Record Clubs
Edward Hutchison
Amituo asks:
> Why do record companies run "record clubs," those things you see
> advertised in magazines and Sunday-paper pullouts? Aren't they just
> undercutting their own profits?
I, too, have become suspicious of record clubs.
For many years I tried to join any number of local clubs and
organizations but my application was always rejected. Then I read
somewhere about the Columbia Record Club and I promptly sent in an
application to join. I remember how proud and happy I was when my
membership was accepted. But I have waited in vain for notice of club
meetings and activities. And so, I have come, reluctantly, to the
conclusion that this club may only be some kind of scheme to sell
records and tapes.
I'm thinking now of seeing if I can join the Book of the Month Club.
Perhaps the fellowship there will be better.
Hank Gillette
In article <19970123012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ami...@aol.com
(Amituo) wrote:
> Why do record companies run "record clubs," those things you see
> advertised in magazines and Sunday-paper pullouts? Aren't they just
> undercutting their own profits?
I think they rely on human inertia. All of the clubs automatically send
you a periodic selection if you don't return a card telling them not to.
Apparently enough people don't send in the card and then pay for the items
to make the clubs profitable (of course there are people who really want
the items too).
If everyone joined the clubs and then quit as soon as the minimum purchase
was made, I doubt the clubs would continue for long.
Hank Gillette
Amituo
Why do record companies run "record clubs," those things you see
advertised in magazines and Sunday-paper pullouts? Aren't they just
titles are excess stock, but I don't think that this is true as the CDs
(or tapes, or LPs back in the day) don't have barcodes, and I believe that
they have different catalog numbers. I don't think that the record company
would print up new packaging for excess stock.
It seems that with a lot of these record clubs, you get 8 CDs for free,
with the obligation to buy one more. Granted, they have little overhead
for these, and the prices are likely to be a bit higher than the local
music store, but even so, it doesn't seem to add up. Especially since
stores buy CDs at about $9 wholesale. (Again, granted, they get them from
a distributor....) Selling retail seems like it'd be much more profitable
than printing up different versions of products and then selling them at
reduced cost.
Maybe someone has a better idea of what the numbers are in this equation,
and what the motives are?
James Linn
The items indeed are excess stock. And they are coming from a manufacturer
(Columbia) who buys surplus stock from other manufacturers, or maybe
trading new stock for old (not on a 1 for 1 basis to be sure) to record
"jobbers" the wholesalers who stock many chain stores.
So the cost of these CDs to the seller is not standard wholesale price.
And while the 8 for a penny inducement is nice, if you do the math the
average price for the minimum purchase is still going to be 6 or 7
dollars. Not bad for delete bin stuff.
Plus they also often get more than the minimum committment by sending out
the CD and forcing you to return it if you don't want it.
Plus they don't have a storefront. You pay for shipping and handling which
should cover most of the labour.
Its not hard to see how they make money.
--
James Linn
My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!
Dave Wilton
Amituo wrote:
>
> Why do record companies run "record clubs," those things you see
> advertised in magazines and Sunday-paper pullouts? Aren't they just
> undercutting their own profits? Some people seem to think that the offered
> titles are excess stock, but I don't think that this is true as the CDs
> (or tapes, or LPs back in the day) don't have barcodes, and I believe that
> they have different catalog numbers. I don't think that the record company
> would print up new packaging for excess stock.
Generally, its not the "record company" that operates these clubs. The
"clubs" are independent corporations. The principle of 8 CDs for a penny
is the old principle of a loss leader. They lose money on the penny
records, but recoup it on the subsequent ones that you are required to
buy. Subsequent ones are generally sold at slightly below retail (but
with a higher profit margin as direct sales has less overhead than
retail) but cost somewhat more when you add in shipping and handling.
Usually, such clubs send you a monthly catalog that lists one featured
album. If you do not reply back, they will automatically send you that
featured album. As a result, you are more likely to buy albums than you
would normally.
