From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #124 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Wednesday, April 30 2003 Volume 03 : Number 124 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Movie question ["Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett" ] [loud-fans] it'll be a fall spring [Aaron Mandel ] [loud-fans] CD Spring Cleaning (Chilton, Three O'Clock, Jason, and Frank Allison) ["Kunkel, Mark" ] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) ["W. David Barnes" ] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) [Chris Prew ] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) [Wes_Vokes@eFunds.Com] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) ["W. David Barnes" ] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) [glenn mcdonald ] [loud-fans] Apple (ns) [dana-boy@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] Fwd: Jimmy Kimmel Live Tonight! (Polyphonic Spree) [steve ] Re: [loud-fans] Wherehouse Update [Gil Ray ] Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) [Gil Ray ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:17:45 +0100 From: "Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett" Subject: [loud-fans] Movie question Can anyone help me to remember the title of a movie I saw a couple of years back - independent Swedish, very black humour about civilisation collapsing, used mainly non-actors (the only pro actor was one who was covered by a sheet on a hospital trolley and you only saw his foot right at the start), no camera movements between scenes except one tracking shot along a railway platform, for some reason I think the number 7 was in the title somewhere... Think it won a golden globe or something at Venice, maybe. Thanks Ian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:59:08 -0400 From: "Larry Tucker" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Caitlin Cary...and Chris Stamey and others. |-----Original Message----- |From: Dan Sallitt [mailto:sallitt@post.harvard.edu] |Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 1:59 PM |To: loud-fans@smoe.org |Subject: [loud-fans] Caitlin Cary | | |> Oh, FWIW another gal with an alt.country pedigree (and little |> otherwise |> to do with Lucinda Williams) has an excellent new record |coming out |> tomorrow. Be on the lookout for Caitlin Cary's I'M STAYING |OUT, an even |> better record than last year's fine full-length debut and one that |> likely will be on some year-end list of mine somewhere. | |I wish I felt that this one was better or even as good as the last. I |keep listening to it, and I'm starting to develop a modest |appreciation, |but I'd still have to call it a big sophomore slump after the |brilliant |collection of songs on WHILE YOU WEREN'T LOOKING. Not bad, but much |more generic. Am I the only one reacting this way? All the |press I've |seen has been along the lines of "Another fine record," "Confirms the |promise of," etc. - Dan I like it a lot, but not quite as much as WYWL. I think it's plagued by that familiar complain of too many slow songs. With this album though her voice to me sounds even more like Linda Thompson's. I'm just wishing that Tift Merritt had worked with Chris Stamey on her album BRAMBLE ROSE, which sounds a little too slick by comparison to her live shows. And speaking of Stamey, the word from Yep Roc is that it will be out when it's out. Chris is still tinkering with it. There is one song available though on a Yep Roc sampler which is a remake of Alaska's "14 Shades of Green". I am crazy about the new Steve Wynn STATIC TRANSMISSION and the new Minus 5 albums! One and two respectively in my faves thus far this year. Oh, and the new Bangles release is already out on Blue Rose (Germany). Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:27:28 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Movie question > Can anyone help me to remember the title of a movie I saw a couple of > years back - independent Swedish, very black humour about civilisation > collapsing, used mainly non-actors (the only pro actor was one who was > covered by a sheet on a hospital trolley and you only saw his foot right > at the start), no camera movements between scenes except one tracking > shot along a railway platform, for some reason I think the number 7 was > in the title somewhere... My movie mailing list had the answer - SONGS FROM THE SECOND FLOOR. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:32:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: [loud-fans] it'll be a fall spring Posted at pitchforkmedia.com today (a site I used to hate but which has now become one of my few daily visits) is a blurb about a new Fall album coming in two weeks (pushed back from April -- I *thought* I heard something about it already) and, even better, a two-disc set of complete Peel sessions from 1978-1983, whose limited chronological range suggests they may later issue the three or four more full discs it would take to cover the Fall's constant visits to Mr. Peel. I've had mp3s of the sessions through 1998 for a few years and they're definitely worth having. a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:39:22 -0500 From: "Kunkel, Mark" Subject: [loud-fans] CD Spring Cleaning (Chilton, Three O'Clock, Jason, and Frank Allison) Greetings: I have extra copies of the following CDs. If you want 'em, you can have both or either for the cost of postage: - -- Alex Chilton, Starcrossed: Tales of Two Cities (poorly recorded bootleg on Punk Vault label) - -- Three