IDM Mailing Archive

Two things: 1) Is there a video compilation of Aphex you guys have put together in the past? If so, how do I go about getting a copy? If not, I think this would be a great idea. I'm sure someone out there has really hi-quality video equipment. And I'm sure with our combined manpower we can muscle up all the Aphex Videos ever. Let me know what you think...and what you've got. 2) How about putting together a tape filled with all of Aphex's toughest to get recordings, like Powerpill, the Joyrex stuff, and many of the remixes that I don't want to buy the whole crappy CD just for his remix or two. I would be more than willing to design a nice cover for it and all...let me know what you think...and what you've got. Post advice to me about these projects to the list. Post specific listings of what you've got (videos, rare cd's, remix cd's, good video dubbing equipment) to me personally. I don't want to clutter up the list. :)

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:00:18 -0700, you wrote:

quoted 5 lines 2) How about putting together a tape filled with all of Aphex's toughest to

>2) How about putting together a tape filled with all of Aphex's toughest to >get recordings, like Powerpill, the Joyrex stuff, and many of the remixes >that I don't want to buy the whole crappy CD just for his remix or two. I >would be more than willing to design a nice cover for it and all...let me >know what you think...and what you've got.

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. g.

On Friday, 20-Jun-97, g. wrote [about Re: (idm) Aphex Stuff]:

quoted 3 lines wow you must have loads of money. i reckon it's cost about GBP£15,000

>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.

heh master it in 33.3kHz :) hm, speaking of money.. I wonder, how much did you guys pay to have WarpNet designed? If tDR charged you what most web-design companies charge I reckon it cost a bloody fortune, or a couple of them :) with all the pages you have, every warp ep/lp page, and then Java is expensive as a bitch too.. __ __\ \ / /_\ \ \_____/ , m7=

On Thursday, 19-Jun-97, Tim Gill wrote [about (idm) Aphex Stuff]:

quoted 5 lines 1) Is there a video compilation of Aphex you guys have put together in the

>1) Is there a video compilation of Aphex you guys have put together in the >past? If so, how do I go about getting a copy? If not, I think this would be >a great idea. I'm sure someone out there has really hi-quality video >equipment. And I'm sure with our combined manpower we can muscle up all the >Aphex Videos ever. Let me know what you think...and what you've got.

the only thing I can tell you is to muscle up all the videos for yourself, and find out if ppl who have them will make you a copy of them. if anyone does have any and would make me a copy of them if I send a tape, let me know ! (privately of coz..) __ __\ \ / /_\ \ \_____/ , m7=

greg@warp-net.com (g.) writes:

quoted 3 lines wow you must have loads of money. i reckon it's cost about GBP£15,000

> 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? Or do everybody who's got the money to pay the licensing fees have the right to include the tracks on their compilations? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

quoted 1 line Why don't bands say no to these compilations?

>Why don't bands say no to these compilations?

The question is "why don't labels say no," and the answer is because it's easy money. C. -- C.Hilker (cspot@hyperreal.com) "We don't relax, we Rolex"

On 20 Jun 1997 20:51:32 +0200, you wrote:

quoted 13 lines greg@warp-net.com (g.) writes:

>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. :)

quoted 3 lines Or do everybody who's got the money to pay the

>Or do everybody who's got the money to pay the >licensing fees have the right to include the tracks on their >compilations?

No absolutely not, in the same way that people shouldn't distribute bootleg aphex cassettesssss. oops. couldn't resist. all the warp stuff on that tape apart from the HAB stuff is still available on cd btw. instead of stealing from richard and us go and buy 'em. g.

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.

In a message dated 97-06-23 20:10:08 EDT, greg@warp-net.com (g.) writes: << the same way that people shouldn't distribute bootleg aphex cassettesssss. oops. couldn't resist. all the warp stuff on that tape apart from the HAB stuff is still available on cd btw. instead of stealing from richard and us go and buy 'em. >> I think it's safe to say that most of the people on this list have donated more than enough to both warp and richard and by passing one bootleg tape around to twenty or so people would cause either richard or warp to go broke. Although I do agree that the tape, *in theory*, should only contain out of print stuff, but I doubt most of the people who are getting this tape are doing it for On, Donkey Rhubarb, or Quoth, but rather the out of print stuff that is no longer making Warp, Rephlex, or Richard any money at the moment. Instead this money is going to record store owners and greedy trainspotters (keyword here: GREEDY) who want to make a profit (none of which results in the company or the artist in getting additional money) off of something that only cost them 7 bucks to get new, and turning it around and selling it for 75 used. just my 2 cents.

On Tuesday, 24-Jun-97, MultSanta@aol.com wrote [about Re: (idm) Re: Aphex Stuff]:

quoted 4 lines Although I do agree that the tape, *in theory*, should only contain out of

> Although I do agree that the tape, *in theory*, should only contain out of >print stuff, but I doubt most of the people who are getting this tape are >doing it for On, Donkey Rhubarb, or Quoth, but rather the out of print stuff >that is no longer making Warp, Rephlex, or Richard any money at the moment.

yeah, and not only that, but if he doesn't put any of that stuff quoth, donkey rhubarb etc. on the tape that's in print, that just leaves room to put more out of print stuff on it = better = less tapes = cool :) __ __\ \ / /_\ \ \_____/ , m7=

quoted 5 lines Instead this money is going to record store owners and greedy trainspotters

> Instead this money is going to record store owners and greedy trainspotters >(keyword here: GREEDY) who want to make a profit (none of which results in >the company or the artist in getting additional money) off of something that >only cost them 7 bucks to get new, and turning it around and selling it for >75 used.

