I was under the impression that record companies charged for tape location.
Wise Words - Audio Fidelity Moves to Selective Multichannel SACD Releases
- Thread starter JonUrban
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I was under the impression that record companies charged for tape location.
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.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,401
Thanks Brian for shedding some valuable light on a subject which has been 'shrouded in secrecy' for far too long. So, in effect, AF's multichannel titles have NOT been selling well. As laymen, we had no idea since we're not privy to sales figures. The only inkling I have as a consumer is browsing the various internet sites and noting that certain AF titles and MoFi for that matter are offered at vastly reduced prices which is the only indication of poor sales.
And that also explains why most reissue companies play it safe when selecting titles ...... selections which have a 'perceived' higher volume potential. And since a lot of HOT titles are realistically off the table, the selection pool is thus further diminished. And since SACD and multichannel are niche markets, the 'playing it SUPER safe' strategy is further in evidence.
But what makes this all the more confusing is that us laymen have NO concept of what is even available for SACD multichannel reissue and what has been released has been such a mixed bag that it's not surprising that sales have been lackluster. I and many other QQ posters have certainly done our part by emailing Marshall Blonstein regarding our wish lists and on occasion we have been rewarded but more often than not none of us have been privy to definitive answers of why a certain title is out of reach [unusable or missing masters, etc.) and I, personally, have given up this mission because in the end ALL the reissue companies release what they want [or IS available]....anyway.
As for record companies making MORE money by licensing a single song to Television and/or motion picture companies, unless the laws have changed, I've noted over the years that when a title is released on DVD or BD~V, some of those pricey licensed songs are nixed and replaced with alternate music because the music licenses had expired. Is that practice still in effect as far as you know?
Of course the real shame is that of those usuable QUAD/5.1 masters languishing in the vaults, you'd think the majors would make a 'sweetheart' deal with the reissue companies and at least make a buck by getting them out there, unless, as I've previously surmised, they're going to offer them as downloads in the future and keep that pot for themselves and their respective artists.........a more likely scenario, IMO.
Last edited:
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
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
Simon A
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2015
- Messages
- 2,896
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.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,401
The VERY fact that ALL these hybrid multichannel SACDs contain the ALL IMPORTANT stereo tracks both in RBCD and SACD should NOT be a deterrent in any way shape or form to potential buyers. In the history of SACD there have only been very few releases that did not contain STEREO tracks.
And with the diminishing amount of actual record stores, most purchases today are done through the internet and potential consumers, in the absence of actually holding a physical disc in their hands, are not aware of what an SACD is anyway. As long as it plays on their RBCD players and in their cars they're happy.
Jon is ABSOLUTELY right. Not every title which has a QUAD master is a good candidate for hi res release. The sales potential JUST ISN'T THERE!
Thank the stars, a few artists GET it and are quietly releasing their back catalogues in hi res surround formats. We can NO longer expect AF and AP to fill in the gaps. They cater first and foremost to their STEREOphiles or legions of vinyl fanatics and if the occasional QUAD or 5.1 master is released, it is indeed a bonus.
Big J, you and I are cut from the same cloth. We think exactly alike on this topic.
Preach On Brother, Preach On!
It's why I always joke that the next Surround Release will be Ethel Merman. Of course, they'll all blame the failure of it's sales on the fact that it has a surround layer because there are millions out there chomping at the bid for Ethel. #satire
well I guess that fear may come about because surround is something some do not really understand or maybe just don't want to?
I am referring to perceived fears of consumers avoiding buying something because it says its got surround on it, not record labels' fears btw.. that's a whole other thing..
..if a label goes surround they should do it with pride and do it wholeheartedly.
shout it from the rooftops that this Quad or Surround mix is a special bonus that substantially adds to the releases' content and is not just some sideshow, some curiosity that might shift another handful of copies that the label is almost embarrassed to mention.. make the 5.1 or the Quad more coveted rather than an adjunct, its worthwhile not an afterthought.. make it like multichannel matters.. yes, the Stereo is the main event, especially a new Stereo remaster by somebody like Steve Hoffman or Kevin Gray, that is the crux of such a release of course but don't be ashamed of the Quad, be proud of surround too!
that's how AF were going with their clearly displayed 4.0 and 5.1 logos and Multichannel banners across the tops of the fronts of their platinum slipcases, exclusive to their surround releases.. they seemed proud of their product including surround.. but now they've succumbed and we're hearing the same old tired rhetoric that surround hurts sales.. what a shame Quad's getting thrown under the bus - yet again.