O'Clock, Ever After (1987 release on IRS). Also, if you have CD copies of the following that you are able and willing to make me copies of, that would be just swell. I can't find my CD of Jason Ringenberg's "One Foot in the Honky Tonk", which I suspect is out-of-print. And my copy of Frank Allison's greatest hits and oddities "A Mad Smattering of Frank Allison and the Odd Sox" is scratched. If you have either or both and can make me a copy, I would happily reimburse you. Email me, please. Thanks! - -- Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:11:32 -0500 From: "Kunkel, Mark" Subject: [loud-fans] Chilton CD Has Been Claimed ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:21:43 GMT From: Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) Just received Apple's new sales pitch in the email, and it does look awfully slick. What I keep wondering about is the .99/song pricing. I know that this is kind of a fourth-grade level question, but does this mean that the entire Thick As A Brick can be had for .99? Does Half Japanese's Greatest Hits now cost over sixty dollars? I'm sure there's some fine print somewhere to deal with situations like this. Those new iPods sure do look nice too. Nonetheless, I really hope that eMusic sticks around for at least a little while longer. It may be quirky and annoying, but we've had a beautiful relationship thus far, and I'd hate to see it end. Having trouble getting involved in Mr. Personality, 'cause as far as I can tell, none of the men *have* a personality. Only possible reason to watch is to see if the evil hypnotist will triumph. I hope not!! - --dana ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:35:14 -0700 From: "W. David Barnes" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) Dana (and all): It's actually .99 per song but (generally) $9.99 for the whole CD. There are exceptions that are a little higher but many that are lower. I found the Talking Heads 'Remain in Light' (one of my favorites that I only have on cassette) for $7.99. The newest Sparklehorse was $9.99 as was a few others I looked at. Lots of CDs that are not complete so not available at the full CD price but I'm sure that will change as the service matures and they add more cool stuff. The selection is enough to keep me busy for a while and the tunes sound great, even on the iPod (and damn, don't I want one of the new 15Gb versions...If someone wants a deal on a 5Gb, let me know and I'll make them a deal...). David B. On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 02:21PM, Dana Paoli wrote: >Just received Apple's new sales pitch in the email, and it does look awfully slick. What I keep wondering about is the .99/song pricing. I know that this is kind of a fourth-grade level question, but does this mean that the entire Thick As A Brick can be had for .99? Does Half Japanese's Greatest Hits now cost over sixty dollars? I'm sure there's some fine print somewhere to deal with situations like this. > >Those new iPods sure do look nice too. Nonetheless, I really hope that eMusic sticks around for at least a little while longer. It may be quirky and annoying, but we've had a beautiful relationship thus far, and I'd hate to see it end. > >Having trouble getting involved in Mr. Personality, 'cause as far as I can tell, none of the men *have* a personality. Only possible reason to watch is to see if the evil hypnotist will triumph. I hope not!! > >--dana > > > > >________________________________________________________________ >The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! >Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! >Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:48:55 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) Its really goofy. They have a fair amount of cool things but... 1) many albums with lots of tracks you can't buy as an "album" for 9.99, you have to buy it as tracks, increasing the price. 2) many "albums" don't actually include ALL the tracks from the album. 3) Many short tracks are still .99 4) many long tracks CANNOT be purchased as a single you track - for those you must buy the album. For example, if you want to purchase Holger Czukay's Plight and Premonition, which contains two long tracks, you can't buy the individual tracks, just the album -- at the inflated price of 11.99, even though the album only clocks in at 34 minutes.... However, the Clash's Super Black Market Clash is listed as a "partial album", so you can't just pay the album download price, you have to download each of the 16 tracks at .99 each, so $16. Even though you are MISSING 5 tracks from the actual album. I mean, c'mon. I know Apples pricing is driven by the record companies, but as a consumer, I don't really give a crap about that. The Apple service currently seems to be aimed at "single buyers" as opposed to "album buyers"...i.e., loud-fans. Get the 10 singles from 10 albums for $9.90 (+ tax, of course). My biggest beef with the pricing is that when you buy a CD, you have a commodity....if I want, at any point, I can take a CD and sell it to somebody else and get a couple of my initial bucks back. There is some asset worth in a CD. You can't do this with a download, which I believe lowers the intrinsic value. Personally, if they lowered the price to about .69 a track and maybe 6.99 - 7.99 per standard album, I might consider this, but for now, I'll stick with Emusic and the real CD's for 12 - 13 at the local indie store. And when Apple & the majors get a slap of reality due to anemic sales, maybe