Has anyone ever complained??

[Spaz]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Rubellan[/i]
<br>Well, because it's cattle like you (and I have a pretty good idea who you are)

Although not offensive, this type of 'name calling' is unnecessary. I count myself as one of the 'cattle' as most people do. What you are doing is dissing a good portion of the people here on the board.

And these people keep the reissue business alive.

Please set up a label and do a better job than anyone else here.

Then, us cattle will boycott your release just as you have suggested in many posts.

SPAZ
Born of innocence. Free of ignorance.

[Spaz]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Rubellan[/i]

Congratulations! You have added to the ongoing "Quality is not important" motto.
[/quote]

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Now, I expect you to come face to face with me and talk to me about this.

I do not hide behind my computer like you do. I am not a KEYBOARD WARRIOR: big tough man when he's sitting at his computer typing, but a totally unlikeable worm-like person when face to face.

If we're being honest here, in this industry, you've burned more bridges than you've crossed. That's why no labels will deal with you.

SPAZ
Born of innocence. Free of ignorance.

[Rubellan]

If you honestly think I’d avoid telling you this face to face, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, if we were face to face I’d have quite a time holding back from pouncing. Yes, I’m very passionate, and I will NOT stand in the shadows while the problems get worse. This is an ongoing issue, and not some new dilemma that has just cropped up in recent years. Excuse me for being tired of getting screwed, but I don't bend over that easily.

And what do you mean labels won’t work with me? I don’t recall starting up a website and advertising my services. I did 4 masters for Cherry Red, all of which received glowing reviews across the board, and that was just a bit of freelance work – emphasis on the “free”. I would never do remastering as a full time career because it could never pay a suitable income with only being able to provide 10 masters or less a month, and that’s because it takes days to create one adequately. Not to mention that I already have a career which I’ve worked very hard at.

Funny, but I remember even back when I started remastering, I would hear comments quite often like; “Where did you get the master tapes from”? If people thought I had used masters, I must have been doing something right, and I have many additional years of experience now. The only thing that could happen from my involvement with any record company who has to do vinyl remastering is they would obtain a reputation of having top quality. Wouldn’t that be terrible? Validation for all of my bitching…

[Grunch]

My goal is to legitimately purchase the music. If the mastering, vinyl or otherwise, sounds good to ME, that is all that matters. I have a right to be satisfied with the sound of the music I pay for. I am not obligated to buy poor quality just to feed the musician, or line their pockets. If I am paying for it, I want to know what I am getting. Spaz, tell me your favorite, most sought after release, send me $20 for it, and see what quality you get. Is that fair?? Probably not, I bet you would want to know more before you sent the money. So what's wrong with music lovers wanting good quality?

No one will begrudge an indie artis or deny it may be very costly to release a top notch sounding disc, but if an artist cannot afford to, don;t stick it to the consumer.

I just got a CD from CD Baby, from the 80s, by a band called Three Party System. The site made no mention of the following: the CD would come with no back tray insert/artwork at all, CD would be a computer CD-R, not a regular disc, there would be absolutely no song titles in the front insert, or on the disc, and of course there was no back cover. Then, about track 4, a nice computer glitch/blip on the disc. Yep, guess I had no right to expect quality, it was only money, and after all, it feeds the artist. Sorry, I expect more, but I guess all this is unreasonable on my part.

[Spaz]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Grunch[/i]
<br>My goal is to legitimately purchase the music. If the mastering, vinyl or otherwise, sounds good to ME, that is all that matters.[/quote]

Your goal is a worthwhile one, which is great. Many people don't buy music anymore...period! Many people (here, there and everywhere) will download it illegally.

But, let's take the Cure for an example. Sure, the remasters sound great (although the bonus tracks leave a bad taste in my mouth). Those were good purchases. But did you sink money into their latest album? It was absolutely abysmal. Tuneless, worthless crap. (MY opinion). I paid for it and got screwed. I'll go to my grave with that opinion. I'd rather buy a poorly mastered reissue than a big piece of digitally recorded shit.

It's no different when purchasing a 'reissue'. Do you think a label's website will advertise the latest album by so-and-so as a worthless piece of shit? No, they'll say it's a work of genius. If they know that a reissue is from vinyl and that there are people who won't buy it because of that, do you think they'll boldly proclaim 'mastered from vinyl'? Probably not. Some labels know that fans will buy it either way so they don't need to list the source. Perhaps one day, the industry will change and labels will have to state the source. Until then, they do what they can. They are not trying to decieve anyone, they're just trying to fill a void. I'm grateful for that.

Regardless of what anyone says here, master tapes are not readily available unless the label OWNS it and has stored it properly. No one would have ever thought that a band like JoBOXERS would ever be reissued 20+ years after their brief bout of fame.

Rule of them: if it says 'digitally remastered from the original master tapes' then you're going to get what you're looking for. If it doesn't say 'original master tapes', then you may be taking a chance.

SPAZ
Born of innocence. Free of ignorance.

[Spaz]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Rubellan[/i]
<br>The only thing that could happen from my involvement with any record company who has to do vinyl remastering is they would obtain a reputation of having top quality. [/quote]

You receive praise for yours, I recieve praise for mine. Some don't like yours and you (and others) don't like mine. It's all down to opinion.

I have never stated that I'm the best at this. I do it for fun. IF some people love it, that's great. If others don't, then I can't worry about it too much.

But please, start a label and do it correctly. Show the labels how it's done. We all would rather see that than the moaning and complaining.

SPAZ
Born of innocence. Free of ignorance.

[Rubellan]

Ya know, I'm trying to be civil here with the removal of my comments on your remaster, as well as the new message I added to the other thread. If you want to keep this ugly and unpleasant then I can return to my previous mode.

