On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Andrew Hime wrote:
quoted 6 lines Yes. Apparently Isophlux has some sort of clause in their contracts that> >Yes. Apparently Isophlux has some sort of clause in their contracts that
> >bars artists from using the same name on releases for other labels. So Yunx
> >releases their Isophlux material as Iyunx, and L'Usine becomes Lusine ICL
> >for non-Isophlux stuff.
>
> Why on earth would you agree to something like that?
To get your stuff released? <beatbox fill>
Okay, a real attempt at an answer...
Maybe Isophlux wants to establish themselves as "the label" for "this
act", for the sake of consistency. So that if you think of "this act"'s
work, you'll always be sure to know that Isophlux has released it --
instead of the case of "Oh yeah, they put out that one EP by them years
ago", which would rarely register as a bleep in one's memory.
Although if one really wanted to follow "this act"'s work, he/she would
probably have to keep track of "this act"'s aliases on other labels as
well. So the attempt at consistency seems a little wasted.
It seems a bit strange and Draconian, but it does make a little sense. I
stress "a little".
=======================================================================
Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org>
=======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org