From: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org (oppositeview-digest) To: oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Subject: oppositeview-digest V4 #39 Reply-To: oppositeview@smoe.org Sender: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk oppositeview-digest Friday, February 15 2002 Volume 04 : Number 039 Today's Subjects: ----------------- OV: Justin Currie Interview [AHutch2074@aol.com] OV: songs to mope to [Claire ] Re: OV: OT: Josh Clayton-Felt [doug brown ] OV: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Blame_the_French!__(Well,_at_least_one_of_them.. .)?= [Catnip Frederick ] OV: the tour ..... ["Libby Graham" ] OV: New competition ["Kevin Cawthorne" ] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_OV:_Mercury_Records/V-Day?= [Catnip Frederick ] =?iso-8859-1?Q?PS_(Re:_OV:_Mercury_Records/V-Day)?= [Catnip Frederick Subject: OV: songs to mope to Evidence - Darden Smith & Boo Hewerdine What You're Doing - the Beatles How Long - Ace She's Got You - Patsy Cline Until You Come Back To Me - Aretha Franklin Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word - Elton John Between Her Goodbye And My Hello - Gladys Knight Bed's Too Big Without You - the Police Dreamer's Ball - Queen Everything's Fine - the Senators Only One Dream - Darden Smith Third Rail - Squeeze Photograph - Ringo Starr Cold Shot - Stevie Ray Vaughan Got To Get You Off My Mind - Solomon Burke One - Three Dog Night Day After Day - Badfinger If I Can't Change Your Mind - Sugar (a substantial selection of dels songs seemed too obvious to mention) I've had a lot of free time to think about this.. :) Claire ===== - - Just give me the coffee and nobody gets hurt. Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:33:55 -0800 (PST) From: doug brown Subject: Re: OV: OT: Josh Clayton-Felt Thanks for the news. I never liked School of Fish despite being pressured into buying their stuff by the Bellach contingent when I was weak and fragile in exchange for voting for the French Ice Dancing couple. Somehow I wound up with Inarticulate Nature Boy from the same pressure, this time left clutching a Polaroid of some Arizona beachfront property. It quickly made it to my beer coaster pile. And then ... there were some robberies at my apartment house. So I started keeping a CD playing when I went out so people would think someone bigger than a 5lb cat was home. I had a single disc player and somehow this CD got stuck in there and wound up doing the guard duty for me. And over the month that I did this a strange thing happened - I really started to like the CD from the bits I heard coming and going and sat down and listened to it a lot. I can't say it's a brilliant or complete CD but the guy really had something and the world is poorer for not getting to find out exactly what it was that he had. So anyway if I can find this one I'll sure give it a listen. Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:36:09 -0000 (GMT) From: Catnip Frederick Subject: OV: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Blame_the_French!__(Well,_at_least_one_of_them.. .)?= SngWrite1@aol.com wrote: >Whose office can we storm into, leap upon the desk and cry out at the top >of our lungs, "GIVE US OUR DAMNED DEL AMITRI YOU CORPORATE WEASEL!" >What can we do and is there any way to blame the French? >ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH. >Dave >PS - apologies to any Francophiles out there, I remind you I am on >medication. Dave, Good news! As my "subject" would indicate, there is in fact at least one Frenchman we can hold more or less directly responsible for Del Amitri's apparent lack of a US contract (as someone here recently noted, it's quite ironic that they finished the album stateside with an American producer and we're still not seeing any hint of a release over here...): the owner of Vivendi, which owns Universal Music Group, which in turn owns Mercury Records, is a French trash magnate. That's right, a millionaire (billionaire?) French garbageman ultimately holds the cards for our Dels, and obviously those of countless other artists under UMG's very large umbrella. Of course he probably has little or nothing to do with the day-to-day operation of his music concerns...no doubt quite content to simply sit back and watch the profits roll in. This leads me to a rather large rant that's been building for quite some time, so let me apologize in advance for the long-winded tirade that follows, and thank anyone with the patience enough to wade through it! As if it wasn't bad enough that all of us dedicated US followers are going to have to wait an extra week or two after the release of the forthcoming album before we get to hear it (and the singles as well, but we'd have had to import those anyway due to the paucity of B-sides on the scant few domestic single releases), UMG is also apparently at the forefront of the current industry-wide over-reaction to MP3s and CD copying. I doubt this is news to some of you across the pond, since evidently several "copy-protected" albums have been stealthily unleashed upon an unsuspecting public over the course of the last year or so. I must give my hearty thanks to those of you who were aware of this and subsequently kicked up a ruckus over there, since it seems to have prompted UMG to be more open about the first "official" release of a copy- protected CD in the US. For those who don't already know, they are testing the waters with the second soundtrack to the film "The Fast and the Furious." The album, which was released back in December, is entitled "More Fast