Ok let's make a new rule. No one can ever sell anything on this list for more than what it sold for when initially released. If you want to sell a rare item post it on the list (or web page) at NO MORE than the *original new price* and it'll be first come first served on the goodies ok?...hehehe...Can't wait to pick up those Caustic Window Ep's at $8-10 each! Start selling people!!!! (This policy goes for you record stores too!) ;-)

In a message dated 97-06-24 03:07:02 EDT, you write: << but I doubt most of the people who are getting this tape are doing it for On, Donkey Rhubarb, or Quoth, but rather the out of print stuff that is no longer making Warp, Rephlex, or Richard any money at the moment.

quoted 1 line

>>

Yes I agree, in any dub distribution it should always be stuff that is out of print or very hard to get. Otherwise,...... Go out and buy it!! If I was a famous musician I wouldn't mind at ALL if people dubbed stuff that was out of print or extremely hard to find, but if was stuff you could go to your local record store and buy or just simply order it from CDnow I might be a little upset,... -AnalogSquare

MultSanta@aol.com wrote:

quoted 8 lines that's not what I'm saying.

> that's not what I'm saying. > What I'm saying is that they don't have to be sold for that high. > Selling a record you got for $8 and selling it for $32 is still a great > turnaround (4x). But the people are trying to push the edge and sell > them up > to $100, just because they know that some poor sap who wasn't as lucky to > get > them when they first came out would spend for them.

Huh? If I decide I want to sell something, then why shouldn't I sell it at the highest price someone will pay? It's not an issue of turnaround; it's an issue of what the piece is worth, which is agreed to when the buyer hands money to the seller and the seller hands the piece to the buyer. Let's say that instead of $8, you spent $30 for it. Would you then say that $32 is reasonable, or should I be allowed to sell it for $120? It doesn't make any sense. If the piece is worth $100, then the person who bought it for $8 and the person who bought it for $30 should be able to sell it for $100. And when did you become the authority on how much turnaround is "enough?" I've bought a lot of music that today isn't "worth" a broken shoelace. If I ever decide to sell them, I'm going to lose money overall. Life is hard. So why is it a problem for me to make as much money as I can on the music that is still worth something? Is that "greedy?" I don't know; I know that even when I've paid a lot of money for a piece of music that I really wanted, nine times out of ten I'm happy that I did, and I don't consider the other party "greedy" for asking for the money. It only seems "greedy" if it's above what *you* are willing to pay. I have no problem with someone selling a Joyrex for $100 if they can. I can't afford to spend it, so I won't be able to buy it. That's my problem, not the seller's. That's just the way things work in the collector's market (which is where we are when it comes to some of this music). Whining about it is useless. And since I can't afford a Joyrex, I've managed to make a tape trade with someone who owns them. So now I can at least listen to the stuff. I hope one day to be flush enough that I can buy an original, or that I luck upon one for cheap (it happens), but until then, I don't have one. I can deal with that. *shrug* And I'm perfectly willing to do tape trades of the rare music I own in exchange for tapes of things I want to hear. I care more about hearing music than I do about owning the original, but I'd like to own the original if I can. I just can't always afford it. It's like anything else in life. -- Adam J Weitzman -- Individual, Inc. -- http://www.individual.com -- "If there's been a way to build it, there'll be a way to destroy it, Things are not all that out of control." - Stereolab, "Crest"

At 10:29 AM 6/23/97 GMT, g. wrote:

quoted 33 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. :) > >>Or do everybody who's got the money to pay the >>licensing fees have the right to include the tracks on their >>compilations? > >No absolutely not, in the same way that people shouldn't distribute >bootleg aphex cassettesssss. oops. couldn't resist. all the warp stuff >on that tape apart from the HAB stuff is still available on cd btw. >instead of stealing from richard and us go and buy 'em. > >g.

Just for the record, I have a pretty hefty Aphex collection myself...but I live in the US and distribution over here really sucks. I have gone to every record store in a 40 mile radius and bought everything I could find. Some fo this stuff is just impossible to get for me...

quoted 5 lines Just for the record, I have a pretty hefty Aphex collection myself...but I

> > Just for the record, I have a pretty hefty Aphex collection myself...but I > live in the US and distribution over here really sucks. I have gone to > every record store in a 40 mile radius and bought everything I could find. > Some fo this stuff is just impossible to get for me...

I used to live in New Hampshire, and trust me, there's NOTHING there... really (or so there wasn't that I knew about growing up.... perhaps I just didn't find em) But almost anything is available mailorder... __________________________________________ sfwd@sonic.net HeathenNet (Under_Constant_Construction) http://www.sonic.net/~brap/ heavy rotation: Squarepusher 'Hard Normal Daddy' We 'As Is' v/a 'The Knights Who Say Dot' Scar Tissue 'TMOTD' Speedy J 'public energy no.1'

In a message dated 97-06-25 07:43:31 EDT, lovecrft@fishnet.net (Tim Gill) writes: << Just for the record, I have a pretty hefty Aphex collection myself...but I live in the US and distribution over here really sucks. I have gone to every record store in a 40 mile radius and bought everything I could find. Some fo this stuff is just impossible to get for me... >> two words: mail order

At 06:42 PM 6/28/97 -0400, MultSanta@aol.com wrote:

quoted 15 lines In a message dated 97-06-25 07:43:31 EDT, lovecrft@fishnet.net (Tim Gill)

>In a message dated 97-06-25 07:43:31 EDT, lovecrft@fishnet.net (Tim Gill) >writes: > ><< Just for the record, I have a pretty hefty Aphex collection myself...but I > live in the US and distribution over here really sucks. I have gone to > every record store in a 40 mile radius and bought everything I could find. > Some fo this stuff is just impossible to get for me... >> > >two words: > >mail > >order > >

I know, I know...I'm working on it as we speak...