Aretha Franklin's Greatest Hits - The Next QUADIO Title

[DKA]

that pretty much absurd conclusion - to buy the stereo if you want to have surround.
there are already plenty of stereo releases, perhaps in the ratio 100:0,0001 to surround
and guess what, mainly because majority of those who still buy phisical medium, buys
conventional CDs.
how it helped to fill records market by the surround releases?
truth is pretty banal and simple - as long as you buy the shit, they will supply you with the shit.

This coming from Mr. "If they don't supply me with DVD-A every time, I'm not supporting them and it's their fault for not giving in to my whim."

What part of "vanity projects, such as reissuing 40 year-old technology that already failed once to a niche market, are greenlighted when there's the space and money to do it" do you not understand? Not that I'm any fan of trickle-down economics, but this is actually the place where it makes sense. No, I have no clue where the E-books come into play here, although I have to imagine it doesn't cost much to get that out there.

If you'll only buy the product you want, exactly the way you want it, by your incredibly specific criteria, and nothing else, you're going to wind up exactly where you are right now.

If you haven't bought a stereo CD by a new artist in years because, you know, they haven't made good music since 1980, or whatever, you're going to wind up exactly where you are right now.

Feel free to disagree with that, but don't be calling my opinions on the matter absurd.

[fredblue]

Yes. I think you actually have the inside scoop, since this feels spot-on to me.

I've always said that, if you want little niche things like this, support the industry as a whole and give them the extra money to play with this stuff. Want more surround? Buy more stereo. It's amazing how many people feel the opposite way on here, yet want the labels to deliver them all this content that's geared towards a select few.

totally agree DKA!

practically the last 10 years or so, whilst so many were seemingly quite happy to illegally download heaps of music they could perfectly legitimately buy on cd (and more recently buy as downloads) I kept dutifully buying CDs in the hope that it would help in a tiny way to keep things afloat.

supporting the industry by buying music (mono, stereo, surround.. on cd, dvd, sacd, dvda, even dualdisc.. whatever format!) has to be a big part of keeping the majors issuing surround music.

the two must go hand in glove, imo.

[fredblue]

indeed, but i'll say it rather was attempted to go boutique route, which seems for Warner didn't turned out
to be successful business model. after all Rhino is just subdivision of the mega corporative structure with
highly centralised management and little, next to nothing, autonomy.
there just one "politic" - profit, profit and after this "we need to do more profit".



that pretty much absurd conclusion - to buy the stereo if you want to have surround.
there are already plenty of stereo releases, perhaps in the ratio 100:0,0001 to surround
and guess what, mainly because majority of those who still buy phisical medium, buys
conventional CDs.
how it helped to fill records market by the surround releases?
truth is pretty banal and simple - as long as you buy the shit, they will supply you with the shit.

oh! how rude! maybe you should apologise to DKA!?

DKA's opinion may differ from yours Otto but to me, its logical. to say its absurd is a step too far imho.

Rhino handmades' remit, lifted from their site is as follows:

"Welcome to Rhino Handmade! If you are searching for extremely limited editions of hard-to-find rarities, lost recordings and, above all else, premium musical experiences, you've come to the right place. We raid the vaults on an endless quest for material that is out of print or never-before-released to curate, create, and release exclusive products you won't find from anyone else.

The consummate collector need look no further. No need for rewiring. No assembly at all required. We make them. You order them (til they're sold out! Yep, when we say limited we mean limited!). We send them to you. It's as simple as that.

Rhino Handmade spans all genres, from rock and folk, to jazz, spoken word, and more. We won't stop until we've come up with something for everybody."

I think Rhino Handmade achieves their aim quite admirably. The failure of the Quadio reissue program, I can't account for, beyond poorer than expected sales, within the realms of Rhino's own projections for a limited edition release, for the 2nd (Aretha) Quadio DVD release. The 1st, CTA, sold out quickly, so I believe it's content dependent as well as the age-old numbers game that's evident here.

I still believe if Rhino Handmade were to issue a 3rd Quadio DVD (of say another Chicago, a Doobie Brothers, Eagles, etc.. basically of a great quad mix of a classic rock album) it would sell enough to justify its limited release and there'd be more to follow.. but that's just a hunch. Maybe it's absurd to some but I'm convinced it'd do the trick!