The moaning will continue as long as there is reason to moan. I post when I'm pleased with the quality of a CD just as easy as if it sucks. Freedom of speech, or so it's called.

[Grunch]

I guess it is a crap shoot these days. Unfortunately, many releases of indie 80s things don't mention how the mastering was done. Many I've gotten have been superb, in fact most have.

And I rather pay $50 for the actual CD anyday than download just the mp3. That's just my preference, I want the original and expect to pay for it. I don't quite feel I own it with just an mp3, that's just my little weirdness I suppose. If I do download something, it is only because I absolutely have been unable to find it to buy, but as soon as found, or released, I go ahead and buy it. I just want to own the regular release, artwork, liner notes, profesionnally done, etc......mp3's are a means to allow me to listen to a song until I can find the CD or LP it came from.

And I have some CD's that were must haves that I knew had vinyl sources, but were done very well, for my ears. But man, that Ruefrex on Cherry Red, it is just painful to listen to it, the vinyl pops and clicks are just so overbearing. It's like they didn;t even try to find at least a mint copy of the album to use. This I just don;t understand??? Certainly they could have found a clean copy, and had it professionally cleaned (the LP?) before transferring, then maybe at least a little noise reduction?? You should hear this CD, if you have not already. I was so excited that Ruefrex was coming to CD, then to open it and hear it was such a huge disappointment. For me, it immediately put me on the alert to assume anything on Cherry Red
that comes may also be like this, so I am hesitant to buy from them now, without first finding more information.

Not sure where Wounder Bird falls in the spectrum of quality, seems pretty straigh forward releaes with artowk and usually no bonus material, which is ok by me. I have to admit I've never had anything from them that was disappointing. Still, maybe a professional sound engineers viewpoint would be different as far as rating their quality,but to my ears, they meet the quality I am happy with.

[Spaz]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Rubellan[/i]
<br>Ya know, I'm trying to be civil here with the removal of my comments on your remaster, as well as the new message I added to the other thread. [/quote]

My quote about doing it yourself and show the labels how it's done was not made out of jest or sarcasm. I'm serious! If you can raise the funding, then I'm encouraging you to do it. Not being negative at all! I'd love to see other passionate fans start labels! I'm just trying to discourage the 'moaning and complaining'.

If I hadn't spent so much money on music in the past, then I'd have the funds to do it myself. My ultimate dreams crushed by my ultimate passions...


SPAZ
Born of innocence. Free of ignorance.

[Rubellan]

Trust me, if I had the funds I would definitely start a label. It's just not something that's in my financial future anytime soon. The bits I've done with Cherry Red were just to taste that little bit of a dream; and seeing and hearing the final results, complete with my name on the credits of a CD available worldwide, was very rewarding. And while I certainly wouldn't mind taking on the occasional bit of freelance work with various Indie labels, the suggestion they may need some assistance with quality control, regardless of how carefully put, can cause them to jump to the defensive.

When I made the comment about how they could only benefit from my involvement, it really points to the fact they'd be getting the bargain. As previously mentioned (I think?), I spent over a full week of working non-stop on the upcoming Mobiles CD, and while the fee I received was standard for a fairly straight forward transfer with little to no sound restoration, I literally made pennies an hour. I did it for the music because I am such a fan, and wanted it the best it could be if masters were not used. That could be the only way I'd take on freelance work at this point, because there would be no real financial gain out of it for me to obtain the quality that I'd want associated with my name.

As in the case of the Kill Rock Stars very unsatisfying release of their Essential Logic CD, and their recent Delta 5 CD, I was contemplating offering free remasters for the sake of a better quality representation of the music. Like you said in the other thread about the Cowboys International CD, you haven't played it since day 1. I dumped the Essential Logic and Delta 5 CD's, and will not purchase another title from KRS. But how do you think they would react if I e-mailed and said; "Hey, this sucks. Let me do it better for you". Well ok, not quite in that manner, but I have already had the defensive replies. I figure if someone hears my work and contacts me for a project, I'll discuss it. It has happened, and sometimes it moves forward, sometimes not. That's the best I can provide at this point.

[Jason²]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Rubellan[/i]
<br>Do you really think that a label like EMI is going to say; "OK, you can pay us a licensing fee to release a specific title, but we are not going to provide you with source material"? Get real. Yes, if masters cannot be found, and a mixdown is better than any vinyl remaster, then I can understand resorting to a vinyl remaster.
[/quote]

Actually, yes. And believe me, I speak from experience. Same story from Sony/BMG. You can bitch and whine and moan about quality and all that all you want, but the fact is it's only the indies that care about any sort of reissue of a title that wasn't a platinum plus seller in the past. It's barely worth the major's time to do the licensing deals and if you had any experience you'd know that they're not even licensing deals - they're PRODUCTION deals - meaning - you agree to pay the major to manufacture x number of copies of the title over y years. If you fail to manufacture the minimum you get a hefty bill at the end of the term. Not exactly what you'd call "incentive" to pursue reissues.

However, to address your comment, and I'm sure ANYONE who has explored reissuing a non-hit title (and it's not like the hit titles are even available to indies to license in the first place) most of the time the label's situation is BYOM - bring your own master.

Whine and bitch all you want - 'dems the facts.

Jason

[Rubellan]

Look Jason, things are finally settling down to a more diplomatic level. It's clear I'm not the only one here concerned about quality, and we have all had our say. Various viewpoints and facts have been expressed, now let's drop the lousy subject. Geez, it almost makes me crave another never-ending Colour Field thread...

And let's not forget, this thread was originally discussing the shortcomings with major labels as well, i.e. the Siouxsie remasters.