On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 14:22:39 -0800 Greg Earle
<earle@isolar.Tujunga.CA.US> writes:
quoted 23 lines Brett McCormick wrote:
>> Brett McCormick wrote:
>>>
>>> the rather interesting version of dreamfish is different than the
>fax
>>> "re-issue".. I like them both, although they're nothing
>spectacular
>>> or anything.
>>
>> Hmm! Re-issue of the Original Dreamfish or dreamfish2 on
>> rather interesting, are you sure it's not the re-issue on
>> AmbientWorld ?
>
>Speaking of FAX re-issues in general ... (Charles are you listening?)
>
>I was looking through Charles' recent post on what's still orderable
>FAX-wise
>and noticed this Ambient World re-issues stuff. (After I spent
>several
>minutes vainly trying to un-braindamage the layout.)
>
>This begats the obvious question - and I hope it doesn't open a can of
>worms -
>why isn't there a re-issue of, say, Tetso Inoue's "Ambiant Otaku"?quoted 6 lines I keep hearing about this thing. How prices are really high for it,
>
>I keep hearing about this thing. How prices are really high for it,
>how it's
>limited edition, one of the better FAX issues, etc. etc. and that's
>why it
>goes for so much, blah blah ...quoted 10 lines Pardon my "Music wants to be Free" bent (guess all this MP3 collecting
>Pardon my "Music wants to be Free" bent (guess all this MP3 collecting
>has
>gotten into my brain) but since there seems to be a lot of demand for
>it,
>and there are other titles in the FAX canon that have been re-issued,
>why
>not this one? I've half a mind to MP3-ize mine and put it up on the
>Web
>(a la the MASK 2 MP3 page that someone kindly put up), I mean sheesh
>...quoted 58 lines I really think the biggest problem in the IDM/experimental
>I really think the biggest problem in the IDM/experimental
>techno/313/etc.
>world is lack of availability. I read posts on these lists all the
>time, and
>thousands upon thousands of releases are mentioned (heck, just collect
>about a
>week's worth of Lance's postings and that's at least a hundred records
>mentioned right there (-: ) that I - and I suspect most people - will
>NEVER
>get to hear even a small sliver of 'em.
>
>Personally, I think everything should be MP3'ized. "Home MP3'ing is
>Killing
>Music!" the labels cry. Bullshit. Yeah, like I really want to only
>be able
>to listen to music on my fucking computer with little powered
>speakers? Also,
>the only album I've downloaded from the Net in its entirety is CJ
>Bolland's
>"Analogue Theatre". Before that, I'd only heard "Sugar Is Sweeter"
>and had
>decided "Well, I guess I can skip this one". Gee, what do you know,
>the
>rest of it is *nothing* like "Sugar Is Sweeter" and you know what?
>When I
>saw it in a store, I bought the damned thing. So because I was able
>to hear
>it on the 'Net, CJ got a few more pennies in his pocket.
>
>OK, but not everyone has the same scruples as me, you protest. Maybe
>so.
>But the simple fact - in our genres, at least - is that this music
>does
>not get much distribution and it's damned hard to find, even though
>there's
>a LOT of it (Every week the Synaptics folks tell me there's 50, 75, up
>to 150
>new releases they get in. How am I supposed to pick something to mail
>order
>from them when I have no way to hear any of it, a priori? So I don't.
> But
>I dropped $525 in Modern Music back in April, because I was there in
>the
>store and could *hear* stuff. Helllllooooo ... is anybody paying
>attention?)
>
>I've been mumbling about Internet music distribution being the Future
>Of Music
>on these lists for several years now. (Not claiming prescience here,
>just a
>rather obvious pathway due to familiarity with the technology.) It's
>about
>time the music was MORE ubiquitous, not the other way around. FAX
>titles
>changing hands for over US $100 or whatever while there's re-issues of
>other
>titles just seems really silly to me in this day and age.
>