I don't know the specific economics involved, which probably vary
from club to club anyway, but I would guess that the clubs break
even if you buy the minimum number of albums and then quit. They
make money if you stick with them after the original obligation is
complete. If you buy only the minimum number and then quit, you
will get a bunch of albums at significant savings from retail.
So it can be a pretty good deal for you if you want to build up
you CD/tape collection. But you have to quit upon buying the
minimum.
--
Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/homepage.htm
amethyst
In article <19970123012...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ami...@aol.com (Amituo) writes:
<snip>
>It seems that with a lot of these record clubs, you get 8 CDs for free,
>with the obligation to buy one more. Granted, they have little overhead
>for these, and the prices are likely to be a bit higher than the local
>music store, but even so, it doesn't seem to add up. Especially since
>stores buy CDs at about $9 wholesale.
<snip>
But it only costs $2-3 to produce a CD, which is about what these clubs
charge for "shipping & handling". They're making money hand over fist,
whether or not a prospective member becomes permanent...
That reminds me...I seem to recall hearing about a class action lawsuit filed
against the music industry on behalf of USAn music consumers. Had to do with
the incredible markup on CDs. I'm at work now, so I can't check the details.
Anyone know what happened?
Speaking of work...back to it
~Ama
James Linn
> Amituo wrote:
> >
> > Why do record companies run "record clubs," those things you see
> > advertised in magazines and Sunday-paper pullouts? Aren't they just
> > undercutting their own profits? Some people seem to think that the offered
> > titles are excess stock, but I don't think that this is true as the CDs
> > (or tapes, or LPs back in the day) don't have barcodes, and I believe that
> > they have different catalog numbers. I don't think that the record company
> > would print up new packaging for excess stock.
>
> Generally, its not the "record company" that operates these clubs. The
> "clubs" are independent corporations.
Columbia House, the oldest and largest is indeed owned by Columbia
Records. It may be a separate corporate entity, but wholly owned.
Martin A. Mazur
In article <sfrye.15...@interaccess.com>,
I don't know about any suit, but it reminds me of some complaints about the
software industry. People wonder why software X costs $200 when the CD and
manuals cost only a few dollars to produce. Idiots. First, law of supply and
demand. Second, it costs a LOT more than a few dollars per unit to produce
high quality software (programmers aren't cheap). Same idea with records
(CDs).
Anyway, in the US, CDs are DIRT cheap. Factoring in inflation, the price of
CDs has gone down considerably since they were introduced. I can't remember
the last time the *list* price of CDs has gone up, and nobody pays list. CDs
are considerably cheaper than LPs were (adjusting for inflation) at the height
of the LP.
Back to record club economics. The "free" CDs aren't free. You have to add
shipping and handling, which is just profit padding (it does't cost $3 to
package and mail a CD). You have to add the price of CDs that you have to buy
at list price to fulfill your commitment. If you do the math, this works out
to between $5-$7 per CD if you quit as soon as you've fulfilled your
commitment. I doubt that CD club overhead is nearly what it is in record
stores. This average price is still a good deal. The records are not all
"cut-out bin" stuff, as one poster has claimed (although there is some of
that). What you miss is the opportunity to buy records that have *just* come
out. But for many people, being the first kid on the block to own X is not
important. That's why we have video stores now. Often people just wait till a
movie comes out on video rather than deal with the lines and cost of seeing it
at the cinema.
--
Martin A. Mazur .................... Representing only himself
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/x/mxm14/
"Subjectivism is the epistemology of savages." - Leonard Peikoff
Amituo
>That reminds me...I seem to recall hearing about a class action lawsuit
filed
>against the music industry on behalf of USAn music consumers. Had to do
with
>the incredible markup on CDs. I'm at work now, so I can't check the
details.
>Anyone know what happened?
I have never heard of a lawsuit over this, but I have heard this charge
many times-- that the markup is incredible on CDs. The thing this argument
overlooks is that when you buy a CD, you aren't just paying for the
*object* but also, of course, the music on it. And in paying for the
music, you're paying the artist, the music publisher, etc. Just like when
you buy a book, you're not just paying for the paper, right?