and Furious" and bears a sticker in full view on the back which states: "This audio CD is protected against unauthorized copying. It is designed to play in standard audio CD players and in computers running a Windows. Operating System, however, playback problems may be experienced. If you experience playback problems, return this disc for a refund." I'll give them this much credit: at least they're being up front about what they're doing and allowing refunds, although there is also an insert card when you open the CD which qualifies the above statement by specifying: "If you experience playback problems using your standard audio CD player or on a PC with the above specifications, you may return this disc for a refund." The "above specifications" they mention are of course system requirements for running the proprietary audio player also encoded onto every CD: "CD-ROM Drive Intel or 100% compatible Pentium processor 133 MHz or higher Microsoft Win95/98/NT/2000/XP. 32 MB of RAM Speakers or headphones" They also refer us to their website set up specifically for the support of the disc and proprietary player, which contains so much technical and legal mumbo-jumbo that it makes my head spin: http://www.musichelponline.com As far as I can tell they have encoded the CD so that a normal audio player will play it but a computer will not be able to. Evidently they are somehow taking advantage of the fact that computer CD-ROM drives have a much lower "fault tolerance" and therefore won't play or transfer anything off of a protected CD owing to an unknown level of "junk" information (or something like that) encoded along with the music. And since they go to the trouble of specifying "standard audio CD player" and "PC with the above specifications," the implication to me is that anyone using a Mac or running a non-Windows OS (Linux, etc.) or trying to play the disc on a game console or DVD player or MP3 enabled CD player (or anything else not "standard") is simply out of luck. The ONLY way to play it on a PC that conforms to their requirements is to install the audio player and play it through that. I've done a bit of research, and besides simply not working on most (or all) of the implicitly excluded devices, it also may not work on older CD players and there is at least one instance of "More Fast and Furious" CRASHING a DVD player (not quite sure what happens to a DVD player when it "crashes" but I'd bet it's nothing good). While I suppose UMG was "decent" enough to make their release of "More Fast and Furious" public, there have evidently been lots of other protected CDs released without any notification (especially in Europe), and it would seem that most copy protection schemes encounter similar problems as far as universal playability, or rather the total lack thereof. Basically we are seeing a situation where the record companies feel forced to manufacture CDs that are intentionally DEFECTIVE. Of course this is all ostensibly so that they can curtail the admittedly widespread piracy of copyrighted material, but it seems to me that they are going about it in the wrong fashion entirely. First and foremost, whatever else they may encode along with the musical information on the disc, it all comes down to so many ones and zeroes, and ANYBODY with the time and resources will be able to break ANY copy protection scheme and be able to go right along producing as many fully digital copies as they please. Yes, before copy protection pretty much anybody could do whatever they wanted with their CDs, but these measures will ultimately do absolutely nothing to stop any motivated individual. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if the industry's hard-line stance is viewed by countless "hackers" as a direct challenge to try to defeat any and every copy-protected CD they can get their hands on. Not to mention Linux and Mac users who just want to play their legally purchased CDs on their computer, or even "compliant" PC users who have no desire to install some half-baked proprietary audio player. While I would have to have been wearing blinders for the past few years not to notice that there is a serious problem regarding the illegal copying of music, both online and with home CD burners (and particularly with the coupling of the two), I have a difficult time finding much sympathy for the corporate fat cats. I've read statements from industry executives to the effect of, "People have to realize that music can't be free," or "We've had some complaints regarding the copy-protection, but those are probably just 'pirates' wishing they could still steal our music," and I have a very hard time swallowing a hard luck story from someone with an income probably in the six-figure range and higher. I am well aware that a loss in profit for some in the industry directly equates to loss in profit for all, but let's not forget that this is an industry that still pays artists the same rate of royalty as they did twenty years ago...and that was based on a suggested retail price of $9.98 for a record. What are CDs up to nowadays? $18.99 or so, right? Also bear in mind that CDs are a LOT cheaper to manufacture than records, and by all accounts the royalty structure of twenty years ago was ludicrously unfair to the artists even back then. So where could all this extra money be going? Well, let's see...the artists aren't getting paid any more, I somehow doubt the factory workers, distributors, and retailers aren't getting much more beyond whatever "cost of living" has increased in twenty years (certainly not $9 per album worth), so that