Regarding this - and slightly diverting the topic - for those that work at/operate/own labels or sell your music via download (and forgive me for being ignorant/naive about this)
does the sale of downloads ever generate enough revenue to allow you to press up limited numbers of vinyl? I would imagine we would see more limited (500+/-) copies of download releases in order to: 1) satisfy some of the vinyl enthusiasts and 2) create a collectable artifact and 3) kick it old skool for us Luddites I know that some of the income from the download sales have to go to things like web/server maintenance and general artist income but you upload a tune and it can sit there forever generating sales without using physical resources I could imagine that some of that could be turned around into dazzling runs of 250 red and purple marbled reverse cut double grooved vinyl with full colour triple gatefold die-cut sleeves and a poster and iron on patches to boot ;-) is this the way techno/house/etc labels are operating now? MEK Todd Sines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/02/2008 10:38:19 PM: > At one point, Dan Bell + I spoke of being able to download music and > play it that night; but we didn't expect it to be MP3's; rather, we > thought the Vestax personal record lathe would actually allow you to > cut your own masters and play them.. ha. > > But then record sales became harder for most of the world, not just > those who buy the records and play them at clubs; the vinyl plants in > the US were shutting down left and right, and it became increasingly > difficult to get quality vinyl manufactured here in the US. > > Unfortunately, I fell into the same pitfalls as the rest of us, got > lazy, and started writing most of my music on the laptop and using a > breakout box to mix it down.. Somehow, with the advent of using > Logic, Live, I downloaded / traded / bought stuff from anywhere and > everywhere, promo packs from labels, sharing vinyl RIPs with friends, > buying stuff from Beatport, Stompy, Classic / MumboJumbo, Word and > Sound; [I do feel like I did my share of supporting the vinyl > community, with about 5,000 records, old + new]... > > I don't want to kill vinyl, but I'm recognizing that "us dinosaurs" > might be among the last few that still hold on.. > I've been to parties [and played clubs] where there's no freaking > 1200's in sight.. just CDJs! > > somehow, I hope that people still recognize the value of the mediums > [visual + aural] and what they are _ALL_ good for... > > > +odd > -- > On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:51 PM, ben thompson wrote: > > > i have used Final Scratch 2 for the past 2 years, to some success. > > however, i am still not able to play a proper, balls out set with > > it. not because the tunes are not there, but because:- > > 1. the sound quality is not an iota on vinyl > > 2. i agree with senor Francis on the covers thing. much easier to > > pick and choose in the heat of the moment, through sight of and > > feel of the vinyl and covers. > > 3. although much lighter and much less fuss than vinyl, i love > > vinyl and FS2 has not given me any better alternative. > > > > having said that, it does allow me to play new stuff that i, or > > flat mate, has written that afternoon. and not dub plate it. so in > > that respect, it is a useful tool > > > > sorry, but same old argument... vinyl rules > > > > Ben.T > > On 2 Jan 2008, at 20:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> When I first read this I thought "yes I'm sure that's absolutely > >> right". > >> But then I thought a little bit more and I'm not sure it's the > >> whole answer. > >> What I think looking at covers (real or virtual) gives me is some > >> information / association that I can absorb very quickly and use > >> to make a decision on what to play next. > >> It's not the only way you could do that though - i.e. I don't just > >> want to do it this way because it's what I'm used to. I can > >> think of other things. In fact the "covers" thing would not be as > >> good as a gadget that quickly "previewed" in the headphones how a > >> load of alternative tracks would sound mixing out of the one > >> playing. But of course there wouldn't be enough time to do this with > >> too many tracks - what I was saying about accessing the info quickly. > >> So let's imagine some other wonder gadget that did a different > >> version of "covers". How about a jack that plugged into your head > >> and gave you a millisecond flash of how a track "made you feel"? > >> OK I'm being silly now but maybe you get my drift. > >> > >> And the funny thing is even though I don't DJ with a PC (yet) I > >> know what people mean when they talk about not being grabbed by a > >> list of file names. Sadly I keep a log (not always up to date or > >> accurate) of the records I buy. Just a clipboard with a few A4 > >> sheets with the 12"/LP names pencilled on. I started this about > >> 15 years ago when I only had 3 or 4 hundred records and wanted a > >> way to quickly look through them. I've kept it up and it isn't a > >> big deal to do - just a few words every week or two when I've been > >> to the shop a couple of times (there's no way I could start it > >> from scratch now, it would be too big a job, I'd like to switch to a > >> database with more details on but it would take winning the > >> lottery and employing someone to transcribe). But the point is > >> although > >> I keep this up, as it's easy, it's never really served its > >> purpose: sitting down at the kitchen table with a list of all the > >> records > >> I have and being able to quickly skim down to select a boxful to > >> take out. It just doesn't sink in and your eyes slip over a title > >> without really taking in what it means. I still end up on my > >> hands and knees crawling around my record shelves actually looking at > >> them because only then do I really see (=hear?) them. > >> > >> So although I agree it's partly about making new digital forms act > >> like old analogue ones by aping their physical aspect, it's also > >> a psychological one about how we absorb information. > >> > >> Phew! (good job I'm off on holiday for 3 weeks on Friday as that's > >> 313ed me out). > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: JT Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: 02 January 2008 19:59 > >>> > >>> interesting...i think this has more to do with music > >>> appreciation/collecting than dj'ing (although relevant to many > >>> dj's), > >>> turning digital music into a digital "object" closer to what we > >>> experience with actual objects. we had like a 30 page argument > >>> touching on that on c-b-s recently. > >> > > > > > > >
