Jump to content

Handsome --- just saw this..never before on vinyl


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

SRC To Release High Quality Deluxe Pressing of Handsome’s ST Album

 

ShopRadioCast have announced via their newsletter that SRC033 will be a high quality, limited edition pressing of Handsome “Handsome” due out late Sept / early October! The album will feature a single LP along with a bonus 7″ that includes two tracks never before released in North America. The audio was mastered for vinyl and lacquers created by the famous Stan Ricker who is credited for some of Mobile Fidelity’s heralded releases. The artwork will encompasses all components from the CD releases and is laid out across a gatefold (with 7″ slit to house the 7″) and an 11 x 22 insert.  They noted pre order will be sometime next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From SRC's Facebook:

 

 

 

Shop Radio Cast They are completely different releases. Different art, different audio mastering, different sources etc... We got the license in early June and the label accidentally double licensed it shortly after us to the other label. Not trying to compete with anyone its just how it happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SRC To Release High Quality Deluxe Pressing of Handsome’s ST Album

ShopRadioCast have announced via their newsletter that SRC033 will be a high quality, limited edition pressing of Handsome “Handsome” due out late Sept / early October! The album will feature a single LP along with a bonus 7″ that includes two tracks never before released in North America. The audio was mastered for vinyl and lacquers created by the famous Stan Ricker who is credited for some of Mobile Fidelity’s heralded releases. The artwork will encompasses all components from the CD releases and is laid out across a gatefold (with 7″ slit to house the 7″) and an 11 x 22 insert. They noted pre order will be sometime next week.

weird but I'm not going to complain. I already ordered the 6131 version and from the sounds of the SRC version, I'll definitely be ordering the SRC one as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't afford both, so the 7" combined with SRC's outstanding quality on their releases led to me to request a cancellation on my 6131/No Sleep order. I feel bad for those guys ad I truly wish I could justify having both. Maybe if more people bought some stuff from my sale thread (wink wink, nudge nudge), I could afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't get approval from the band, but get the rights from the label, do the bands stand to make any money from it? I mean, Handsome gave their "blessing" to 6131 so I'd assume they're getting paid through Sony and I'm pretty sure Quicksand were getting paid for the reissues of Slip and Manic Compression. If I'm not mistaken, Hum not receiving anything was due more to their contract with the original label.

 

If I'm wrong, please correct me. Just trying to make sense out of all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each and every time SRC presses some album, the "band did not approve of this!" stuff gets brought up. I'm not defending SRC here, just tired of hearing it. 

 

I don't know how the music and record business works. Wouldn't the entity, label or band themselves, who have the rights and ownership to the record itself be the one to license it out if they want?

 

Sooooooooo...if I start a label and want to repress Lionel Ritchie's "All Night Long" and the record is under the ownership of RCA and not Ritchie, and I go through all the proper and legal channels to get the license to press it, and now Ritchie is upset w/ me and not giving me his blessing, how would I be the guy? Would I be doing anything shady then? If the contract that Ritchie signed with RCA states that the album rights belong to the label and not Ritchie, how would getting the OK from RCA be wrong?

 

As I said...I'm not in the business at any scale. 

 

(And no idea if that is even the name of Ritchie's record and/or if he is/was on RCA. Just putting examples up.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn. I wonder if members of the band got word of SRC acquiring rights and decided to take it upon themselves to try to get it out first so they could make a little something out of it. I wouldnt blame em one but for it. Music business stuff is exhausting, but I'm glad good out of print music is getting back into print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna try to pick up the SRC version also, so if anyone wants some Helmet records I'm selling some here

*cheap plug*

http://boards.vinylcollective.com/topic/92830-fs-updated-helmet-meantime-original-pressing-strap-it-on-colored-or-black-reissue/?p=1610364

 

Also looking to get rid of my Manic Compression and Slip colors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each and every time SRC presses some album, the "band did not approve of this!" stuff gets brought up. I'm not defending SRC here, just tired of hearing it. 

 

I don't know how the music and record business works. Wouldn't the entity, label or band themselves, who have the rights and ownership to the record itself be the one to license it out if they want?

 

Sooooooooo...if I start a label and want to repress Lionel Ritchie's "All Night Long" and the record is under the ownership of RCA and not Ritchie, and I go through all the proper and legal channels to get the license to press it, and now Ritchie is upset w/ me and not giving me his blessing, how would I be the guy? Would I be doing anything shady then? If the contract that Ritchie signed with RCA states that the album rights belong to the label and not Ritchie, how would getting the OK from RCA be wrong?

 

As I said...I'm not in the business at any scale. 

 

(And no idea if that is even the name of Ritchie's record and/or if he is/was on RCA. Just putting examples up.)

 

You're telling me that if SRC contacted Equal Vision and licensed Converge "When Forever Comes Crashing" and released it without contacting Bannon or Ballou that you would be totally cool with it and wouldn't think it was even remotely shady?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that not a reasonable answer?
It's a perfect comparison.

 

Yes, 99% of the time the label owns the rights to the record and has complete control over it.

That doesn't make it right.

 

In my experience, the point of reissues is to have music you love, from a band you love, on a format you love. If you really love the band and the album, wouldn't you want to have some contact with the band instead of just going behind their back and doing it? It is their art regardless of who "owns" it and I would reckon most artists would like to have some input on how their art is represented.

 

The only reason you'd not try and get in touch with the band is because you simply don't care and are just reissuing the album because you know it'll sell copies, which is exactly what SRC is doing.

 

So yes, it is fucking shady. It's essentially an authorized bootleg. It's amazing that it's such a non issue for most of you guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×

AdBlock Detected

spacer.png

We noticed that you're using an adBlocker

Yes, I'll whitelist