leaves the finger pointing at industry executives raking in a hefty profit. Probably no great surprise to anyone, but my point here is that I just can't get all choked up that our French garbageman is going to have buy one less yacht this year because some college kid downloaded a couple MP3s in his dorm room. They of course also cite lagging CD sales compared with a huge upswing in CDR sales as an obvious indicator that "everyone" is making illegal copies so as to save a few bucks down at the record store (and therefore more reason that copy-protection is "necessary"). Of course there are those despicable individuals who do this, but the last time I checked there were countless LEGAL applications for CD recording. All of this in the face of a world economy that is lackluster across the board. I've even seen figures stating that retail music sales are down in a virtually identical proportion to concert tour revenues; I very much doubt that people are downloading MP3s and copying CDs instead of going to a live show, you know? One last thought (not that I don't have tons more!) regarding the current corporate climate in the music industry is of course the fact that any act that is anything less than a blockbuster gets effectively swept under the rug. Although I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir on that particular point, since we all know how impossibly long our Dels have been done recording their new album. And of course any loss in profit (due to piracy or anything else) directly hurts the pocketbooks of our lads, but the industry's anti-copying stance could more than likely have a very tangible effect on a whole lot of people on this list. Last December during the "what's in your CD player" thread, I couldn't help but notice how many of you have custom B-side compilations. If the industry gets their way, you can certainly say goodbye to any such endeavors in the future. I guess our "reward" for supporting a band as fully as possible by buying all of their singles is to then be forced to spend an exorbitant amount of money on a jukebox type CD player, or listen to them one or two at a time, switching discs every eight to ten minutes. Or perhaps we should all dust off our cassette recorders in our home systems, and ditch the CD player in the car in favor of the tape deck that we so recently upgraded from. And speaking of the car, I guess now we're all supposed to take our nineteen dollar discs with us wherever we might want to play them...leaving them scratched from manually loading them and totally exposed to the elements, not to mention the very real thieves who so freely prey on automobiles. I for one would much rather that the scum came away with my (perfectly legal) copies that would therefore be totally worthless to them, leaving my originals safely at home. Same goes for travelling via plane, train, boat or bus. In that sense it almost seems like the corporate folks are coming out in favor of run of the mill break-in type thieves while trying to oppose digital thieves...I'm sure they wouldn't mind one bit if you had to buy new copies of all the albums that just got stolen from your car, briefcase, hotel room, etc. As I've been hinting through all of this, I am very much opposed to any illegal distribution of copyrighted material. I know fully well that EVERYONE in the industry suffers as a result of this widespread theft, and while I couldn't care less about any loss for the soulless money-grubbing executive types who have done far more harm than good to the music scene, I certainly feel for all the "support staff" (the above mentioned factory workers, distributors and retailers) who feel the pinch, and all I truly want are stellar sales for bands like Del Amitri. However, the industry (and UMG really does seem to be the most aggressive right now in the copy protection arena) is making a big mistake in my opinion. Not only are they boldly (and incorrectly) assuming that everyone with a CD burner is a criminal, they are more than likely forcing normally law- abiding folks like you and me into criminal activity if we actually want to maintain the level of convenience currently afforded to us by LEGAL CD copying. They have apparently decided that "fair use" simply can't exist in the digital age. I feel that their feeble attempts at copy-protection at this late date are very much akin to closing the barn door after the animals are long gone. No doubt all the money they're currently spending to develop a copy- proof CD (again, which I don't think is possible) will soon show up as even higher prices for the CDs that we buy, and perhaps that money would be better spent tracking down the true criminals in this scenario instead of effectively punishing the vast majority of the music buying public. After all, anyone so inclined will eventually be able to defeat any copy-protection scheme and make all the copies they want and/or place MP3 files for all to download. I suppose a few "casual" CD thieves will be forced to either pay music store prices or have less in their collection, but most true fans never have and never will settle for anything less than a factory-sealed original album or single by their favorite bands...liner notes, artwork and all. And now the true fans who might occasionally enjoy a making a custom CD compilation for their own private use, or anyone who would rather travel with a "safety" copy instead of the original will have to resort to either time consuming code cracking or downloading illegal copies from someone else who had more time and resources to defeat the copy