Keep dreaming man......

telepathic regards,
the kooky scientist


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 

Reply via email to