And as for prices of CDs in the US, I think they are actually rather cheap
in comparison to other countries. Say $15 for a CD, right? In the UK, CDs
are more like 15 *pounds*. And in Japan, a made-in-Japan disc is about
2000 yen (about $20). A Japanese friend told me that a lot of the time
they'll buy the imported US version for a lower price, despite the extra
tracks often found on the Japanese version. When I went to Japan, I was
excited to go to the record store to buy those Japanese versions, but
found them to be about the same price they'd be as imports in the US! And
I've met a few people who, on holiday in America, stocked up on CDs
because of their lower price.
So I'm not going to complain too much about CD prices in the US....
John Grimes
Ok, that's all fine and good. You pay for a lot more than foil, plastic
and packaging when you buy a CD.
So, why do CD's _still_ cost more than cassette tapes?
The cassettes have more parts, and if I'm not mistaken, still have to
be recorded in real time (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). They have
to cost more to produce, and yet are still sold below the cost of the same
CD.
I think the price difference is pure profit based on the idea that the
"new" media is better and therefore should cost more. I disagree. They
charge more because the market lets them.
In a similar vein, I still pay a monthly fee on the local phone bill
for touch tone service. It was introduced to cover the cost of the new
touch tone switching equipment. Isn't it paid off yet? Is my touch tone
fee now going to support old equipment maintenance for the few who have old
pulse-type phones? When will they have to start paying an Archaic equipment
fee instead of my touch tone fee? It's been twenty years or so.
john
shimbo
CD Clubs can afford to give such good deals on memberships because
they do not pay royalties to the artists on club CD's. That is why
you will frequently see a delay in an album's release and it's
appearance in a Club. Hootie and the Blowfish actually had a rider in
their current contract that the "Fairweather Johnson" album can not be
released by a Club for one year.
By the way . . . BMG CD Club will begin to offer sale prices after you
have been a member for awhile. If you wait, you can get 3 for 1,
which works out to be $7 to $8 a CD after shipping and handling. And
at 66% off on many box sets, you can also get a good deal there. And
the initial obligation is only 1 full price CD (usually with 11 free).
If you forget to send the slip in, and get the "Selection of the
Month" that you don't really want, just write refused on the package
and drop it back in the mail - no postage, no handling, no problem!
They send a note asking you to call next time, but that's all.
BMG will also tolerate multiple memberships at one address, so you can
fulfill your obligation, then sign up your spouse and get 11 for them,
plus 4 for signing them up.
BMG will also offer you a great re-join offer about 3 months after you
quit, should you decide to do that.
Shimbo
Amituo
>So, why do CD's _still_ cost more than cassette tapes?
>The cassettes have more parts, and if I'm not mistaken, still have to
>be recorded in real time (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). They have
>to cost more to produce, and yet are still sold below the cost of the
same
>CD.
In the LA area, you often see advertisements for CD/cassette manufacturers
in the local free papers, since there are so many bands trying to "break
into the business," make demos, etc., and cassettes are cheaper. I don't
know the specifics, but I can see why they'd be cheaper. You can
mass-produce cassettes with a machine that's just a bunch of tape
recorders duplicating a master. And you don't have to duplicate them in
real time-- even home stereos have high-speed dubbing! (or does that
qualify as a "reasonable facsimile?") I can imagine that the industrial
version of this is much faster.
I don't know about CD manufacturing, how it works, etc..... Anyone?
T. M. Young
The actual reason CD's are so cheap in these record clubs have nothing to
do with postage tricks or anything else. Add them up, it is still much
cheaper to buy through the clubs.
What is really going on is creative accounting. These CD's are actually a
marketing ploy. Get the CD's into peoples hands, and word of mouth will
sell the CD's at the stores. The catch is, CD's bought through the club DO
NOT count towards an artist's royalties. The label keeps all the money,
since this is only "marketing", not sales.
So, if you are fan of a certain artist, you may want to consider buying
their CD at the store, so the artist gets their fair share.