I get accused of having unrealistic expectations from time to time.. probably..
... but maybe the labels' expectations of sales of surround are unrealistic too..? maybe they always have been from the very beginning of Quad in the early 70's when everyone was convinced it was going to be the next big thing..? Surround music is a niche thing, its not for everyone, its specialist, its small, treat it as something special.. Quad's not a dirty word.
you know, I could forgive Multichannel music detractors (not talking about labels or individuals, I mean in general) if those folk tried to educate themselves a bit as to what its all about.. and fair play to those who try it but don't like it, at least they tried it, if its not for them I respect that.. but the bloody-mindedness of some anti-surround folk who slag off Quad and 5.1 in principle without ever hearing a single thing in it brings me to refer to such people simply as Quadraphobic and I abhor prejudice in any shape or form.
rant over, sorry
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 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.
can't fathom why any potential punter should be pissed off paying for a feature they can't use when they're not paying a premium for that feature...
..but still I see your point, there may be a perception of that..
though one would imagine many of these same people are used to AF's price point and if AF's discs were the same price point prior to the inclusion of MultiCh on their product as they are at this stage I don't see any such fear or resentment etc as explicable.
ah I dunno.. I'm very happy with the overwhelming majority of surround titles AF have delivered but not so thrilled about the inference that Surround is to blame for poor sales is what I'm getting at.. and I'm almost past caring about MCh naysayers and their potential agenda, despite last night's rant.. 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.
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 must rise in defense of Mannheim Steamroller.
I'm at a loss as to why our learn-ed friend has cited them multiple times as exhibit A in the blockheadedness of what AF choose to release in surround due to supposed low sales.
I'm a bit touchy in that regard since Chip Davis is a local legend, who went from jingle musician to starting his own record label in the 70s and selling tens of millions.
Lots of audiophiles bought the Fresh Aire series, and AF should be praised for releasing a worthy historical catalog album.
As far as sales figures, I found it interesting to look around the web a bit rather than rely on rants, hyperbole and wild speculation.
Amazon US ranks it it at #115,340 in music sales, behind Come Away With Me #29,780 and Sly’s Greatest Hits #94,638, but ahead of Nightbirds #191,542.
The BluRays of Skylarking and TFTO were #293 and #403 just now, in comparison. On the Acoustic Sounds web site, Fresh Aire 8 is currently #121 in MC SACD sales.
118 Breezin’
119 Birds of Fire
120 Muscle of Love
121 Fresh Aire 8
122 The Collection
123 Streetlife Serenade
124 Come Away With Me
126 Let It Snow
178 Captain Fantastic
180 Sly’s Greatest Hits
----------------------------
1 Wish You Were Here
2 Blow By Blow
3 The Doors
4 Winelight
5 Nightbirds (Apparently a bargain price can drive sales)
6 Morrison Hotel
7 LA Woman
8 Child Is Father To The Man
9 Best of Guess Who
10 Spectrum
-----------------------------
We now return you to your regular programming.
its just my opinion that it was a poor choice, not based on fact.. you've explored the facts and found it sold alright, so there you go I take it back, it wasn't a poor choice from a sales point of view, just a release I didn't see as worthwhile, I was wrong, if it made money for AF and the artists involved that's great as success breeds success and nobody but AF & co wants these AF surround titles to do well like we here do
Nicely put!
Edit: Perhaps I should have written Hear, Hear, Hear, Hear, Hear, & 0.1 x Hear!
Edit: Perhaps I should have written Hear, Hear, Hear, Hear, Hear, & 0.1 x Hear!
wheeler98
300 Club - QQ All-Star
(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....
wheeler98
300 Club - QQ All-Star
.....vs download vs streaming. I mean, come on man. The Industry writ large LOVES format wars.
How many times have peeps here bought The Doors? I'm 53 and I've bought the debut on lp, 8-track, cassette, dvd-audio and sacd. Robbie Krieger does NOT want a standard format.
How many times have peeps here bought The Doors? I'm 53 and I've bought the debut on lp, 8-track, cassette, dvd-audio and sacd. Robbie Krieger does NOT want a standard format.
wheeler98
300 Club - QQ All-Star
......addendum..I also bought it on cd and the DCC gold cd.
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.
wheeler98
300 Club - QQ All-Star
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.
I'm not looking to get into some sort of argument or debate here, but that's just silly. Just about every other format also requires appropriate equipment.
Similar threads
