anfunny2003 wrote:There are many reasons for track omissions and repeated content, and it's all down to finances.
There are instances where labels no longer have paperwork pertaining to material, so it's a potential royalties nightmare, so they blanket refuse to grant a license. They don't know if people have been paid or there may be unanswered questions regarding the recordings or samples or songwriters, which prevent them from selling them. I certainly know of one album which is so tied up in messy legalities, that it will almost certainly never be released. Sad, but true.
Other times, they can't physically find the recordings in their archaic filing systems, be they misplaced, damaged or not returned when loaned out. Sometimes, a bit like lost Dr Who episodes (!), they're missing until found by accident and returned. They don't have the time or money to dedicate to spending hours/days finding that one song you want, so they knock you back.
Also, contracts, artist agreements, inherited catalogues (when one label buys out another, or acquires it in a takeover, etc.) and legal red tape mean a song, or an artist, is out of bounds and more trouble than it's worth for a label to try and license, so they just turn down a license request. The money they get from licensing the odd track here and there isn't worth a load of legal expense or man hours trying to resolve.
And then there's the simple fact that sometimes, labels couldn't care less about a rare remix of minor hit from the 80s. Why should they care about a rival label's forthcoming compilation? It's not their concern, there's little incentive to be co-operative, so it's not a priority for them. They have their own products to research, compile and promote. Any license request is pretty much a favour, so the easier it is for them to get it to you, the more likely you'll get a license granted.
So that's just a few scenarios. Yes, you will get Dead Or Alive's Murder Mix a lot lately because it was recently found, restored and is now readily available to license. The S/A/W compilation GOLD, from 2005, for example used a vinyl rip of this mix because PWL had not be found the tape in time. After that release, it was located and catalogued. Now, it's quite common place, but 10 years back? Nope. Once something is "back in service", then it will actively circulate around the compilation circuit. It's easy to get, it's already transferred from master tapes and requires little effort to include.
Most compilers start with a wish list, much like you or I, and licenses are applied for and many are knocked back (with no reason provided usually), or months/years pass by with no reply from the copyright owner and you have to settle for your second or third choice because you have a deadline for a project and if you don't do it, the label will just put it out without your input and it'll be even more generic. Don't forget, labels need to make money month to month, to pay wages and justify their existence, so a constant stream of product is required, and it has to sell reasonably well, so it has to appeal to a broad audience. 80s compilations are good evergreen sellers, so labels like to pop them out every so often, but it's small fry to them in the grand scheme of things.
So anyway, after all those "excuses", yes, sometimes, the person behind the product doesn't really care and rips vinyl and is a bit lazy and not an expert on the genre and so on and so forth. There are hundreds of license requests being made that I know of, and many of them are just sat in approval hell. No news, no progress, no go. There are a few really dedicated and hard working people trying to re-issue and remaster so many great albums, mixes and unreleased material but they aren't paid well and have very little influence over external administration which decides what they can and cannot have access to.
I appreciate this info, at least it's a reasonable explanation of why some titles aren't being seen. I still can't really figure out why these companies think it's a great idea to release the same set of tracks that are widely available on a dozen other releases for next to nothing. If they have to release "a constant stream of product" that "has to sell reasonably well"... again, I ask, who is the market for the 14th time a remix appears on a comp next to another remix that is on 12 other comps and one that's on 7 other comps? Yeah I get it, it's easy, it costs them hardly anything, I guess if they sell 100 copies it's worth it?
I think about stuff like the Art of Noise 2 CD reissues that were talked about in 2014 like a release was imminent and were cancelled suddenly with zero explanation - those would have actually sold really well, yet whomever was in charge of that decided to pull the plug. That's the stuff I don't understand. If something isn't impossible to get, why isn't it being released? I'll buy that not everyone releasing these comps is an idiot, but I maintain that there's plenty of evidence that some of the people making these decisions ultimately are.
There are SO MANY 80s albums that if a reissue with bonus tracks, especially a 2 CD version with all the mixes, would sell like hotcakes (in terms of physical releases, at least).. yet the record companies don't do it. We've seen how stuff like a-ha, Bananarama, Tears For Fears, etc have done. Is no one paying attention at other labels?