they'll drop the price a bit.... Chris, ever the cheapskate. On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 04:21 PM, Dana Paoli wrote: > Just received Apple's new sales pitch in the email, and it does look > awfully slick. What I keep wondering about is the .99/song pricing. > I know that this is kind of a fourth-grade level question, but does > this mean that the entire Thick As A Brick can be had for .99? Does > Half Japanese's Greatest Hits now cost over sixty dollars? I'm sure > there's some fine print somewhere to deal with situations like this. > > Those new iPods sure do look nice too. Nonetheless, I really hope > that eMusic sticks around for at least a little while longer. It may > be quirky and annoying, but we've had a beautiful relationship thus > far, and I'd hate to see it end. > > Having trouble getting involved in Mr. Personality, 'cause as far as I > can tell, none of the men *have* a personality. Only possible reason > to watch is to see if the evil hypnotist will triumph. I hope not!! > > --dana > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:57:11 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) Chris Prew on 4/29/2003 3:48:55 PM wrote: > My biggest beef with the pricing is that when you buy a CD, you have a > commodity....if I want, at any point, I can take a CD and sell it to > somebody else and get a couple of my initial bucks back. There is some > asset worth in a CD. You can't do this with a download, which I believe > lowers the intrinsic value. Personally, if they lowered the price to > about .69 a track and maybe 6.99 - 7.99 per standard album, I might > consider this, but for now, I'll stick with Emusic and the real CD's > for 12 - 13 at the local indie store. I'm with you, Chris. Take the REMAIN IN LIGHT example. Why pay $9.99 for *ick* MP3 sound when you can get the full CD audio experience from CD Universe for $9.09? I don't get it. I can understand eMusic, where you get unlimited downloads for a small monthly fee, but paying approx $10 for an album's worth of MP3 tracks strikes me as non-consumer friendly. The only possible benefit for me (assuming I went out and bought a portable MP3 player) would be that MP3s would take up less space in my house than the actual CD. Hmmmm.... Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:05:12 -0500 From: Wes_Vokes@eFunds.Com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) So, does John Lennon's "Neutopian National Anthem" cost 99 cents too?? Wes Chris Prew cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) owner-loud-fans@s moe.org 04/29/03 04:48 PM Its really goofy. They have a fair amount of cool things but... 1) many albums with lots of tracks you can't buy as an "album" for 9.99, you have to buy it as tracks, increasing the price. 2) many "albums" don't actually include ALL the tracks from the album. 3) Many short tracks are still .99 4) many long tracks CANNOT be purchased as a single you track - for those you must buy the album. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:42:50 -0700 From: "W. David Barnes" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) Mainly becuase I didn't pay $9.99 and it isn't icky .mp3... Hey, no problem with the Emusic model which I stand by but I also feel like judging a service like this on content and pricing on the second day up is a tad impatient. I have definitely found things that I like about the service, anticipate positive change and will continue to appreciate just how cool Emusic is (and why aren't there more subcribers?).... On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 02:57PM, Roger Winston wrote: >Chris Prew on 4/29/2003 3:48:55 PM wrote: > >> My biggest beef with the pricing is that when you buy a CD, you have a >> commodity....if I want, at any point, I can take a CD and sell it to >> somebody else and get a couple of my initial bucks back. There is some >> asset worth in a CD. You can't do this with a download, which I believe >> lowers the intrinsic value. Personally, if they lowered the price to >> about .69 a track and maybe 6.99 - 7.99 per standard album, I might >> consider this, but for now, I'll stick with Emusic and the real CD's >> for 12 - 13 at the local indie store. > >I'm with you, Chris. Take the REMAIN IN LIGHT example. Why pay $9.99 for *ick* MP3 sound when you can get the full CD audio experience from CD Universe for $9.09? I don't get it. > >I can understand eMusic, where you get unlimited downloads for a small monthly fee, but paying approx $10 for an album's worth of MP3 tracks strikes me as non-consumer friendly. > >The only possible benefit for me (assuming I went out and bought a portable MP3 player) would be that MP3s would take up less space in my house than the actual CD. Hmmmm.... > >Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:37:08 -0400 From: glenn mcdonald Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) I assume the Apple Music Store will keep getting more music over time, especially if it's at all successful. I browsed around for a little while today and found lots of great music I already have, but the only things I would have bought were old enough that I'm pretty sure I could find the albums used for half what I'd be paying online. I thought of a lot of individual songs I'd happily pay $.99 for, but so far none of them are available. I'm very pleased with iTunes 4, though. After some close listening tests, I have conclusively determined that in my digital-music listening conditions, my ears cannot tell the difference