The Vool Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 LOL@ this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futures Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 rubber soul <3 & i love wings/botr. nineteen hundred eighty five is one of the best live songs i've ever heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_James_Champ Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 My favorite Wings song is "Love Take Me Down (To The Streets)" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecayToDeath Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 The Foo Fighters cover of Band on the Run is pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhook Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Have never been a fan. Don't understand the constant represses of the same records over and over again as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapalmBrain Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Have never been a fan. Don't understand the constant represses of the same records over and over again as well. capitol loves money, but the mono mixes and stereo mixes are drastically different, so that's why there are two seperate pressings. The stereo had a digital step, and the mono was all analog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhook Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 If anyone was around this board when they were pressing that boxset will remember how it slowed down so many preorders. Every plant was churning out represses of already readily available Beatles records. I have a beef with the collector side of it. I can't tell you the number of times I have been at a record show or in a record store and have seen a thrashed copy of any Beatles record with a huge asking price. Just because it's old doesn't make it valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapalmBrain Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 If anyone was around this board when they were pressing that boxset will remember how it slowed down so many preorders. Every plant was churning out represses of already readily available Beatles records. I have a beef with the collector side of it. I can't tell you the number of times I have been at a record show or in a record store and have seen a thrashed copy of any Beatles record with a huge asking price. Just because it's old doesn't make it valuable. you can't blame one release for slowing down pressing times, especially when shit like adventure time picture discs are getting pressed, and the stereo pressing had so many issues with pressing defects and people were pissed about the sourcing, so they did it right the second time, also they did one of each mix on cd so of course it's smart marketing during the vinyl resurgence to repress the best selling band of all time. As for the overpriced beat up old copies, story of my life. I worked in record stores for years as a vinyl buyer and I couldn't tell you how many beat up capitol pressings and represses people would come in asking a bunch of money for, it's even worse with Elvis sometimes though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daegor Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 By no means should you be forced to enjoy the Beatles, but you could at least respect what they did for pop music. Though I suppose I shouldn't argue nativity with anyone nearing their 50s, complaining to strangers via the Internet. Fixed. While their biggest impact was definitely in the "pop" world of music, they truly shaped the musical landscape. And not just sonically, the industry itself was drastically altered and still tries to emulate and reproduce that level of success and stardom (for better or worse, mostly worse). Sonically there are even (rather valid arguments) that they planted the seed for what became doom metal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Want_You_(She%27s_So_Heavy)) I spent a long time not liking The Beatles, and if directly asked would state as much. But in the same breath I would never deny their importance or impact on the world of music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladewillisisdead Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 you can't blame one release for slowing down pressing times, especially when shit like adventure time picture discs are getting pressed, and the stereo pressing had so many issues with pressing defects and people were pissed about the sourcing, so they did it right the second time, also they did one of each mix on cd so of course it's smart marketing during the vinyl resurgence to repress the best selling band of all time. As for the overpriced beat up old copies, story of my life. I worked in record stores for years as a vinyl buyer and I couldn't tell you how many beat up capitol pressings and represses people would come in asking a bunch of money for, it's even worse with Elvis sometimes though It definitely clogged up the plants though. I remember everything else getting delayed around that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapalmBrain Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 It definitely clogged up the plants though. I remember everything else getting delayed around that time. there weren't massive delays when the stereo series was released, and the mono series was pressed at MPO which is more expensive than most plants, and since 90% of the music people on this board give a shit about is pressed at GZ it's a moot point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhook Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I don't give a shit about what 90% of this board listens too. I know for a fact that some of those represses put stuff that was on a list to be pressed on the back burner so they could be done on time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapalmBrain Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I don't give a shit about what 90% of this board listens too. I know for a fact that some of those represses put stuff that was on a list to be pressed on the back burner so they could be done on time. source link please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapalmBrain Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 oh i was wrong they were pressed at optimal, even pricier than MPO and I actually thought of an RFC release pressed at MPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhook Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Here is a post on this very board about it. http://boards.vinylcollective.com/topic/87723-major-label-vinyl-delays-help/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhook Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Here's a vice article that mentions it. http://m.noisey.vice.com/blog/how-independent-artists-and-labels-are-getting-squeezed-out-by-the-vinyl-revival There are a few facebook posts from bands complaining about it from that time as well as a couple more article's about it, you want to see those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapalmBrain Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I see people using it as a scapegoat, and not one example of anyone squeezed out had their record pressed at optimal. So explain to me how a bunch of poor indie bands who have their records pressed at GZ, Rainbo, Gotta Groove and United are being pushed out by The mono remasters. This defies logic, you can blame jack white for clogging up united if you want I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapalmBrain Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 unless indie bands want to charge over $20 for their release to make up for the higher price for unit, but they don't so they stick with the 4 plants listed above a majority of the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAXXX Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 brand new and blink 182 wouldn't exist if not for the beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daegor Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 brand new and blink 182 wouldn't exist if not for the beatles. Can I redact my previous argument and change it to 'I Hate The Beatles'? streetwaves 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhook Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I know NapalmBrain doesn't believe me but it was a huge story covered by multiple sites and people at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daegor Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I know NapalmBrain doesn't believe me but it was a huge story covered by multiple sites and people at the time. While NapalmBrain's point is valid, it doesn't change that that was the story being reported by the media/small labels. Maybe it was an excuse given by pressing plants to labels? Who knows. Regardless, if you max out the production of Plant A, it is going to have a residual effect on Plant B, regardless of who uses what plant to press which shitty album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapalmBrain Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I understand the frustration, and I get that's the excuse people want to throw out there, and it's possible that maybe it bumped some other release and snubbed someone due to how big their order was in comparison which sucks but there's capitalism for you. I don't even like UMGD and don't want to defend them, I just don't see concrete examples of labels or bands who even wanted to use that plant but couldn't cause of the beatles reissues. It probably did screw over some european band, but no one crying in that noisey article. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of any US band using that plant due to higher cost (when you can cut all analog, stereo or mono and have great QC you generally charge more than someone cutting mp3s to DMM) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacredheart Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Or bands and labels were squeezed out of that plant and went to others which squeezed out bands from those plants. I remember it bring an issue as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapalmBrain Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Or bands and labels were squeezed out of that plant and went to others which squeezed out bands from those plants. I remember it bring an issue as well. this is the most sound argument so far a point I didn't see raised in the article 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.