[fredblue]

It's ALWAYS a numbers game. The record labels are now reaping what they've sewn with their shortsightedness and stupidity all these years. They've succeeded in spite of themselves in the past. Now, it isn't so easy.

I accept numbers come into it, Linda, no matter what.. but I wonder just how poorly the Aretha disc sold to kill the Quadio reissue program!? That's how it appears to an outsider, I could be wrong..

[fredblue]

It's ALWAYS a numbers game. The record labels are now reaping what they've sewn with their shortsightedness and stupidity all these years. They've succeeded in spite of themselves in the past. Now, it isn't so easy.

Also I'm sure I'd read that Rhino Handmade had recently been majorly scaled back by Warner, so I guess in that climate a niche, like surround music, within Rhino Handmades' own niche, would be one of the first victims of such a cull.

In addition, I'd be intrigued to know how much it cost RH to reissue those Quadios?
They're essentially straight transfers of quad masters, so beyond the usual studio time and licensing costs etc, how expensive could these have been? Not very.

There must have been other forces at work for this series to be so abruptly cancelled beyond "just" sales numbers.

[Quad Linda]

Since it IS a numbers game, let's look a #'s: 10,000 copies (hypothetical) x $30 = $300,000. How could they possibly have an investment exceeding $100,000 on a title that was mixed 40 years ago? Sure, there is mastering and manufacturing the disc and packaging. $200,000 profit from CTA.

So, Aretha may have tanked. Did they lose money on it? Doubtful. Did they make a profit? Probably, though not what they would have liked. 3,300 copies (speculation) x $30 = $100,000 surely covered their cost on Aretha.

A net profit to date of $200,000 is not shabby. This assumes they broke even on Aretha. How many other $200,000's have they thrown away on shortsightedness in other areas? By my math, based on hypothesis, they could release 20 quadio titles, 10 might barely recoup their costs (at least initially), and they've added $2 million to the bottom line. This also assumes that they would learn nothing from previous releases regarding what is popular.

Fred's proposal that they release Eagles, Doobies, and more Chicago seeems logical. I'd add James Taylor, Carly, Doors, Alice Cooper, and Black Sabbath. 3 Chicago's (VII, IX greatest and X), 2 Eagles (Border & Nights), 3 Doobies (Toulouse, Vices and Street), 2 Taylors (Gorilla & Dog) Best of Doors, Carly's Best, Muscle & Paranoid total 14 titles. If they all sell 10,000 and are profitable, there's $2.8 Million. If half are "stiffs" like Aretha, the profit is $1.4 million. Do YOU think half of these 14 would stiff?

Everything is assigned a budget. Obviously, Quadio doesn't figure into their budget. They have other fish to fry that they feel will yield a bigger margin and/or actual $$$. It seems ludicrous to leave a Million or two on the table.

Also I'm sure I'd read that Rhino Handmade had recently been majorly scaled back by Warner, so I guess in that climate a niche, like surround music, within Rhino Handmades' own niche, would be one of the first victims of such a cull.

In addition, I'd be intrigued to know how much it cost RH to reissue those Quadios?
They're essentially straight transfers of quad masters, so beyond the usual studio time and licensing costs etc, how expensive could these have been? Not very.

There must have been other forces at work for this series to be so abruptly cancelled beyond "just" sales numbers.

[fredblue]

Since it IS a numbers game, let's look a #'s: 10,000 copies (hypothetical) x $30 = $300,000. How could they possibly have an investment exceeding $100,000 on a title that was mixed 40 years ago? Sure, there is mastering and manufacturing the disc and packaging. $200,000 profit from CTA.

So, Aretha may have tanked. Did they lose money on it? Doubtful. Did they make a profit? Probably, though not what they would have liked. 3,300 copies (speculation) x $30 = $100,000 surely covered their cost on Aretha.

A net profit to date of $200,000 is not shabby. This assumes they broke even on Aretha. How many other $200,000's have they thrown away on shortsightedness in other areas? By my math, based on hypothesis, they could release 20 quadio titles, 10 might barely recoup their costs (at least initially), and they've added $2 million to the bottom line. This also assumes that they would learn nothing from previous releases regarding what is popular.