between a CD-audio WAV file, the 192k MP3 of it (an encoding rate I picked because in a previous test I proved to myself that I couldn't hear the difference between 192k, 256k and 320k, but could hear flaws at 128k and 160k), and the 128k AAC version that iTunes 4 (actually Quick Time 6.2) produces. Not only that, but I cannot tell the difference between a 192k MP3 and that same MP3 converted to AAC, so as we speak I'm converting my existing library to AAC, increasing my effective iPod capacity by 50%. Nice. The new iPods look nice, too, but not so nice that I feel obliged to upgrade from my "old" 20GB model. When they get to 100GB, though, I'll have to reconsider... glenn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:54:45 -0400 From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) Hey, no problem with the Emusic model which I stand by but I also feel like judging a service like this on content and pricing on the second day up is a tad impatient. I have definitely found things that I like about the service, anticipate positive change and will continue to appreciate just how cool Emusic is (and why aren't there more subscribers?).... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, this is interesting. I never bothered to try to figure out who was behind eMusic before. Turns out it's Vivendi Universal. And, if I'm reading the news correctly, it was announced today that the French company formally announced plans to try to sell off its US Vivendi Entertainment assets. I'm not clear on how eMusic relates to Universal Entertainment and how that relates to Universal Music. Reading another article, I find a reference to Apple looking into buying Universal Music. Could eMusic end up getting folded into Apple's new service. Maybe someone more informed has some insight? - --dana ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:10:38 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) At 08:54 PM 4/29/2003 -0400, dana-boy@juno.com wrote: >Hmmm, this is interesting. I never bothered to try to figure out who was >behind eMusic before. Turns out it's Vivendi Universal. And, if I'm >reading the news correctly, it was announced today that the French >company formally announced plans to try to sell off its US Vivendi >Entertainment assets. I'm not clear on how eMusic relates to Universal >Entertainment and how that relates to Universal Music. From the website's corporate profile: "EMusic is part of Vivendi Universal's (NYSE: V; Paris Bourse: EX FP) US-based Internet and technology company, Vivendi Universal Net USA." My guess is that that's a subsidiary of Universal Entertainment, as is Universal Music. >Reading another >article, I find a reference to Apple looking into buying Universal Music. > Could eMusic end up getting folded into Apple's new service. Maybe, but I doubt Apple will buy Universal -- just a gut feeling, anyway. And I doubt that they would gut eMusic even if they did: although it sometimes seems that no one knows about them, eMusic is both the oldest and the biggest music subsciption service. S ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:29:09 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Stewart Mason wrote: > At 08:54 PM 4/29/2003 -0400, dana-boy@juno.com wrote: > >From the website's corporate profile: "EMusic is part of Vivendi > Universal's (NYSE: V; Paris Bourse: EX FP) US-based Internet and technology > company, Vivendi Universal Net USA." My guess is that that's a subsidiary > of Universal Entertainment, as is Universal Music. > > >Reading another > >article, I find a reference to Apple looking into buying Universal Music. > > Could eMusic end up getting folded into Apple's new service. > > Maybe, but I doubt Apple will buy Universal -- just a gut feeling, anyway. > And I doubt that they would gut eMusic even if they did: although it > sometimes seems that no one knows about them, eMusic is both the oldest and > the biggest music subsciption service. what i'd really love to hear informed off-the-record comment on is the relationship between E-music (which i love dearly) and mp3.com. you might recall that what got mp3.com in huge legal trouble and led ultimately to the vivendi buyout was ripping albums to mp3 so that people who owned the albums (registered their ownership with mp3.com) could listen to the mp3.com encoded mp3s from any location -- i think this was called "beam-it" or some such. any e-music member has probably noticed that a great deal of the music on the site has "mp3.com" in the "encoded by" ID tags. (i don't mean to suggest anything untoward -- just something ironic) for the record, i still think .99/track is at least 200% too high for a 128K mp3 (or ogg) track. i'll have to do my own tests of the QT 6.2 format, but i'm skeptical. none of the record companies are going to set much store by the idea that the physical cd gives the consumer something to sell later -- there've already been a number of (unsuccesful, thus far) attacks mounted on first-sale doctrine for music anyway. and i do believe i might be willing to put up with that --- if it meant that nothing ever went "out of print." Stewart: where does the "biggest" music subscription service datum come from? how recent is it? - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:25:42 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) Quoting dana-boy@juno.com: > > Hmmm, this is interesting. I never bothered to try to figure out who > was > behind eMusic before. Turns out it's Vivendi Universal. And, if I'm > reading the news correctly, it was announced today that the French > company formally announced plans to try to sell off its US Vivendi > Entertainment assets. I'm not clear on how eMusic relates to Universal > Entertainment and how that relates to Universal Music. Reading another > article, I find a reference to Apple looking into buying Universal > Music. Dunno...but I was reading some of the input in eMusic's bulletin board dealies (or whatever they're calling them), and someone pointed out, without saying (or necessarily knowing) about the ownership thing, that all the UMG-label stuff has disappeared. (They were, I believe, one of the few major label items on eMusic - lotsa old jazz on Verve, frinst.) