PO: THE MARS VOLTA Frances the Mute triple LP

[Thomas³]

Well, the band saw no money from it, so that's probably why they were not happy with it.

[thievedrelic]

WHY WOULD YOU GUYS BUMP THIS THREAD FOR THIS AND GIVE ME FALSE HOPE

[daegor]

2 minutes ago, Thomas³ said:

Well, the band saw no money from it, so that's probably why they were not happy with it.

Fair, but still misguided, MOV has been doing this a long time.  They would have done everything above board, if Mars Volta came out the other side without money they need to yell at their label or take a closer look at their contract.

[daegor]

1 minute ago, thievedrelic said:

WHY WOULD YOU GUYS BUMP THIS THREAD FOR THIS AND GIVE ME FALSE HOPE

I seriously considered not just for this reason, haha.

 

Though, if someone would answer my question perhaps we can just all resign ourselves to the 'unofficial' 2015 release (which apparently IS the official repress, just released in less-than-legal fashion).

[youspinmeround]

Nothing illegal or shady about mov at all 

[shawnayala90]

Wait, where is there an MOV press of frances?? I thought they only did Deloused and Amputechture?

[daegor]

1 minute ago, shawnayala90 said:

Wait, where is there an MOV press of frances?? I thought they only did Deloused and Amputechture?

Not really, no.  There is this:  https://www.discogs.com/The-Mars-Volta-Frances-The-Mute/release/7418673

 

Which apparently was what was going to be released.

[shawnayala90]

1 minute ago, daegor said:

Not really, no.  There is this:  https://www.discogs.com/The-Mars-Volta-Frances-The-Mute/release/7418673

 

Which apparently was what was going to be released.

Ah i see, as someone who owns all the og pressings besides Deloused, i say just hunt down a 2005 3LP copy. It sounds incredible, and that one looks a little sketchy to me.

[daegor]

So... my original question:

 

1 hour ago, daegor said:

So, since we're never going to see an 'official' repress of this, does anyone have both the 2005 and 2015 pressings and can comment on the sound quality?

 

[highfives]

46 minutes ago, DOMAN127 said:

Yeah, considering what a great job MOV does it would've been worth the inevitably high price tag. Hell, I got De-Loused on the secondary market, but I would've paid the $40-$50 it was initially.

I think the SRC version was even cheaper than that.

[ethereal]

1 hour ago, thievedrelic said:

WHY WOULD YOU GUYS BUMP THIS THREAD FOR THIS AND GIVE ME FALSE HOPE

seriously tho

[kannibal]

Just bumping this to keep the false hope alive and to say fuck counterfeit records.

[DecayToDeath]

1 hour ago, daegor said:

Though, if someone would answer my question perhaps we can just all resign ourselves to the 'unofficial' 2015 release (which apparently IS the official repress, just released in less-than-legal fashion).

Can you explain this? Is there an article or something you could link? If it's official, I'd buy one. Discogs reviews (take them with a grain of salt if you will) say it sounds excellent.

[glass realms]

I need to remember to start unloading my Mars Volta records when the new At The Drive-In album comes out.

[ethereal]

1 hour ago, daegor said:

Though, if someone would answer my question perhaps we can just all resign ourselves to the 'unofficial' 2015 release (which apparently IS the official repress, just released in less-than-legal fashion).

just because a bootleg sounds decent doesn't mean it's not a bootleg... pretty pointless to bump this just to get people to support your purchase of a bootleg...

[daegor]

24 minutes ago, DOMAN127 said:

Can you explain this? Is there an article or something you could link? If it's official, I'd buy one. Discogs reviews (take them with a grain of salt if you will) say it sounds excellent.

I'm a little hazy on the details myself.  I did a quick search and couldn't really find anything, but I do recall reading about it at the time.  There is this:  https://www.discogs.com/label/850220-Gold-Standard-Laboratories-2

Quote

This secondary label was created to house unofficial recordings claiming to be from Gold Standard Laboratories

GSL being the label co-run by Omar.

2 minutes ago, ethereal said:

just because a bootleg sounds decent doesn't mean it's not a bootleg... pretty pointless to bump this just to get people to support your purchase of a bootleg...

WTF are you even talking about?

[DecayToDeath]

16 minutes ago, daegor said:

I'm a little hazy on the details myself.  I did a quick search and couldn't really find anything, but I do recall reading about it at the time.  There is this:  https://www.discogs.com/label/850220-Gold-Standard-Laboratories-2

GSL being the label co-run by Omar.

From the looks of it, they're counterfeit and just used Omar's label because they needed to say it came from somewhere

[natenomm]

[ethereal]

 

19 minutes ago, daegor said:

 

WTF are you even talking about?

 

3 minutes ago, DOMAN127 said:

From the looks of it, they're counterfeit and just used Omar's label because they needed to say it came from somewhere

 

[daegor]

6 minutes ago, DOMAN127 said:

From the looks of it, they're counterfeit and just used Omar's label because they needed to say it came from somewhere

Very possible.

 

I do wonder if these are the plates MOV was going to use (they were far enough along in the process to have plates made before they ceased).  They has definitely been the case in many bootleg situations.

 

Hence my question.  Does anyone actually own a copy of it or nah?

[DecayToDeath]

1 minute ago, daegor said:

Hence my question.  Does anyone actually own a copy of it or nah?

I could buy one and report back #fortheboard but I'll have to see if I can expend ~$50 at the moment

[daegor]

Just now, DOMAN127 said:

I could buy one and report back #fortheboard but I'll have to see if I can expend ~$50 at the moment

I may very well do this myself (and am in the same boat, haha)

[rogeoa8]

I had the 2015 press and it sounded great. It is little known (and at least was not updated on discogs when i last checked) but the 2015 product code or whatever  on the spine reads "GLS 96" not "GSL 96" for "Gold Standard Labs". Easy way to tell the two apart as I believe the 2005 version shows "GSL 96"

[daegor]

11 minutes ago, rogeoa8 said:

I had the 2015 press and it sounded great. It is little known (and at least was not updated on discogs when i last checked) but the 2015 product code or whatever  on the spine reads "GLS 96" not "GSL 96" for "Gold Standard Labs". Easy way to tell the two apart as I believe the 2005 version shows "GSL 96"

Cheers!

[hxcoliver]

19 minutes ago, rogeoa8 said:

I had the 2015 press and it sounded great. It is little known (and at least was not updated on discogs when i last checked) but the 2015 product code or whatever  on the spine reads "GLS 96" not "GSL 96" for "Gold Standard Labs". Easy way to tell the two apart as I believe the 2005 version shows "GSL 96"

and also, isn't the 2015 version missing the etching on the last side? at least from what i've seen pictures. i've been meaning to buy one myself, just to have in my Volta collection, bootleg or not.