Sorry for confusing Edgar Winter for Santana. Common mistake.
Anyhow, I know a lot of people want to see B-level or even A-level stuff like Aerosmith get out on Quad. And whoever releases Rocks on Quad SACD, I will buy it, as I presumably would for many other rock titles as well. There's three reasons why I'm wary of D-V going into more popular territory, all related.
1. D-V has been incredibly prolific in a very short time. Every month or so they've been releasing a ridiculously impressive slate of reissues of quad albums, sourced from the master tapes, usually doubled up on one SACD. Most recently they gave us Eight double-SACDs of quad material - the stuff wasn't everyone's taste, including mine, but that's almost secondary for me - they're releasing stuff that would never see the light of day otherwise. I'm worried that moving into more popular repertoire is going to mean slowing down the release schedule by necessity.
2. D-V has been serving markets that were otherwise largely ignored by reissue labels. MoFi briefly released eight Vox quads as single albums on SACD at premium prices. Pentatone has of course been incredibly prolific, releasing quad mixes that the world has never known existed from the vaults of Philips and occasionally Deutsche Grammophon. But aside from a few other early projects classical has largely been ignored by the reissue labels, perhaps because it doesn't really fit their release profile. This applies doubly to the MOR/Easy Listening stuff from the 70s - I doubt many but diehards would check out a single one of these on a $30 SACD, but two albums on one SACD for $15 is much more manageable. My concern is that if D-V goes into the more popular repertoire it's going to leave the more obscure stuff behind.
3. I know a number of people have tried to license the popular stuff on quad and failed - the economics just weren't there at a price point way beyond what D-V is charging. I understand it might be different because D-V is British and not American, but surely that can't make all the difference? I also worry that D-V has been able to do a lot of this by sort of flying under the radar vis a vis some of the management at Sony and elsewhere, because the stuff they've been asking for isn't stuff that causes a fuss. But who knows.
But then again, while I enjoy some of these 70s chestnuts, I'm not as interested in them as people who grew up with them. So I'm sure that's coloring my views as well.
Anyhow, I know a lot of people want to see B-level or even A-level stuff like Aerosmith get out on Quad. And whoever releases Rocks on Quad SACD, I will buy it, as I presumably would for many other rock titles as well. There's three reasons why I'm wary of D-V going into more popular territory, all related.
1. D-V has been incredibly prolific in a very short time. Every month or so they've been releasing a ridiculously impressive slate of reissues of quad albums, sourced from the master tapes, usually doubled up on one SACD. Most recently they gave us Eight double-SACDs of quad material - the stuff wasn't everyone's taste, including mine, but that's almost secondary for me - they're releasing stuff that would never see the light of day otherwise. I'm worried that moving into more popular repertoire is going to mean slowing down the release schedule by necessity.
2. D-V has been serving markets that were otherwise largely ignored by reissue labels. MoFi briefly released eight Vox quads as single albums on SACD at premium prices. Pentatone has of course been incredibly prolific, releasing quad mixes that the world has never known existed from the vaults of Philips and occasionally Deutsche Grammophon. But aside from a few other early projects classical has largely been ignored by the reissue labels, perhaps because it doesn't really fit their release profile. This applies doubly to the MOR/Easy Listening stuff from the 70s - I doubt many but diehards would check out a single one of these on a $30 SACD, but two albums on one SACD for $15 is much more manageable. My concern is that if D-V goes into the more popular repertoire it's going to leave the more obscure stuff behind.
3. I know a number of people have tried to license the popular stuff on quad and failed - the economics just weren't there at a price point way beyond what D-V is charging. I understand it might be different because D-V is British and not American, but surely that can't make all the difference? I also worry that D-V has been able to do a lot of this by sort of flying under the radar vis a vis some of the management at Sony and elsewhere, because the stuff they've been asking for isn't stuff that causes a fuss. But who knows.
But then again, while I enjoy some of these 70s chestnuts, I'm not as interested in them as people who grew up with them. So I'm sure that's coloring my views as well.