protection. The pirates will not be dissuaded in the least, and the rest of us are left out in the cold. Bad idea. Unfortunately I don't really know what they can do to stem the tide of pirated music, but I am quite confident that copy-protected CDs are not the way to go about it. I do however have a couple suggestions for my dear reader (assuming any of you have actually made it this far!), both to stem the tide and also to assure that our rights of "fair use" remain intact. The way that we can all stop music piracy is oh so very simple, and entirely crucial to the equation: STOP PURCHASING, RECEIVING, DOWNLOADING AND DISTRIBUTING ILLEGAL COPIES OF MUSIC! Period. Please pardon me while I repeat myself and separate it from the text in hopes that anyone just scanning over this post (or the digest) might see it: STOP PURCHASING, RECEIVING, DOWNLOADING AND DISTRIBUTING ILLEGAL COPIES OF MUSIC! Tell all your friends, too. Post your disgust (assuming you share it) with these "pirates" on every mailing list that you subscribe to and on every bulletin board that you frequent. (I'm also hoping you'll post your disgust with the music industry's lame-brained attempts at copy protection as well!) I'm not talking here about bootleg concert recordings or radio shows or whatever, which have been in existence a lot longer than the compact disc and the MP3, and are illegal to begin with. I'm talking about unauthorized copies of anything that was released on a record label, anything that can be widely purchased in pretty much any record store...or even anything that once was widely available, so probably even those out of print singles, sadly. Yeah, they can cost a bit of money, and no, spending all that money today on a ten year old single won't support the band either financially or chart-position wise, but if you can find an original ANYWHERE instead of an MP3 or stolen CDR copy, well, you should probably just suck up and buy it. Then of course you can make your very own custom CDR for your very own personal enjoyment and not have any worry that you're breaking any laws or hurting anyone's pocketbook (except your own, I suppose). This is of course also a good first step to assuring the continuation of "fair use, " since one would hope that taking the "think globally, act locally" philosophy to heart by ceasing illegal music distribution in your own home would ultimately stop most piracy and get the record companies to cease their foolish quest for the copy-proof CD. Getting back to my specific example from what seems so long ago, anyone with the means should go out and purchase "More Fast and Furious," take it home, open it up, and promptly return it for a refund. Of course make sure that it bears the aforementioned warning sticker on the back, although as far as I know they all do, at least here in the US. I would also recommend making sure of the store's return policy, but as far as I know pretty much EVERY music store claims that they will issue a refund only for unopened merchandise and will only exchange "defective" merchandise for the same item...since every single copy of "More Fast and Furious" is defective by definition, the retailers are obviously left in a bit of a quandary. However, as evidenced by the label on the back, UMG has basically instructed everyone that they should issue a refund for this disc, end of story. Which is of course why it's important that you first open the disc before returning it, so that the retailer must go through the hassle of returning it to UMG instead of simply placing it back on the shelf...I personally would love to see "More Fast and Furious" sell millions of copies with every single copy subsequently returned. Seriously. They have given us a fairly unprecedented opportunity to send them a message about the folly of copy-protection, and the way to send that message is so very simple. To date I have personally purchased and returned "More Fast and Furious" at five different stores (all were more than happy to issue a refund...some didn't even ask why, and those that did were very sympathetic), and will continue to do so with every chance I get. There is also a link to send them email at musichelponline.com, so of course anyone can send them letters voicing their displeasure even if you never bought the album. That's another reason why that site is worth visiting...while all the mumbo-jumbo is confusing, it's also very infuriating as far as all the rights you apparently surrender by the simple act of playing their precious CD (yes, THEIR CD...funny, I thought by paying nineteen bucks the CD became mine; certainly not mine to illegally copy, but mine to use as I see fit in any and all devices that play all my other CDs without problem), and they actually give you the means to contact them right there. Although I would recommend at least a slightly less long-winded approach than the one I've taken here. ;-) Also, I would ask that you NOT do one thing that they ask if you contact them: they request that you tell them the make and model of any device that the CD doesn't play in. In my mind this will simply help them to get closer to their goal of a truly copy-proof CD. I still don't think they'll ever reach it, but the more they know about the devices that don't play by their "rules," the more bugs they'll be able to eliminate and therefore claim greater "success." I also saw one individual in a public forum giving detailed instructions on how to break the code: computer specifications, software, operating system, etc. While the person was probably quite proud of his or her "hacking," I have little doubt that such public preening simply gives the industry more to work with as far as knowing what can be used to beat their system, and ultimately place a reasonable solution even farther from those of us who just wanted to make a "fair use" backup copy or whatever. Before I step down from my soapbox I'd like to take a moment to let you know where I'm coming from: I have NEVER downloaded an MP3 of any kind, legal or otherwise. I've listened to MP3s, and as an audio professional I definitely notice the (admittedly slight) degradation in sound quality due to the compression, but moreover I have no tolerance for copyright infringement. I do not have ANY illegal CDRs in my collection. I do however have lots of legal ones: a few different B-side compilations taken from my own originals, several "mix" CDs of my favorite tracks again from my own originals, a couple dozen "safety" copies for travelling, and yes, a few concert bootlegs. Although I can only think of two that are actually CDRs (and in my defense I didn't know they were CDRs when I ordered them online), with the rest being professionally produced "silver-backed" discs, "Swimming With Your Boots On" being a prime example. I suppose those concerts in my collection might take a bit of the force out of my argument, but please bear in mind that they're all by artists like Del Amitri where I have purchased every commercially available album and single and interview disc and etc., for whom I would of course buy an officially released live album (or albumS, preferably...Pearl Jam's release of their entire tour was a remarkable gesture that I wish more bands and labels would perform) in an instant! And also, like I said before, I don't think bootleg concert recordings are the least bit a factor in the current debate over music piracy: they're illegal from their inception (it seems to me that the problem is MP3s and CDR copies of officially released recordings), and they'll always be around regardless of the format the recordings might happen to appear on. I was pleasantly surprised this year at Christmas to find an MP3 player under the tree, particularly since my girlfriend knows full well that I just don't download. However, it's actually been a good bit of fun to have, and it still wouldn't ever occur to me to go online and steal music (or download stolen copies...no real difference in my book). Much like all my "fair use" CDRs taken from my own collection, all I've been listening to on my NEX II (a fabulous player for anyone that might be in the market for one) is music that I've "ripped" from my very own CD originals. While I would still never listen to an MP3 in the comfort of my own home due to the degraded sound, the size and portability of my MP3 player offers a level of convenience that the sleekest portable CD player simply couldn't. My girlfriend said she got it for me so that I could have something to listen to during long commutes on the Boston public transportation system without having to fumble through my CDs or hassle with a CD player. And she's right; it's been great! It's also another great way to beat the real-life thieves (as opposed to the digital thieves, who are equally criminal in my eyes, but most "hackers" aren't going to literally hack me with a knife to take something from me): I'd much rather lose my MP3 player to a subway thug than a wallet full of original CDs, and since I've got the MP3 player with four hours worth of music on one CompactFlash card all anyone ever sees is my tiny headphones, instead of making myself a target by flashing my shiny CD player and waving my wallet full of discs around. "Fair use" to the rescue! All gone if UMG and the rest of the pack continue intentionally producing defective CDs. Okay, I've doubtless overstayed my welcome on most of your screens. Thank you for bearing with me through all of this. I'm pretty sure this will prompt some discussion, and I certainly welcome any comments. If you're interested in the full content of the insert card that came with "More Fast and Furious" I transcribed it and would be happy to share. And if you're of a similar mind on the subject, please do what you can to contact UMG and the other labels to voice your displeasure, and spread the word to anyone who might care to listen (I certainly grant full leave to copy any or all of this message should you so desire). It's just so ridiculous to me that they are effectively punishing the vast majority of their most loyal customers while the criminals they're trying to stifle continue to do as they've always done. Let me close with a few links if you're interested in reading more about the issue and/or "More Fast and Furious" specifically: I'll start with the UMG site again, just so you don't have to scroll back up to find it: http://www.musichelponline.com They also provided a toll free number in the insert card (remember not to give them any information as to the make and model!): "If you have questions or comments, please contact us at: 877-918-7779 (have the make and model of the device you are using ready before calling)" This is the article that first alerted me to the release of "More Fast and Furious," and is also where I got the idea to buy the disc with the sole intention of opening it and returning it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10039-2001Dec20.html This person has set up a sort of "clearing house" of all known "protected" CDs: http://www.fatchucks.com/corruptcds/corrupt.html This is required reading for anyone wondering about the outdated royalty structure and how