Oldies No Longer Quite So Golden

Just what the name says.
mikenycLI
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:02 pm
Location: New York City Metropolitan Area, United States

Postby mikenycLI » Mon Jun 09, 2003 2:05 am

Ed,

Is it true, that the "new" Led Zeppelin album/DVD release, was a complete surprise/success, to Atlantic executives ????



Mike

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:06 am

Ed Bishop wrote:
Patrick M wrote:The reason is that kids today have no taste, and modern musical groups suck. No, we just don't have the huge talent today that we did 25 years ago...guys like Bob Seger, for example.
:roll:


We have them, but for the most part, they've been pushed to the margins, usually on small indie labels without much sales clout. There are so many I will probably never hear, for that reason.

As for veterans, for the high quality of Johnny Cash's American albums, the sales have always been, at best, modest. Even when an aging vet with a lot to offer comes up with a fine album, it's success if fleeting because even parents are no longer listening. But you're right, there are no new Segers or Springsteens. Pity.

ED 8)


I agree, Ed, that there are literally thousands of groups on indie labels that will go relatively unheard. There's simply too much music out there--a good thing for music lovers, but a bad thing for the vast majority of those groups as they'll never be in a position to quit their day jobs. With technology the way it is, it's just so damned easy and inexpensive to record now that just about anyone can do it. Getting the music heard, however, is another story.

You missed the Bob Seger jibe, though--Patrick was being sarcastic. That mediocre groups like Seger aren't selling so well is probably a good thing in the scheme of things.

User avatar
Ed Bishop
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 9:14 am
Location: The New Lair

Postby Ed Bishop » Mon Jun 09, 2003 6:31 am

Would never have occured to me to describe Seger as *mediocre*; far from it, in fact. If Seger or Springsteen are deemed mediocre, then who are the fucking geniuses out there? :?:

ED 8)
When remixing vintage tapes, imagine you are back in the time those recordings were made, and mix accordingly. forget Today's Sound Sensibilities....

User avatar
Grant
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2003 1:53 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby Grant » Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:53 pm

Could it be that the companies keep rehashing the same old shit for CD? They're sitting on TONS of vault material and yet we get more remasters of the same damn classic rock. Let's get some soul reissues out there, and I mean shit that hasn't been out there yet.

And, how many greatest hits packages are we going to see by some of these artists? Some of them have more greatest hits otr best of CDs out there than they had hits!

mikenycLI
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:02 pm
Location: New York City Metropolitan Area, United States

Postby mikenycLI » Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:57 pm

Well, it is a business, so, they already know that people will re-purchase, sometimes, up to four times, now on some releases, essentially the same release and music.

Why should they give us more, and something "new" ?

User avatar
Ed Bishop
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 9:14 am
Location: The New Lair

Postby Ed Bishop » Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:51 pm

Collectors Choice Music(CCM)has been making inroads, insofar as reissuing some old, and often obscure titles you're never going to get anywhere else, licensed from the majors who don't wish to issue them. Unfortunately, with only a handful of exceptions, they haven't done comps that much, usually straight reissues. I agree with Grant, the soul situation---and in particular '70s soul--is grossly underrepresented. Where a lot of obscure pop/rock chart items can be found here and there, there sure are a lot more soul gems from the era that have never been reissued. Often if you don't have the original 45, you're outta luck. But, the companies issue what they think will sell, and aren't too worried, since reissue CD's don't sell anywhere near enough for 'em to sweat if they don't bother. Point well taken that it's easier to keep tweaking classic albums one more time than to compile something unique and sensible.

ED 8)
When remixing vintage tapes, imagine you are back in the time those recordings were made, and mix accordingly. forget Today's Sound Sensibilities....

User avatar
Xenu
Sellout
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:15 pm

Postby Xenu » Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:10 pm

I wish CCM would occasionally think of doing something other than bare-bones reissues...they're the new Collectables, in many ways ('tho the quality of their releases tends to be far higher).

So they're reissuing the Association's albums...heck, I'll wait for the inevitable Repertoire/2,000 bonus track versions before plunking down any more cash...
-------------
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911

User avatar
Ed Bishop
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 9:14 am
Location: The New Lair

Postby Ed Bishop » Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:22 pm

Collectables quality control has taken a major leap these past few years. The stuff they've licensed from Sony haven't been significantly futzed with sonically; very pleasant listening. And Little Walter worked on the King/Federal reissue comps, which are loaded with stereo and sound very nice. Can't really argue with their Sun comps, either, including the Gentrys' early '70s hits. Yet Collectables put out so many bad discs for so many years the perception is they still suck. It's also a shame some of those shitty discs are still available; they should have weeded that crap out years ago.

CCM could offer more than they do, but I like their cheek--they've issued titles I couldn't imagine there would be any market for--I mean, Barry Sadler's old '66 RCA Victor Lp THE BALLAD OF THE GREEN BERETS? CLEAR LIGHT's 1967 Lp? CCM also reissued the Kingston Trio Capitol abums as 2-fers, but not NR'd to death like the '90s box set. One new one sure to sell next to nothing is the notorious rightwing classic DAY FOR DECISION, the 1966 WB Lp by Johnny Sea. Can Victor Lundberg be far behind? :roll: Kinda funny, really, some of the relics CCM is digging up.
Still, not bad for a company owned by Playboy Enterprises!

