Revelation's answer about Texas is the Reason

[Guest Admin]

Official word from Revelation is below. Because of this, we are going to send out the records we have on order. They will accept returns:

OK - so we listened to both sides and it's fine here. i talked to our resident vinyl expert and he said it's b/c it's a really long record. it's one of those that pretty much is as long as it can be. so the grooves are thinner, making it more likely for the needle to skip if it's a light needle or a cheap turntable. solution; place a dime on the arm of the needle. that often works.

otherwise people can feel free to return them to us, no problem at all.

[ronniethebear]

That sucks in a way, because they should have just made it 45 rpm and 2xLP. Oh well though, I'm still glad to finally have a copy.

[skumbucket]

that dime thing works. especially for those of us with cheap tables.

[steventangent]

Woo. Nothing like a little compromised sound quality. Lawdamussy.

[counterfiction]

GET REAL TABLES!

[benchwarmer]

drink some 'tussin

[aarondanger]

revelation hates small labels im convinced

[jhulud]

Well...that was cop-out answer from Rev.

[adammuzzy]

i can't stand rev. they have like 6 good releases out of 150ish, and they seem like the cockiest label.

[thomas]

I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive!

[Guest abravemorning]

Bullshit. The album is 37 minutes long. For a standard 12" record at 33 RPM, that's not really that long.

Weak sauce.

[sgoodcore]

That's about as long as a 33 RPM 12" record can get from what I've been told but its by no means pushing the limit. I've been quoted up to 20 min/side. I think the Leatherface side of their split with HWM is close to 20 and there's no issue with odd skipping for me.

[Guest abravemorning]

That's about as long as a 33 RPM 12" record can get from what I've been told but its by no means pushing the limit. I've been quoted up to 20 min/side. I think the Leatherface side of their split with HWM is close to 20 and there's no issue with odd skipping for me.

I've got albums that are 45+ minutes total and with superb quality on both sides. The original presses of the TITR didn't have this problem. They probably should've just gone with a different pressing plant.

[scottheisel]

i can't stand rev... they seem like the cockiest label.

Totally 100% agreed. Considering they're basically living off a 20-year-old back catalog, they have quite the condescending attitude in general. They haven't had an actual "hit" record in years -- what was the last truly successful band on Rev? Elliott? Gameface? The Movielife? They've released nothing of any permanent historical note in a long while. (Shook Ones are not of note, people.)

[jhulud]

uh...Shai Hulud?

[magalvsr13]

GET REAL TABLES!

GIVE ME MONEY! IM POOR!

[scottheisel]

uh...Shai Hulud?

Their first record came before the bands I mentioned, and that's definitely the more important of the two (I'm sure you'd agree).

[matt]

can anyone who bought recent repress tell if its pressed at pirates? the last 10 records or so rev put out have been pressed there rather than united/erika where the original was pressed.

why all the hate on rev? i dont so much know the staff there anymore but from my experience there they had nothing but the nicest and most genuine people working. i dont know jordan personally since he was hardly in the office but he knows at least a thing or to about who to let run production for him. they were beginning to go back to signing bands similar to what they would release in their glory day. the sinking ships, shook ones, and down to nothing records sold extremely well but its not going to be a "hit" in the same way a record released from victory, vagrant, or fat. rev as a label is at a much smaller level than any of them and dont cater to the same crowd, never have and probably never will. i cant see them as being cocky either, but if thats what youre called if you put out records by bands you like then so be it. i suppose im a little bias and hold them in a high regard but this still is a great label.

[sgoodcore]

That's about as long as a 33 RPM 12" record can get from what I've been told but its by no means pushing the limit. I've been quoted up to 20 min/side. I think the Leatherface side of their split with HWM is close to 20 and there's no issue with odd skipping for me.

I've got albums that are 45+ minutes total and with superb quality on both sides. The original presses of the TITR didn't have this problem. They probably should've just gone with a different pressing plant.