the industry has changed (or not changed) with the advent of the compact disc: http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html Actually, the folks at negativland have a whole lot to say on related matters, so if you're so inclined I'd say they're very much worth checking out: http://www.negativland.com Or go straight to: http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html I've found the customer reviews of "More Fast and Furious" at Amazon.com to be fairly illuminating (that's also where I found the link to the person's instructions on defeating the copy protection): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/- /music/B00005TQ7C/customer-reviews/qid%3D1009335386/sr%3D1-1/ref% 3Dsr%5F1%5F10%5F1/103-1686855-8521423 I also found a lot of related articles at: http://www.zdnet.co.uk As I wrap things up (finally!), I would be remiss if I failed to revisit the topic that originally sparked my fuse, so here we go, one statement: I for one think that some millionaire French garbageman has absolutely no business telling me what I can and cannot do with the CDs that I purchased with my own hard-earned money. Thanks again to all of you for listening. I hope that I haven't offended anyone's sensibilities with either the content or length of my post, as that was never my intention. I promise that my future submissions will be of a more reasonable size...well, most of them at least! ;-) Peace, Catnip - ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using DelMail. http://www.delamitri.net/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:37:15 -0800 (PST) From: Alison Bellach Subject: Re: OV: OT: Josh Clayton-Felt how is it that doug can compliment something by trashing it so completely? i am mistified. alison, who bought CHALK FARM due to some douggy influence - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Bellach: alibee@delamitri.com http://alibee.linex.com http://www.delamitri.com "If you want peace, work for justice." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:26:38 -0000 From: "Libby Graham" Subject: OV: the tour ..... Having finally having confirmation about all the tickets I need to by for the tour I stated ringing Box Offices and booking tikets - I did this with 5 venues in a 15 minute period (quite good considering I have laryngitis and my voice is a mere whisper). Then low and behold I get a call from a nice woman (with a nice Glaswegian accent) from my credit card company asking me if unbeknownst to me my card had been stolen. I then cause her to burst out laughing when I tell her I'm in the process of booking tickets for a Del Amitri tour. Nice to know our group foibles have brightened up someone's day. But at least she knew who Del Amitri are! Libby ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:15:00 -0000 From: "Kevin Cawthorne" Subject: OV: New competition Check out the website for a grrreat competition :-) Kevin Cawthorne Webmaster - The Official Del Amitri Website UK http://www.delamitri.co.uk - ------------------------------------------------------ This message and any attachment has been virus checked - ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:20:59 -0000 (GMT) From: Catnip Frederick Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_OV:_Mercury_Records/V-Day?= wkates@hotmail.com wrote: >Regarding the folding of Mercury Records, I'm not sure if anyone knows where >the artists stand regarding the U.S. distribution rights to their albums. Texas >(also on Mercury, also from Scotland) has had their last cd (Greatest Hits) >and their recent live dvd released everywhere except the U.S. And even >though it wasn't Mercury, Julia Fordham's last cd (Collection) never came out >in the U.S. and her next cd Concrete Love which is among her best work I >might add, was supposed to come out late 2001 and is now in extended >delay due to her new label getting closed down by AOL-Time-Warner. I >would think that eventually some other label would work out the contractual >details and pick up these excellent artists for U.S. distribution. Just a point of clarification, that's also sort of a question: I don't think Del Amitri were EVER on Mercury's US label (though Texas definitely was). As far as I know the last US release was "Hatful of Rain," and my copy has the label as "A&M Records, Inc., A PolyGram company." My UK copy of "Hatful" (also the CTBF singles) says "A&M Records Ltd. whose exclusive licensee in the UK is Mercury Records Ltd (London) a PolyGram company," with the Mercury logo displayed to the left of the A&M logo on Hatful and above A&M on CTBF, thereby granting Mercury a certain prominence even though they're simply the "licensee." I guess my question would be does anyone have a US Del Amitri release that says anything but A&M (or A&M/PolyGram for SOSP and Hatful...)