ED 8)
When remixing vintage tapes, imagine you are back in the time those recordings were made, and mix accordingly. forget Today's Sound Sensibilities....

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Tue Jun 10, 2003 6:25 am

Ed Bishop wrote:Would never have occured to me to describe Seger as *mediocre*; far from it, in fact. If Seger or Springsteen are deemed mediocre, then who are the fucking geniuses out there? :?:

If Seger *or Springsteen*?? Did I say Bruce Springsteen was mediocre? No mention was made whatsoever of Bruce Springsteen.

And . . . ah . . . are you . . . er . . . suggesting that Bob Seger is a genius?


.

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Tue Jun 10, 2003 6:39 am

Grant wrote:Could it be that the companies keep rehashing the same old shit for CD? They're sitting on TONS of vault material and yet we get more remasters of the same damn classic rock. Let's get some soul reissues out there, and I mean shit that hasn't been out there yet.

So you believe that the industry can right itself by reissuing--of all things--*soul* titles? Yikes.


.

User avatar
Ed Bishop
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 9:14 am
Location: The New Lair

Postby Ed Bishop » Tue Jun 10, 2003 6:45 am

Ron wrote:
Ed Bishop wrote:Would never have occured to me to describe Seger as *mediocre*; far from it, in fact. If Seger or Springsteen are deemed mediocre, then who are the fucking geniuses out there? :?:

If Seger *or Springsteen*?? Did I say Bruce Springsteen was mediocre? No mention was made whatsoever of Bruce Springsteen.

And . . . ah . . . are you . . . er . . . suggesting that Bob Seger is a genius?


.


On The Boss: just checking for a reaction. I got it.

On Seger: A genius? No, just a fine meat'n'potatoes rocker. Variable quality, but to call him mediocre, well...let's just say I've been following his career since '67, and I wouldn't call "Ramblin' Gamblin' Man," "2+2=?," "Looking Back" and fair portions of BEAUTIFUL LOSER, NIGHT MOVES, STRANGER IN TOWN and THE DISTANCE *mediocre*; I'd call 'em fuckin' good and close to Springsteen in quality. I'd even argue "Night Moves" is a match for Bruce, which is high praise.

ED 8)
When remixing vintage tapes, imagine you are back in the time those recordings were made, and mix accordingly. forget Today's Sound Sensibilities....

User avatar
Ed Bishop
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 9:14 am
Location: The New Lair

Postby Ed Bishop » Tue Jun 10, 2003 6:49 am

Ron wrote:
Grant wrote:Could it be that the companies keep rehashing the same old shit for CD? They're sitting on TONS of vault material and yet we get more remasters of the same damn classic rock. Let's get some soul reissues out there, and I mean shit that hasn't been out there yet.

So you believe that the industry can right itself by reissuing--of all things--*soul* titles? Yikes.


.


No, I think he's saying there's been enough rehashing of the same old shit. Since the recording industry cries it's in such shitty shape, might as well put out some unusual soul titles, seeing that the classic rock reissues haven't brought them out of their doldrums. As if any rock reissues could. It's great new acts they need to rev up sales; reasonable pricing; and career building, not settling for flavor-of-the-month and dumping them as soon as their sales slow down. That would be a start, leaving the door open to afford reissues that would be more challenging and historical in nature. Won't happen except at the boutique labels, but except for Ripete, Westside/Sequel and Ace, not much interest out there for soul collections.

ED 8)
When remixing vintage tapes, imagine you are back in the time those recordings were made, and mix accordingly. forget Today's Sound Sensibilities....

mikenycLI
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:02 pm
Location: New York City Metropolitan Area, United States

Postby mikenycLI » Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:28 am

Unfortunately, when people, think of "Soul", they usually mean Motown, period, maybe...maybe...Atlantic/Atco/Stax/Volt, certainly NOT Specialty, VeeJay, Malco, Curtom, or any of the Northern Soul labels.

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:51 am

Ed Bishop wrote:On The Boss: just checking for a reaction. I got it.

Great! You got a reaction. But . . . er . . . just what kind of reaction were you hoping to get??

Ron
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:11 am
Location: Far Away From All You Fellas

Postby Ron » Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:08 am

Ed Bishop wrote:
Ron wrote:
Grant wrote:Could it be that the companies keep rehashing the same old shit for CD? They're sitting on TONS of vault material and yet we get more remasters of the same damn classic rock. Let's get some soul reissues out there, and I mean shit that hasn't been out there yet.

So you believe that the industry can right itself by reissuing--of all things--*soul* titles? Yikes.


No, I think he's saying there's been enough rehashing of the same old shit. Since the recording industry cries it's in such shitty shape, might as well put out some unusual soul titles, seeing that the classic rock reissues haven't brought them out of their doldrums. As if any rock reissues could.

Let me see if I've got this straight: classic rock reissues haven't been a huge success for the industry lately, so let's try some unusual soul titles?? Actually, that's exactly what I thought Grant meant. So I say again: Yikes.


.