Drew Carter
>
> In a similar vein, I still pay a monthly fee on the local phone bill
> for touch tone service. It was introduced to cover the cost of the new
> touch tone switching equipment. Isn't it paid off yet? Is my touch tone
> fee now going to support old equipment maintenance for the few who have old
> pulse-type phones? When will they have to start paying an Archaic equipment
> fee instead of my touch tone fee? It's been twenty years or so.
>
> john
I refuse to pay the fee for touch tone. My (local) phone company wants to
charge me $2.50 a month for touch tone. While the money won't take me to
the poor house, I see no reason I should pay for it. If I reach a voice
mail type system that makes me press 1 for this or 2 for that, all I have
to do is flip the switch on my phone from pulse to tone, and it works just
fine. The system will pass the tones.
I agree with John that the automated touch tone gear is probably
long since paid off. The phone companies just like the extra profit. If my
phone company says to me that "we'd like to switch you to tone to
modernise (sp?) your system, at no cost to you," I'd say "sounds great,
make the switch today". Otherwise, forget it. The phone company profits
are high enough, and I can do everything I want to w/ my pulse system.
Greg Diamond
In article <5cacqa$m...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>,
Martin A. Mazur <mx...@psu.edu> wrote:
> I don't know about any suit, but it reminds me of some complaints about the
>software industry. People wonder why software X costs $200 when the CD and
>manuals cost only a few dollars to produce. Idiots. First, law of supply and
>demand. Second, it costs a LOT more than a few dollars per unit to produce
>high quality software (programmers aren't cheap). Same idea with records
>(CDs).
All of the costs you mention contribute as much to the cost of producing a
vinyl album, and most of the complaints (at least in the first few years
of CD-dom) were about the cost of CDs *relative to albums*, not in an
absolute sense. Hardly an idiotic point.
>Anyway, in the US, CDs are DIRT cheap. Factoring in inflation, the price of
>CDs has gone down considerably since they were introduced. I can't remember
>the last time the *list* price of CDs has gone up, and nobody pays list. CDs
>are considerably cheaper than LPs were (adjusting for inflation) at the height
>of the LP.
Nobody pays list? What about those of us who patronize our local music
shop as opposed to the MegaMart? And I really doubt that the list price
of CDs is cheaper, accounting for inflation, than once it was. I remember
Tower Records (or was it Licorice Pizza) in LA selling new albums for $4
and $5 list around 1973 or so. I don't think prices in the overall
economy have tripled since then. I'm happy to be corrected on this, tho'.
--
<><><> "Punctuality is the thief of time" -- Oscar Wilde
Greg<> "What kills a skunk is the publicity." -- Abraham Lincoln
<>/\<> "Words, like eyeglasses, blur everything that they
<>\/<> do not make clear." -- Joseph Joubert
Amituo
I just saw an article on the class-action lawsuit against record
companies. It's in the new issue of Rolling Stone. According to the
article, the manufacturing costs of CDs and cassettes are about the same
(around $.90 including jewel case and paper booklet)--- I stand corrected
on that one.
But, you could attribute the difference in price to the old law of supply
and demand. CDs provide higher quality sound that doesn't diminish with
play, whereas tapes get eaten, broken, lousy-sounding, messed up when near
magnetic forces..... So you could attribute the difference in price to the
willingness of the consumer to pay more for the extra quality regardless
of the manufacturing cost. Not like the consumer has much say in the
matter, though. It's not like someone else can print up a copy of the new
Metallica disc and sell it at a more competitive price.
Two posts claim that artists don't get royalties from record club sales--
how could this be? Is it a built-in feature of the standard contract for
artists? There's something a little un-Kosher sounding there.
Marie Braden
>> > Why do record companies run "record clubs," those things you see
>> > advertised in magazines and Sunday-paper pullouts? Aren't they just
>> > undercutting their own profits? Some people seem to think that the offered
>> > titles are excess stock, but I don't think that this is true as the CDs
>> > (or tapes, or LPs back in the day) don't have barcodes, and I believe that
>> > they have different catalog numbers. I don't think that the record company
>> > would print up new packaging for excess stock.