Fred's proposal that they release Eagles, Doobies, and more Chicago seeems logical. I'd add James Taylor, Carly, Doors, Alice Cooper, and Black Sabbath. 3 Chicago's (VII, IX greatest and X), 2 Eagles (Border & Nights), 3 Doobies (Toulouse, Vices and Street), 2 Taylors (Gorilla & Dog) Best of Doors, Carly's Best, Muscle & Paranoid total 14 titles. If they all sell 10,000 and are profitable, there's $2.8 Million. If half are "stiffs" like Aretha, the profit is $1.4 million. Do YOU think half of these 14 would stiff?

Everything is assigned a budget. Obviously, Quadio doesn't figure into their budget. They have other fish to fry that they feel will yield a bigger margin and/or actual $$$. It seems ludicrous to leave a Million or two on the table.

Now those "numbers" add up! Great stuff Linda!

I'm in total agreement with you, I cannot see how Rhino Handmade couldn't have turned in a profit with the two Quadios based on something like your projections!? I don't think any of those you suggested would stiff at all..!

The other Doobie I'd dearly love a Quadio of would be Stampede! I hear the quad reel is gorgeous, so I imagine if Warner have the quad master in their vaults, that'd be a no-brainer too!

Oh and I'd take The Doors Best Of original Quad mix on a cute little Quadio over the Perception box set and the AP upcoming SACDs in a heartbeat!

As for Alice Cooper, when the DVDAs came out, I could not work out why Muscle of Love wasn't mixed and released in surround ahead of those two!? Another strange decision!

Conversely, with the Elton's we got the out and out all-time classics in 5.1, particularly the two big-hitters GBYR and CFATBDC. If Caribou and Rock of the Westies had been released first and soon after instead then I could (maybe) have understood why those releases stiffed.. but come on, two huge classics by an artist that's still big.. and they sold by the bucketload on SACD.. and they were great mixes.. it just doesn't add up!?

[Quad Linda]

If those #'s make sense, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what Universal and Sony are leaving on the table! Previously released Quads like Aerosmith, Carpenters, Billy Joel, Janis Joplin, Joni Mitchell, Santana, Paul Simon, Steely Dan and ZZ Top would surely sell. What about those Motown Quads only released in Japan?

Quad/5.1's mixed, but never released are another prime source. How about new mixes? Who really believes that The Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Michael Jackson and Miles would tank? Would Gaga or Madonna stiff in 5.1? Doubtful.

I'd take Perception over Best of the Doors anyday. Having EVERY Doors studio album in 5.1 & 2ch hi-res was a dream come true! Best of Doors is one of the best Quads and one of our go-to Quad demo albums when it was new. I'll pre-order Best of Doors if/when it is rereleased in surround. Perception doesn't have any tracks from Absolutely Live.

Stampede wasn't included on my list because it might stiff. Maybe I'm all wet. I was never crazy about that album. Captain, Toulouse, Vices, Streets and Minute are head and shoulders above it, IMHO.

Fred, you know I'm as big an Elton nut as you are. You're missing the point, though. Universal pulled the plug on the whole SACD/DVD-A program. That's why you never saw the other titles. IMHO, Westies and Caribou might have a higher stiff potential than the others. Still, I'll be the first kid on the block to get them in 5.1, as I was when they came out in 2ch. To hear Island Girl, Robert Ford, Bitch and Don't Let the Sun in 5.1 would be nirvana! How about a best of 5.1 compilation of Elton tracks already mixed?

The song that is crying out to be mixed in surround is the theme song of the record labels. It's from the Wizard of Oz and titled If I Only Had a Brain!!

Now those "numbers" add up! Great stuff Linda!

I'm in total agreement with you, ... I don't think any of those you suggested would stiff at all..!

The other Doobie I'd dearly love a Quadio of would be Stampede! ...

Oh and I'd take The Doors Best Of original Quad mix on a cute little Quadio over the Perception box set and the AP upcoming SACDs in a heartbeat! ...

Conversely, with the Elton's we got the out and out all-time classics in 5.1, particularly the two big-hitters GBYR and CFATBDC. If Caribou and Rock of the Westies had been released first and soon after instead then I could (maybe) have understood why those releases stiffed.. but come on, two huge classics by an artist that's still big.. and they sold by the bucketload on SACD.. and they were great mixes.. it just doesn't add up!?

[Ed Bishop]

I feel a little differently. While many record companies have had an annoying habit of being short-sighted over the years when it comes to what and how to reissue back catalog, they are by no means the only problem. Let's look at three artists--and Doors, Moody Blues, and Elton John--to illustrate the importance of the artist being caring and involved to make such reissues a reality.

