...the tapes are "somewhere" in their acquisitions, and they're not eager to spend any time looking for something that only gets them a few thousand dollars.
I was under the impression that record companies charged for tape location.
...the tapes are "somewhere" in their acquisitions, and they're not eager to spend any time looking for something that only gets them a few thousand dollars.
It would probably be easier to get a lot of these vintage quad titles released if there were as many record companies as there were then, but they've been swallowed up into the few giants that don't have the staff to deal with such requests, the tapes are "somewhere" in their acquisitions, and they're not eager to spend any time looking for something that only gets them a few thousand dollars.
I'm sure we'd see more Surround reissues if these reissues sold significantly more copies - rather than selling at or in some cases below the level - of Stereo SACDs.
As for what the record companies and artists receive when licensing an album for reissue, it's certainly more than "a few thousand dollars" but less than what they make for licensing one song from an album for TV or movie use.
In a way, I think this is the reason that Dutton/Vocalion chose not to hype their Hybrid Stereo/Quad SACDs. I'd really like to know if those titles sold as well as the other non SACD titles from the same artists from their reissue program. They may have feared that any special mention about those releases could have alienated their core market.
This is what I feared. Titles with surround "selling less" than titles without surround. I call BULLSHIT.
Discs are sold or not sold because of the music on them, not because of the extras included with them, especially when the list price is the same either way.
If you put out "Duke Ellington, New Orleans Suite", as a SACD that included both stereo and quad tracks, and no one bought it, it would be because there is little market for "Duke Ellington, New Orleans Suite". NOT BECAUSE IT HAD THE QUAD TRACKS!!
However, if the only reason you put it out there for sale is because you had the quad tracks available and you figured it would be a good quad title, and it did not sell, then in some convoluted way you could twist that to make it be perceived that it did not sell BECAUSE OF THE QUAD.
The bottom line is you can't put out marginal crap, stereo or quad, and expect to move CDs/SACDs in 2016/2017. There are a lot of titles that had quad mixes that NOBODY ever want to hear again. Just because there is a quad master available does not insure great sales.
Look at us. We are the prime market for surround music, yet when AF announces "Fresh Aire 8" on SACD with a surround mix, we all go "WTF?" and many firmly state "I'm not buying it". OK, who is? Is there a huge market for Fresh Aire 8 in the stereo SACD world? I don't know. But I would imagine that if these do not sell, it's going to be the surround tracks that take the brunt of the blame.
But who wanted the surround? We of course do not know. I for one cannot understand how a disc like "Fresh Aire 8" gets the green light and "Blood Sweat and Tears Greatest Hits" does not (in quad).
Unfortunately, we are at the stage in the life of recorded music where the physical product is no longer important. Even HiRez downloads are a nich market once occupied by gold CDs, then SACDs and DVD-A's. The mainstream consumer is happy with downloads on their phones, and that's cool.
Thankfully, WE, the quad and surround freaks, have banded together to put forth a great effort to preserve the vintage quad material as best as we can. People like Tab Patterson, Romanotrax, AoQ, oxforddickie, and many others have restored quad titles that would never get a second chance from the labels, even if the masters still exist to this day.
We have to thank AF for their great effort but the market is shrinking and sooner or later it will be gone. Not big news.
But the thing that really ticks me off big-time is when I hear that adding the surround tracks to an SACD caused sales to decrease.
Again, I call BULLSHIT!
:nuke
In a way, I think this is the reason that Dutton/Vocalion chose not to hype their Hybrid Stereo/Quad SACDs. I'd really like to know if those titles sold as well as the other non SACD titles from the same artists from their reissue program. They may have feared that any special mention about those releases could have alienated their core market.
I think if a person is paying near $29.00 for a disc then they know something about it. If they bought an SACD player and state that they collect DSD mastered discs, then they also know something about when they have gotten themselves into.
If they state that the 4.0 or surround notice is confusing to them and makes them unsure if that disc is compatable with their stereo player, I would have them read up on the back of they slipcase, and learn more about high-res SACD. And I'd hint that maybe this product is over-kill for them, and sticking to stereo CD might be the simpler way for them to go.
I doubt that there is confusion, and bet it is resentment, maybe fear of paying for a feature they can't enjoy.
...if Fresh Aire on a G String sold like 8 copies it was NOT the inclusion of Surround at fault imho, rather more it was a head-scratchingly lousy choice on their part.
I think at the end of the day it still comes down to the major failure that the music industry has become for over a decade now. The bullshit line that keeps getting repeated is that no one buys surround sound.
Oh really?
Then how come the movie and TV industries have been able to make surround THE standard?
What people won't buy is niche formats that aren't supported or promoted. The TV and movie industries got behind a standard, pushed it, promoted it, and succeeded at it. The music industry put together a format war, barely put anything out in the formats while holding tightly to stereo as the standard, and completely botched the whole thing, leaving us with the mess that it is now.
But no, the low sales have nothing to do with the lack of standards, promotion, or availability.....no one wants surround sound. Yeah....ok.....show me all the stereo only movies being released these days then.
I think at the end of the day it still comes down to the major failure that the music industry has become for over a decade now. The bullshit line that keeps getting repeated is that no one buys surround sound.
Oh really?
Then how come the movie and TV industries have been able to make surround THE standard?
What people won't buy is niche formats that aren't supported or promoted. The TV and movie industries got behind a standard, pushed it, promoted it, and succeeded at it. The music industry put together a format war, barely put anything out in the formats while holding tightly to stereo as the standard, and completely botched the whole thing, leaving us with the mess that it is now.
But no, the low sales have nothing to do with the lack of standards, promotion, or availability.....no one wants surround sound. Yeah....ok.....show me all the stereo only movies being released these days then.
(Big sigh)...you conveniently skipped over the format wars of vhs vs beta vs laserdisc vs dvd vs hd-dvd vs blu-ray vs blu ray 3-d vs blu ray 4k....
But those format wars didn't consist of barely supporting the formats, barely releasing anything, and blaming consumers for not buying them. It's not just that SACD vs. DVD-A was a format war, it's that it was a format war that consisted of 2 formats that were barely promoted, had a minimal amount of releases, and then resulted in the industry placing the blame on us. An argument could be made that they were physical formats released at a time when the public was moving away from physical media....but so is bluray.
You're taking this too personally. I've never felt this blame that you lament. Neither sacds or DVD-Audio or DTS-cd sold in adequate numbers because people also had to buy the appropriate equipment (receivers, players, speakers, and cabling to reproduce). A tipping point was never reached.
Enter your email address to join: