Friday RSD 2016 release. The artwork and design was approved by Morrissey himself but Johnny Marr put a stop to the release at the last minute because he never intended the radio edit of The Queen Is Dead to be commercially released. They have no idea how copies ended up in the wild because they thought they had all the manufactured product destroyed. So if you got a copy, consider yourself one lucky person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Cocteau Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, glass realms said: Okay, I was wrong. I just got word from my contact at Warners UK that this is indeed a legit release that got pulled. It was meant to be a Black Friday RSD 2016 release. The artwork and design was approved by Morrissey himself but Johnny Marr put a stop to the release at the last minute because he never intended the radio edit of The Queen Is Dead to be commercially released. They have no idea how copies ended up in the wild because they thought they had all the manufactured product destroyed. So if you got a copy, consider yourself one lucky person. This sounds wonderful, but elephant in the room : the record and sleeve are dated 2017. Hardly Black Friday RSD? The code "12QID2017A/B" doesn't help either as it is atypical to any other Smiths record code and, again, the date is in the code - hardly for RSD and the date in the code is just bizarre. The debate elsewhere also states the barcodes relate to a 7 and 12 inch picture disc from the Warner Bros information. The guy getting frustrated that people are questioning it will have to bite his lip until there is a definitive statement. Edited February 8, 2017 by Poppy Cocteau poweredbytrust 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_nowhere_fast_ Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 But it has (c)2017 in several places, on the sleeve and on the record label itself. Why would they do this if it was due to be released for RSD 2016? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throughbeingcruel Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Next week on Unsolved Mysteries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusted_By_Space Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 I really miss robert stack. throughbeingcruel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throughbeingcruel Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 13 hours ago, Dusted_By_Space said: I really miss robert stack. The first two seasons are streaming on Amazon! Dusted_By_Space 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) Looks like this is legit and is officially getting released this Friday along with a 7": 7": https://www.discogs.com/The-Smiths-The-Queen-Is-Dead/release/9958556 Edited June 13, 2017 by fish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown pleasures Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Way to derail the Unsolved Mysteries thread with your news of official and release dates. Meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nico Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Curious if everything is the same or if they repressed the jackets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsimmons Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 So its an HMV exclusive? Lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxonjulin Posted June 14, 2017 Author Share Posted June 14, 2017 What's weird is it didn't appear on the full confirmed HMV list. Anyone else notice that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsimmons Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Possible misinformation from the Morrissey camp, I'm shocked. 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.