Obviously, the surviving Doors wanted their catalog out in 5.1 and remixed stereo. Elektra, knowing that the Doors are a brand name and will sell to some degree no matter what, went along, and you know the rest. Similarly, after Justin Hayward expressed interest in remastering the old quad albums, UMe went along with that, too, not least, one might assume, because the band still records for the company. On the other hand, after the first, great batch of 5.1 releases, the plug was pulled on further Elton reissues of the type. Had Elton wanted those albums released badly enough, does anyone doubt that they wouldn't have made it to us? Of course they would, and Elton not only has clout but still has validity as an artist, so if he'd really wanted them released, this most certainly would have come to pass. That they didn't make it out should tell us something about the nature of projects like this. As much as number-crunching can be useful, the fact remains that the reissue market has always been fairly modest compared to 'new' music and artists. This is understandable, but whereas in the 1980's labels desired their back catalogs on CD--not least because they were trying to phase out tape and vinyl--there is no such urgency today. The world has changed, and my hunch is that if an artist really wants his or her catalog available, it'll be available. If they don't really care or don't want to put it out--think Bob Seger's early Capitol material--it'll stay locked away.

ED

[0tto]

If you haven't bought a stereo CD by a new artist in years because, you know, they haven't made good music since 1980, or whatever, you're going to wind up exactly where you are right now.

actually i found more music to my liking from the 90th than those from 80th.
main disappointment was when labels started to flood with wave all those (for most part crappy),
remastered CDs.

oh! how rude! maybe you should apologise to DKA!?
DKA's opinion may differ from yours Otto but to me, its logical. to say its absurd is a step too far imho.

oh no, i didn't mean to be offensive and i'm sure that DKA haven't took it in such way.
it just doesn't make much sense to me that purchasing ordinary stereo releases somehow in turn
will encourage labels to step up with a new surround releases. history shows that innovation usually
doesn't fit into business model of enterprises, who happened to be monopolist.

Since it IS a numbers game, let's look a #'s: 10,000 copies (hypothetical) x $30 = $300,000. How could they possibly have an investment exceeding $100,000 on a title that was mixed 40 years ago? Sure, there is mastering and manufacturing the disc and packaging. $200,000 profit from CTA...

hey Linda you builded pretty logical chain in your calculations and i'm totally agree with you.
the only link missing from this chain is a financial commitment in regards of such investment.
albeit such corporation have significant base in monetary value, in fact they, at least now,
short on cash and mainly all their operations have financing from credits, thus taking risk if
something go wrong and release wasn't sold, they still obligated do repay credit and interest
on it. and when we talking about pop acts of 30-40-50 years old and on top of this in the format,
which is familiar to very small part of their consumers, perhaps in the bookkeeping and marketing
strategy departments of label, this risk calculated as very high.

[Quad Linda]

Otto, you reminded me of two factors left out of my equasions:
1- The "suits. In 10 years of selling to Fortune 1000 firms, I've seen my share of hammerheadedness and shortsightedness. Some have vision, most don't.
2- Lack of logic in making business decisions, ie low risk titles are viewed as high risk.

Ed also made some good points. I believe that artists who own their masters like Elton or Paul Simon are more likely get cowtowed to, or they'll shop their masters elsewhere when contracts are ready for renewal. It's reputed that Paul Simon took his masters to WEA because he was upset that Columbia misplaced the 1st generation S&G masters.

hey Linda you builded pretty logical chain in your calculations and i'm totally agree with you.
the only link missing from this chain is a financial commitment in regards of such investment.
albeit such corporation have significant base in monetary value, in fact they, at least now,
short on cash and mainly all their operations have financing from credits, thus taking risk if
something go wrong and release wasn't sold, they still obligated do repay credit and interest
on it. and when we talking about pop acts of 30-40-50 years old and on top of this in the format,
which is familiar to very small part of their consumers, perhaps in the bookkeeping and marketing
strategy departments of label, this risk calculated as very high.

[bmoura]

If those #'s make sense, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what Universal and Sony are leaving on the table! Previously released Quads like Aerosmith, Carpenters, Billy Joel, Janis Joplin, Joni Mitchell, Santana, Paul Simon, Steely Dan and ZZ Top would surely sell. What about those Motown Quads only released in Japan?

