179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
g.
To:
Cc:
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Date:
Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:47:42 GMT
Subject:
Re: (idm) Re: Aphex Stuff
Msg-Id:
<33ae5275.6086423@sygnet.syspace.co.uk>
In-Reply-To:
<33b54d1e.4718868@sygnet.syspace.co.uk>
Mbox:
idm.9706.gz
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:29:25 GMT, you wrote:
quoted 22 lines On 20 Jun 1997 20:51:32 +0200, you wrote:>On 20 Jun 1997 20:51:32 +0200, you wrote: > >>greg@warp-net.com (g.) writes: >> >>> wow you must have loads of money. i reckon it's cost about GBP£15,000 >>> to license those tracks for a compilation. i wouldn't recommend >>> mastering it to tape though, most people like CDs nowadays. >> >>:-) >> >>But this reminds me of a thing I've been wondering about for a while: >>Compilation licensing deals. I often see tracks from bands I like on >>dodgy(ish) compilations (typically _Digeridoo_ on "100 Mega Dance >>Traxxxx VII") which makes me go "huh". Why don't bands say no to >>these compilations? > >Eh? why would they? I license warp tracks to any company that can >cough up. if they want to put out crap compilations and 99% of them >are laughably poor then that's their problem. at least they'll have >one decent track on them and both us and our artist are better off. >having a top warp track surrounded by shit doesn't in anyway devalue >the warp track. the music doesn't change. :)
obviously that's the aggressive view point. on a more mellow day i might disagree with myself entirely, and of course some artists are much fussier about compilation coupling than others and we absolutely respect those wishes. g.