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: "am I being self-referential?" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:00:21 -0500 From: steve Subject: [loud-fans] Fwd: Jimmy Kimmel Live Tonight! (Polyphonic Spree) Begin forwarded message: > The Polyphonic Spree make their network U.S. Television debut tonight, > April 29, 2003, on Jimmy Kimmel Live. The show starts at 12:05/11:05 > Central on ABC. Don't miss it! Be sure to tell your friends and > family. - - Steve __________ Al Franken: Clintons military did pretty well in Iraq, huh? Paul Wolfowitz: Fuck you. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:04:28 -0700 From: dc Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Jimmy Kimmel Live Tonight! (Polyphonic Spree) > - Steve > Al Franken: Clintons military did pretty well in Iraq, huh? > Paul Wolfowitz: Fuck you. this is funny. what's the attribution? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:24:08 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Jimmy Kimmel Live Tonight! (Polyphonic Spree) On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 12:04 AM, dc wrote: >> Al Franken: Clinton's military did pretty well in Iraq, huh? >> Paul Wolfowitz: Fuck you. > > > this is funny. what's the attribution? Salon's gossip column, of course. ;) > April 27, 2003 | Salon didn't go down for Saturday's White House > Correspondents' Dinner and its corresponding exclusive > Bloomberg-sponsored after-party this year, so instead we relied on the > eyewitness reports of trusted spies who attended the annual gala, > where the most powerful people in the country rub shoulders with > entertainment powerhouses like Dr. Ruth, Jason Priestley and Richard > Belzer. > > This year's kitsch-a-thon, though, sounds like it was far more somber > than in the past. President Bush cracked no jokes at the dinner, > instead honoring journalists who were killed in the line of duty in > Iraq. (For a serviceable news report of the event, read this.) No one, > it seems, was in much of a clowning mood. Take the exchange we heard > about between comedian/smartass Al Franken and Deputy Secretary of > Defense Paul Wolfowitz : > > Franken : "Clinton's military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?" > > Wolfowitz : "Fuck you." - - Steve __________ Folks looking to boycott French and German goods over those countries' positions on Iraq haven't been doing their research. Polls show 64 percent of boycotters think Grey Poupon is French, 70 percent think Dutch Heineken is German, and 42 percent think GM-owned Saab is German. And only 30 percent know that the French controlled Universal Pictures. - - Reason ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:42:28 -0400 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) I wrote a really long message about the new Apple music service, then decided that it really worked better as a weblog entry rather than as mailbox pollution. Anyone who cares can read it here: http://www.freeke.org/ffg/entertainment/music/applemusic-1.html -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 23:08:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Wherehouse Update - --- dc wrote: > > this evening, i tracked down this mid-January report > from some online > business journal: > > "Music and video retailer Wherehouse Entertainment > Inc. on Tuesday filed for > Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, partly blaming > illegal downloading of > music on the Internet... > "Wherehouse, which recently closed 30 stores, says > it expects to close 120 > poorly performing stores within the next several > months, leaving it with > about 250 locations..." Wherehouse...Hmmm..My workplace took a huge hit from them when they filed bankruptcy in the 90's. They owed us about $250,000. A judge let them pay us $.25 on the dollar. Now, here they go again. I don't know what they owe us now, but I think we make them pay up front. We also try to get our labels to sign an agreement that if we get screwed by giant chains pulling this kind of shit, the labels will help to absorb the hit. Some of 'em sign it, some don't. It's really cute that they are selling off stock from anywhere from .05 to .10 a cd. I don't begrudge anyone from taking advantage of that, I would. It's just...yucky. Gil __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 23:11:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Apple (ns) - --- Roger Winston wrote: > The only possible benefit for me (assuming I went > out and bought a portable MP3 player) would be that > MP3s would take up less space in my house than the > actual CD. Hmmmm.... Rog....Rog....don't go to the dark side.... Gil (hey! cd's are neat! I think they might catch on!)Vader __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #124 *******************************