Not exactly...see, the way it works is they count on people NOT returning the
cards, and therefore getting jacked when a CD arrives, and then having to pay
for it. Plus, when you average it out, they are still selling at a profit,
with no middle man. As for excess stock? Well, that's when they do those
$1.99 album deals (with purchase of one full-price)....
Rich Clancey
My own experience with Musical Heritage Society is that you
get a record you didn't want because you forgot to send back the card,
then you decided it's too much of a hassle to return it, so you pay
for it. At least half of what I bought from them when I belonged was
in that category.
MHS is a record club (well, it's CD's now of course) which
specializes in classical music. They produce their own recordings
under their own label. They tend to put out stuff by lesser known
performers (a polite way of saying total unknowns) or stuff by well
known performers that's gone out of print or the original publisher
has sold the rights to. I have gotten quite a few very fine surprises
from them, but the crap to quality ratio is very high unless you're
conscientious about sending those cards back every three weeks.
It looks to me as if they can cover their costs out of high
shipping charges and customer inattentiveness.
--
rich clancey PROWNESS IS ENDOWMENT
r...@world.std.com musical prowness
rc...@cs.umb.edu "Why are women fickled?" - sph
Martin A. Mazur
In article <tim-ya02408000R...@nntp.best.com>,
t...@dierks.org (Tim Dierks) wrote:
>In article <5cdubp$p...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>, gdia...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
>(Greg Diamond) wrote:
>>
>>Nobody pays list? What about those of us who patronize our local music
>>shop as opposed to the MegaMart? And I really doubt that the list price
>>of CDs is cheaper, accounting for inflation, than once it was. I remember
>>Tower Records (or was it Licorice Pizza) in LA selling new albums for $4
>>and $5 list around 1973 or so. I don't think prices in the overall
>>economy have tripled since then. I'm happy to be corrected on this, tho'.
>
><http://www.agribiz.com/economy/histcpi.html>:
>
>According to them, prices now (Dec '96) are more than 3.5 times as high as
>they were in June 1973.
>
>This seems to indicate that a list $16 CD is roughly equivalent to a $4.50
>price in 1973.
>
>I don't think this figure is subject to the reasoning behind recent
>controversy over the CPI except for the fact that you have to take into
>account that CDs are a superior product to LPs (for most consumers). This
>should make CDs even less expensive in practice. If nothing else, you
>generally don't have to replace CDs due to wear.
>
Not only that, but there is usually more music on a CD. This is certainly true
of classical music, unless you buy a CD that is a direct copy of what was on
an older LP. LP's tended to have from 30 to 45 minutes of music. CD's have
between 50 and 70 minutes (Classical. I'm not sure what they put on pop CDs
these days,but judging from the few I've bought recently, there is more music
than there used to be.) Furthermore, while the average list of a CD today is
$16 (they range from $10-$12 list for "Nice Price" selections to $13-$20 list
for current releases; most are $16), I seem to remember list prices of $6-$9
in the early 70's, not $4-$5 (unless they were oldies or "Nice Price"
selections, but then we wouldn't be comparing apples to apples).
Matt Ackeret
In article <Hank_Gillette-2...@m31003.svl.trw.com>,
Hank Gillette <Hank_G...@smtp.svl.trw.com> wrote:
>In article <19970123012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ami...@aol.com
>(Amituo) wrote:
>you a periodic selection if you don't return a card telling them not to.
Sorry, this is probably going to sound like an advertizement. I have
no financial affiliation with any record clubs, except that I have been
a very satisfied *customer* of BMG and Columbia House. (BMG is a *far far
far* better deal. Only join Columbia House when they rarely have a deal
as good as BMG's, fulfill the deal, then cancel. You'd want to join
Columbia House *if* they have CDs you want that BMG doesn't.. The selection
does differ..)
Anyhow, they're even a better deal nowadays, because at least BMG (I would
be surprised if Columbia House didn't also) lets you respond to your
mailings on the web. So no more $.32/month sending back the lame card.
