I would gladly pay for an on-demand, high-resolution, multi-channel internet streaming service. But not holding my breath either.
Petition to UMG to release the early Steely Dans in 5.1
- Thread starter humprof
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I would gladly pay for an on-demand, high-resolution, multi-channel internet streaming service. But not holding my breath either.
I feel your pain John...I had a conversation recently with a Costco employee....I like Costco and shop there a lot...but I was joking with this woman and I mentioned to her that when they had the gas shortages in the late 70's...it led to self service gas stations..instead of getting your windshield cleaned and the air in your tires checked... and checking the fluids under your hood..you pumped your own gas and no other services were provided....but I didn't expect the current situation...paying to shop at a store like Costco and then not even getting a bag to put your groceries in
...if you would have told me these things about the future..."back in the day"...I would never have believed you...I'm not so sure how long Tidal will be in business....this latest "problem" with inflating their numbers is only one in a series of poor management decisions....Sprint temporarily kept the business afloat but that won't last very long with the way the business is run....
:
I'd like that as an option, for sure. I'd hate for it to be the only one, though. I find streaming to be a really convenient, not-too-expensive way to audition things I'm considering buying or to play something that I may never care enough to buy, but I've also found it less than reliable at times.
The services lose rights, so albums or even an artist's entire output can disappear. Or, more often, there's just Some Issue That Day and it's not really working.
A surround streaming service would sure be a lot of fun, though. There probably isn't enough product for someone to ONLY offer that, but that's OK.
I guess I'm firmly in the middle of the "It has to be physical media" and "Streaming is enough" camps.
Well I sympathise completely but there's nothing I can do
I am just a humble servant with a message here for you
Well I know you have good reasons and there's things you've got to do
But the boatman won't be waiting and he's leaving here with you
And you can't take it with you
No matter what you do
No you can't take it with you
Not the place you're going to
The older I get, the more I realize this.
The other part is, most people want their music for free, even if it is low quality and there are plenty of streaming services offering that. Either that or they steal it.
Well I sympathise completely but there's nothing I can do
I am just a humble servant with a message here for you
Well I know you have good reasons and there's things you've got to do
But the boatman won't be waiting and he's leaving here with you
And you can't take it with you
No matter what you do
No you can't take it with you
Not the place you're going to
The older I get, the more I realize this.
You can even steal from the streaming services. I have no idea if that's something people do routinely, though.
karlkastner
300 Club - QQ All-Star
Signed.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,410
In the case of the Steely Dan catalog, artist approval is required for reissues. When it has been pursued in the past, artist approval was not given.
Ok...this sounds like it's a contractual requirement for this specific band...not all labels are restricted in this sense..it's on a case by case basis...thanks Brian..
edit: Never mind.
Whatever happened to the record companies owning recordings?
Whatever happened to the record companies owning recordings?
AFAIK, the record company still owns the classic Steely Dan recordings, but it sounds like the band has the right to approve or disapprove any reissues, and they have...
AFAIK, the record company still owns the classic Steely Dan recordings, but it sounds like the band has the right to approve or disapprove any reissues, and they have...
Interesting, thanks! In the past, I’ve heard when a record company would put out a compilation or such, the artist would get quite a bit ticked off. So, I just assumed the record company owned the previous recordings.
It looks like it varies from artist to artist...it seems to be contractual...most groups in the 60's had no say in what the record companies did with their music..the artists had no leverage..
...it sounds like the band has the right to approve or disapprove any reissues, and they have...
Do we know this from a published interview, or from insider information, or inference based on certain circumstances, or...? (No disrespect intended to Brian; I'm just curious about the basis of the statement.)
I vaguely remember hearing that when Steely Dan's ABC/MCA catalog was remastered in 1999, the band had to be assured that all 7 albums would be included--and remastered to their satisfaction--before any one of them was released. (I don't think they were all released at once, although maybe someone can correct me on that.)
I was speculating that something similar might be the operative factor here: it's not that Becker and Fagen were opposed to 5.1--far from it--but rather that when it was discovered that the multitrack masters for "Aja" and "Black Cow" were missing, the whole project was put on hold. (Hard to say, since Universal mothballed their entire SACD program soon after the 2004 announcement of the imminent 5.1 release of CBAT through Aja was withdrawn. So in that case, it could have been either the band--pending the recovery of the missing multis--OR the label that put the kibbosh on things.)
But even if the band wanted all the albums or none of them, that still doesn't explain how Gaucho made it out all by itself, not once but twice (three times, if you count the SACD).
Last edited:
I trust Brian (bmoura) with the information that he provides, especially since he played a big part in Audio Fidelity’s Multichannel SACD series. I’m sure they tried to license the Pretzel Logic 5.1 Surround mix and were denied in some way, either because the artist said no or Universal demanded too high of a sales number or licensing fee.
Either way, we still don’t have this 5.1 mix, but I’m still more upset about the unreleased Elton John 5.1 mixes.
Either way, we still don’t have this 5.1 mix, but I’m still more upset about the unreleased Elton John 5.1 mixes.
That would jibe with Jon's comments (above) about Universal having demanded way too much money from AF to license the unreleased EJ's. Although I suppose the exorbitant/unrealistic demands could come from the label or the artist (or, more likely, the artist's agent)--or both?
Last edited:
Sometimes a request to an artist doesn't get past that artist's manager. Donald Fagen is the person who has to be reached. With his history of being open to quad and surround mixes, I find it hard to believe that he would automatically say no.
Similar threads