Okay, fair enough. I'm not arguing with you in the least. When I talked to someone over at Pirates Press they quoted a max of 18-20 minutes. I think they said 22 was the absolute max. Maybe it had to do with something they weren't telling me, I'm not sure. Interesting that 45+ can fit on a single LP though. I'll have to remember that.

[forgeagain]

You can definitely go over 20 minutes per side on an LP. I'd keep it around there or less though. Pirates Press might not be able to do it because they use DMM or whatever to plate the records. Really, once you hit 20 minutes, the sound quality starts going downhill exponentially fast. Not like most people own nice enough turntables to tell the difference between a 19 minute or 21 minute side LP though.

A 37 minute album should fit nicely provided it's split equally down the middle, unless it's like 25 minutes on one side and 12 on the other.

[dietrootbeer]

i can't stand rev... they seem like the cockiest label.

Totally 100% agreed. Considering they're basically living off a 20-year-old back catalog, they have quite the condescending attitude in general. They haven't had an actual "hit" record in years -- what was the last truly successful band on Rev? Elliott? Gameface? The Movielife? They've released nothing of any permanent historical note in a long while. (Shook Ones are not of note, people.)

what?....

WHAT?!? did i just read this?!

why does it have to be a "hit" or "historical" to be good? every release doesnt need to be a chung king.

off of the top of my head: Down to nothing, shook ones, movielife, texas is the reason, in my eyes, shai halud, sinking ships, fastbreak, dag nasty... and not even to mention their "20 year old back catalog".

[mattisr1984]

im kinda surprised at the slagging on rev here. they may not be the label they once were to a lot of people but i can think of a handful of solid releases even in the last year or two from them.

[scottheisel]

Totally 100% agreed. Considering they're basically living off a 20-year-old back catalog, they have quite the condescending attitude in general. They haven't had an actual "hit" record in years -- what was the last truly successful band on Rev? Elliott? Gameface? The Movielife? They've released nothing of any permanent historical note in a long while. (Shook Ones are not of note, people.)

what?....

WHAT?!? did i just read this?!

why does it have to be a "hit" or "historical" to be good? every release doesnt need to be a chung king.

off of the top of my head: Down to nothing, shook ones, movielife, texas is the reason, in my eyes, shai halud, sinking ships, fastbreak, dag nasty... and not even to mention their "20 year old back catalog".

Not every release has to be a musical grand slam, but when you come off as cocky as Rev can sometimes, you better be backing it up with your current crop of releases, and I don't think they are.

We have a feature in AP called Label Profile where we (surprise, surprise) profile a different record label every month and get their story, basically. First off, Jordan refused to talk to us, and we ended up having to talk to their "head of A&R," who came off as the biggest condescending prick ever, basically making his label sound like they were putting out platinum records every week. I'd NEVER encountered any label boss that arrogant while doing that column, and I still haven't to this day.

[boizee]

It may be a little off-topic, but how, if at all, does this new press differ from the previous ones? I got mine a few years ago, so was just wondering...

[matt]

what?....

WHAT?!? did i just read this?!

why does it have to be a "hit" or "historical" to be good? every release doesnt need to be a chung king.

off of the top of my head: Down to nothing, shook ones, movielife, texas is the reason, in my eyes, shai halud, sinking ships, fastbreak, dag nasty... and not even to mention their "20 year old back catalog".

Not every release has to be a musical grand slam, but when you come off as cocky as Rev can sometimes, you better be backing it up with your current crop of releases, and I don't think they are.

We have a feature in AP called Label Profile where we (surprise, surprise) profile a different record label every month and get their story, basically. First off, Jordan refused to talk to us, and we ended up having to talk to their "head of A&R," who came off as the biggest condescending prick ever, basically making his label sound like they were putting out platinum records every week. I'd NEVER encountered any label boss that arrogant while doing that column, and I still haven't to this day.

haha was that bob shedd? i wouldnt have been there for the interview but he is the nicest and most genuine person at rev. i was supposed to be in that picture they did.