(Note, you *can* get onto a positive response system after you've fulfilled
your membership, but why bother? You can cancel and rejoin and get the
great "intro" deal over and over again. I consider myself very ethical,
but I see no problems in doing this, because right after I cancel they
start sending me junk mail to rejoin anyway..)
>Apparently enough people don't send in the card and then pay for the items
>to make the clubs profitable (of course there are people who really want
>the items too).
But you can just write "return to sender" on the box and *not* pay
return shipping. If you do this too many times they will send you an
angry letter and eventually cancel you. But screwing up once or twice
doesn't get you kicked out. I even (stupidly) bought two of the same CD,
an they will send you a sticker to put on your package for prepaid postage
at their expense.
For BMG to do this much at their price of *less than half (closer to a third)*
of what you'd pay in a store, I can't imagine how much money they're raking
in at record stores.
Note apparently the artist makes half of what they normally would for
music sold through record clubs. I read this in a FAQ somewhere. So this is
the only real moral qualm.
The CD clubs don't sell only their label's stuff. That is, you can get
Arista or Maverick stuff through CD clubs.
>If everyone joined the clubs and then quit as soon as the minimum purchase
>was made, I doubt the clubs would continue for long.
Yes they would. I have bought the vast majority of my CDs through CD clubs,
most of them as part of the minimum purchase agreement. (Others as part of
the "buy 1 get 2 free" deals.) The only other CDs I've bought have been ones
not in their catalogs (like the Beatles CDs) and a couple at a big Tower
sale last year.
--
mat...@apple.com
sj...@aol.com
RobC...@worldnet.att.net (Robert Crowe) writes:
>Well, I can't comment upon whether it is or is not "kosher", you'll need
to try Deborah or Debra for the answer to that question.<
I'm going to pass the buck on this one, having been raised on BLT
sandwiches. I look to Debra as the a.f.c.a. expert on kashrut, and many
other intricacies of modern orthodoxy.
Regards from Deborah
http://members.aol.com/SJF37/homepage-sjf37-index.html
http://members.aol.com/SJF37/index.html
http://members.aol.com/SJF37/web-page-links-index.html
Greg Goss
Columbia House now has a web page where you can modify or refuse your
default offering. It's easier than mailing back the refusal.
We still have about three records a year accidentally that never got
around to being returned.
----------------------------------
Please, no mail from AT&T, Earthlink, or Powernet accounts.
Tom Pappas
Even if you take the minimum deal and quit, they still make money (ever
compared their "shipping & handling" charges to UPS?).
And if you screw up and don't get out after the minimum, they make LOTS of
money.
So your informed consumer strategy is: get in, take the goodies, and get
out.
Amituo
>Am I the only person out here who visualizes "album" and "record" as a
>generic term that is irrelevant to the medium it is distributed as?
>Sure I have the Beatles "White Album". I've actually got two of them.
>One of them is black vinyl, one is silver with colour highlights --
>neither record is white. (grin)
No, you're not the only one. I agree: the Beatles' _White Album_ is an
album regardless of format. I don't think we need to say _The White
8-Track_ or _The White CD_ (although PiL released the
blue-stripe-generic-covered _Album_ as _Compact Disc_ and _Cassette_:). It
seems to be just about universal in the print medium-- I doubt the LA
Times or Rolling Stone would ever print "So-and-so's new CD will be out
Tuesday." I don't recall ever hearing of an award for best CD, just best
album and best record.
As for "record," couldn't this refer to any format (album, single, EP),
again without denoting CD, vinyl, cassette etc.?
Greg Goss
jgr...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (John Grimes) wrote:
>In a similar vein, I still pay a monthly fee on the local phone bill
>for touch tone service. It was introduced to cover the cost of the new
>touch tone switching equipment. Isn't it paid off yet? Is my touch tone
>fee now going to support old equipment maintenance for the few who have old
>pulse-type phones? When will they have to start paying an Archaic equipment
>fee instead of my touch tone fee? It's been twenty years or so.
My phone company started listing the touch tone price as the base
tariff, with the pulse equipment having a "discount" of half of what
the surcharge used to be. I believe that sometime this year, they no
longer guarantee that pulse dialling will be accepted in all
exchanges, and the discount vanishes.