? I know it's bloody well impossible to keep track of all the shuffling going on in the industry, but I'm thinking that Mercury more or less folded in the US but has stayed somewhat afloat in the UK, and A&M totally closed up shop in the UK while maintaining a handful of artists here in the US. Sound about right? Anyone have any information that would either confirm or deny my theory? A bit of "proof" as far as A&M in the US: upon purchasing Suzanne Vega's new album last fall I was surprised to notice that it was purely on the A&M label with no "licensee" or other such qualifier, except "manufactured and distributed in the United States by Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp.," but still copyright 2001 A&M Records. Strange, no? It even lists a website: http://www.amrecords.com, but if you try as I just did I'm sure you too will find the link to be quite dead. Undaunted, a quick search on Google for "a & m records" directed me to the Interscope site (http://www.interscope.com), and sure enough Suzanne Vega is on Interscope's artist list with A&M given as her label. They actually currently have around twenty acts assigned to A&M, which is a lot more than the half-dozen or so that I remember remaining when I went to the A&M site within a month or two after they allegedly folded a few years back. I remember being quite pleased to see that at the time it appeared they were hanging onto Del Amitri, keeping them in the heady company of the likes of Ms. Vega, Blues Traveller and Sheryl Crow...I couldn't help but think of the executive in the "Let's Go Home" video talking about how they were more or less committed to the Dels for the long haul. Here's a quick link to the current A&M artists through Interscope: http://www.interscope.com/artists/artists_am.asp I guess all of this is just to say that A&M is still around in the US, even though they're operating under the rubric of Interscope. I know a lot of former A&M artists signed with Interscope after the crumble, but I was unaware that Interscope had acquired the entire label as well. (Given that the Suzanne Vega album is less than six months old and has absolutely no mention of Interscope I'm thinking that must have been a somewhat recent change.) Although I suppose in the grand scheme of things it ultimately doesn't matter in any case, since whether it's A&M or Interscope it all comes back to our dear friends at UMG...and I'm sure after my last post you've all heard quite enough from on that particular company for one day! Of course none of this gets us any closer to a solution to the problem at hand: the current lack of US distribution for the new album! Perhaps in addition to flooding radio stations and MTV with requests for the new single when it's released we should also be badgering Interscope (feedback@igamail.com) and any other label we can think of (I for one would be pleased as punch if they could get US distribution through a non-UMG source...probably not very likely since Mercury is a UMG affiliate, but hey, I can dream!) to try and pick up the domestic rights to "Can You Do Me Good." Unfortunately, as evidenced by William's mention of the recent Texas and Julia Fordham releases, shortsighted capriciousness at the top of labels combined with a fickle and unforgiving American public doesn't exactly bode well for the prospects of a US release in the near future. (Just ask any stateside Queen fan...the average American probably thinks that they stopped recording after 1981, and you almost certainly won't hear anything later than "Another One Bites the Dust" on any US radio station.) Although I think that just maybe the public might show a bit more long-term loyalty if it weren't for entertainment executives continually force-feeding us the pablum they think that we want; always looking for the "next big thing" and relegating any act to the rubbish heap if they don't sell millions...while SOSP didn't exactly break the bank over here, as far as I know the Dels have sold out all of their US dates for the better part of the past decade, which you'd think would be reason enough to bring 'em back! Well, I'd better stop right there...I hope I haven't bored any of you too terribly with my long posts (although you must admit this one's at least a bit shorter than my first!). I generally have a tendency towards loquacity, and I've been waiting in the wings here on OV for quite a few months now; I guess you could say that I've finally de-lurked with a vengeance! With that, I bid you all a good afternoon, and I hope that you have a capital weekend! Peace, Cat - ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using DelMail. http://www.delamitri.net/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:23:57 -0000 (GMT) From: Catnip Frederick Subject: [none] - ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using DelMail. http://www.delamitri.net/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:37:25 -0000 (GMT) From: Catnip Frederick Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?PS_(Re:_OV:_Mercury_Records/V-Day)?= Sorry for the "no subject" that I may have just inadvertently posted...maybe it'll get filtered out! Anyway, as I was closing my various "research" windows from my recent A&M diatribe something caught my eye on Interscope's "contact" page: the street address that they give there as the contact address for Interscope as a whole is identical to the street address given for A&M in the fine print on the back of the new Suzanne Vega disc. So I guess maybe A&M has been part of Interscope for longer than I thought (that would certainly explain all the former A&M acts signed directly with Interscope), although I'm still unsure as to why the Vega album has absolutely no mention of Interscope, nor do I have any idea why the amrecords.com site given in the liner notes is down just a few months later. Just a bit of followup that I thought I'd share (which I was evidently so keen on sending that I accidentally hit "return" one too many times while trying to compose, hence the recent "no subject"). Peace, Cat PS So how's this for brief and to the point? Perhaps the third time is indeed the charm! - ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using DelMail. http://www.delamitri.net/ ------------------------------ End of oppositeview-digest V4 #39 *********************************