Fred, you know I'm as big an Elton nut as you are. You're missing the point, though. Universal pulled the plug on the whole SACD/DVD-A program. That's why you never saw the other titles. IMHO, Westies and Caribou might have a higher stiff potential than the others. Still, I'll be the first kid on the block to get them in 5.1, as I was when they came out in 2ch. To hear Island Girl, Robert Ford, Bitch and Don't Let the Sun in 5.1 would be nirvana! How about a best of 5.1 compilation of Elton tracks already mixed?

The song that is crying out to be mixed in surround is the theme song of the record labels. It's from the Wizard of Oz and titled If I Only Had a Brain!!

Well, Universal Music Group just teamed up with Analogue Productions to release the recent Shelby Lynne tribute album to Dusty Springfield "Just A Little Lovin'" on a Hybrid Stereo SACD.
The SACD even has the UMG stickers and trademarks from their SACD series. See http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/80...id_Stereo_SACD

Who knows - if it sells well, perhaps UMG will release some additional SACDs with Analogue Productions down the road.
As was said earlier by DKA, if you want more Hi Rez discs, support the ones coming out.

[Quad Linda]

They have been releasing A&M, Impulse, Verve and other UMG label SACD's through Analogue Productions. They're 2ch.

Well, Universal Music Group just teamed up with Analogue Productions to release the recent Shelby Lynne tribute album to Dusty Springfield "Just A Little Lovin'" on a Hybrid Stereo SACD.
The SACD even has the UMG stickers and trademarks from their SACD series. See http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/80...id_Stereo_SACD

Who knows - if it sells well, perhaps UMG will release some additional SACDs with Analogue Productions down the road.
As was said earlier by DKA, if you want more Hi Rez discs, support the ones coming out.

[kap'n krunch]

You know, this suggestion has popped up several times in this forum, but I will insist (I AM a FIXED sign= a bit stubborn)...
Since we have :
-so many knowledgeable members
-Members that I think may have access to funding-or ways to funding
-an industry standard Authoring/Mastering Engineer/all around "Super Genius"(not Wile. E. Coyote)
....
Can't we just get together and CREATE A LABEL for Multichannel releases??
I know , it is easier said than done,
and,
that the best way for things to go sour is to mix business with ...Forum relationships...(?)..

-this was done "unofficially" before ...
but...can't we all just ...
GET ALONG?

[rusinurbe]

You know, this suggestion has popped up several times in this forum, but I will insist (I AM a FIXED sign= a bit stubborn)...
Since we have :
-so many knowledgeable members
-Members that I think may have access to funding-or ways to funding
-an industry standard Authoring/Mastering Engineer/all around "Super Genius"(not Wile. E. Coyote)
....
Can't we just get together and CREATE A LABEL for Multichannel releases??
I know , it is easier said than done,
and,
that the best way for things to go sour is to mix business with ...Forum relationships...(?)..

-this was done "unofficially" before ...
but...can't we all just ...
GET ALONG?

we have members in the, we have people who are prepaired to spend, i believe neil has mentioned in teh past it would be great but unfortunatly record companies are very reluctant to release masters to allow it to happen, even with someone else taking all the risk.

[DKA]

practically the last 10 years or so, whilst so many were seemingly quite happy to illegally download heaps of music they could perfectly legitimately buy on cd (and more recently buy as downloads) I kept dutifully buying CDs in the hope that it would help in a tiny way to keep things afloat.

I fully also maintain that there are fans out there who do both. They buy music, but also download because it expands what music they listen to. Whether they bought that album or not, they're dropping on that artist, whether it's THEN going and buying the album, going to a show, or buying their next album.

[fredblue]

Well, Universal Music Group just teamed up with Analogue Productions to release the recent Shelby Lynne tribute album to Dusty Springfield "Just A Little Lovin'" on a Hybrid Stereo SACD.
The SACD even has the UMG stickers and trademarks from their SACD series. See http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/80...id_Stereo_SACD

Who knows - if it sells well, perhaps UMG will release some additional SACDs with Analogue Productions down the road.
As was said earlier by DKA, if you want more Hi Rez discs, support the ones coming out.

The same Analogue Productions that are releasing all The Doors' stuff in 5.1 all over again, you mean!?
If they got their hands on the Elton's we'd probably get GBYR, CFATBDC, TC, EJ, HC again.. and then stop - again..!!