BC Telephone no longer officially accepts pulse dialling.
John Grimes
mat...@area.com (Matt Ackeret) writes:
>Note apparently the artist makes half of what they normally would for
>music sold through record clubs. I read this in a FAQ somewhere. So this is
>the only real moral qualm.
yebbut, "half a loaf is better than none.'
john
Greg Goss
r...@world.std.com (Rich Clancey) wrote:
> MHS is a record club (well, it's CD's now of course) which
>specializes in classical music.
Am I the only person out here who visualizes "album" and "record" as a
generic term that is irrelevant to the medium it is distributed as?
Sure I have the Beatles "White Album". I've actually got two of them.
One of them is black vinyl, one is silver with colour highlights --
neither record is white. (grin)
The record (or recording) may be distributed as a tape, a vinyl disk,
or an acrylic disk with aluminum holes in an aluminum layer. At least
in my definitions.
I'm always annoyed to see a music video that prominently claims to be
portraying "CD: so & so" when the video has additional sound effects
and is clearly different from the CD version. The music video is
portraying the RECORDING, which may be available as cassette and CD.
Greg Diamond
In article <3316fe1e...@199.60.229.5>,
Greg Goss <or...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>r...@world.std.com (Rich Clancey) wrote:
>
>Am I the only person out here who visualizes "album" and "record" as a
>generic term that is irrelevant to the medium it is distributed as?
>Sure I have the Beatles "White Album". I've actually got two of them.
>One of them is black vinyl, one is silver with colour highlights --
>neither record is white. (grin)
I, on the other hand, like all of the select few who reside at the apogee
of Cool, have a version of the White Album pressed in white vinyl.
Of course, it's been about three years since I've played any of my
records....
--
<><><> "Punctuality is the thief of time" -- Oscar Wilde
Greg<> "What kills a skunk is the publicity." -- Abraham Lincoln
<>/\<> "Words, like eyeglasses, blur everything
<>\/<> that they do not make clear." -- Joseph Joubert
Lorelei David
In article <32F084...@students.wisc.edu>, Adam Zar
<aj...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine.
> An "album" is the generic term for a collection of songs. Beyond that,
> record refers to LP, CD to CD, tape to tape.
>
> The term "album" comes from the old 78rpm days when records actually
> came in albums: several different sleeves bound together, containing
> multiple records. It is the same as a photo album. That is why the
> White Album need not be on white vinyl to be an accurate description.
I have to confess that I bought the White Album on white vinyl many a moom
ago at a Beatlefest. You have to admit - it makes for great conversation!
---Lorelei "Only slightly obsessed" David
--
Minor Deity, Level III
Women's Sewing Circle & Terrorist Society
BREAKFAST.COM Halted...Cereal Port Not Responding
Adam Zar
Greg Goss wrote:
> Am I the only person out here who visualizes "album" and "record" as
a
> generic term that is irrelevant to the medium it is distributed as?
> Sure I have the Beatles "White Album". I've actually got two of them.
> One of them is black vinyl, one is silver with colour highlights --
> neither record is white. (grin)
>
> or an acrylic disk with aluminum holes in an aluminum layer. At least
> in my definitions.
Beaver Fever
> Why do record companies run "record clubs," those things you see
> undercutting their own profits? Some people seem to think that the offered
> titles are excess stock, but I don't think that this is true as the CDs
> (or tapes, or LPs back in the day) don't have barcodes, and I believe that
> they have different catalog numbers. I don't think that the record company
> would print up new packaging for excess stock.
> with the obligation to buy one more. Granted, they have little overhead
> for these, and the prices are likely to be a bit higher than the local
> music store, but even so, it doesn't seem to add up. Especially since
> a distributor....) Selling retail seems like it'd be much more profitable
> than printing up different versions of products and then selling them at
> reduced cost.
> Maybe someone has a better idea of what the numbers are in this equation,
> and what the motives are?
I miss them, they were awesome. Still have all those cassettes.