[fredblue]

I feel a little differently. While many record companies have had an annoying habit of being short-sighted over the years when it comes to what and how to reissue back catalog, they are by no means the only problem. Let's look at three artists--and Doors, Moody Blues, and Elton John--to illustrate the importance of the artist being caring and involved to make such reissues a reality.

Obviously, the surviving Doors wanted their catalog out in 5.1 and remixed stereo. Elektra, knowing that the Doors are a brand name and will sell to some degree no matter what, went along, and you know the rest. Similarly, after Justin Hayward expressed interest in remastering the old quad albums, UMe went along with that, too, not least, one might assume, because the band still records for the company. On the other hand, after the first, great batch of 5.1 releases, the plug was pulled on further Elton reissues of the type. Had Elton wanted those albums released badly enough, does anyone doubt that they wouldn't have made it to us? Of course they would, and Elton not only has clout but still has validity as an artist, so if he'd really wanted them released, this most certainly would have come to pass. That they didn't make it out should tell us something about the nature of projects like this. As much as number-crunching can be useful, the fact remains that the reissue market has always been fairly modest compared to 'new' music and artists. This is understandable, but whereas in the 1980's labels desired their back catalogs on CD--not least because they were trying to phase out tape and vinyl--there is no such urgency today. The world has changed, and my hunch is that if an artist really wants his or her catalog available, it'll be available. If they don't really care or don't want to put it out--think Bob Seger's early Capitol material--it'll stay locked away.

ED

Im not sure how I feel about what exactly happened with the Elton SACDs.

Here's my take on it. See if I've missed anything..

Sometime in the early 2000's, Greg Penny remixed some of the Made in England album (which he originally produced in '94/'95) into 5.1 surround and liked the results.

Elton somehow heard it, liked what he heard and told Greg to remix GYBR.

Elton loved Gregs' 5.1 GYBR and so it was chosen to be released as part of the 30th Anniversary package of the album.

Elton then told Greg to go ahead and remix "the lot", i.e. all his classic albums was /is the perceived wisdom.

The GYBR SACD set sold well as did the first batch of Elton's.

The next batch was announced, including ROTW, Blue Moves, DSMIOTPP and Caribou. We all got excited!

Tidbits of news trickled in, we could look forward to some genuinely new bonus material and extras like the previously unreleased "Ducktail Jiver" on the upcoming SACD of "Caribou", for which Greg had even gone to the expense/effort of getting Davey Johnstone to record a new guitar part to finish that particular track off (the so-called demo of "Ducktail" I have bears this out as it only features acoustic guitar but otherwise sounds pretty complete and so was unfinished, rather than a demo.).

There were further rumours floating about that either The Here & There Live set or Live in Australia were to be remixed into 5.1 for inclusion in a Third batch of surround Elton.

Then, just as batch 2 was going to be released, UMG pulled the plug - we lost the rest of the Steely Dan 5.1's in the process.

All throughout the process I never heard or saw or read a peep out of Elton about the 5.1 versions of his albums, beyond his initial green-lighting to Greg to "do the lot".

I doubt Elton even knows they weren't released.
I believe the stopping of the 5.1 Eltons' was all UMG's doing.
Why!? God only knows.

I asked Laura Croker, the editor of eltonjohn.com, the last time I saw her if she knew what had happened to the next set of Elton SACDs, why they had never come out and if/when we could expect them?

Her response (get ready! this wonderful lady has been at Elton's right hand for decades so I imagine she has her finger on the pulse of a lot of Elton-related activity, she's certainly known her onions on everything else I've ever asked her about regarding Elton..!)..

"Oh, I thought they had all been released already!?".

[fredblue]

thinking on, what makes the Elton 5.1 situation even crazier, is that UMG released Advanced Res DualDiscs (Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet in 2005 and Pete Townshends' & Ronnie Lanes' Rough Mix in 2006) a wee while after the abrupt/premature end of the Elton & Steely Dan SACDs.

why why WHY on earth didn't Universal then release the remaining 5.1 Greg Penny mixed Elton albums, even if only in the 'dreaded' DualDisc format..?!?!?

Yes, it would have taken some extra effort creating some graphics/menu's a la DVDA but I'm sure Neil Wilkes could tell us how much time/money/work that would have taken? The mixes were there, all done. The customers were waiting with cash in their hot little hands.

I just do not get it..?!?