Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 519

Thread: King Crimson Starless box set

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    Musicians receiving anything from 40 year old albums - albums that, when they were released, were never imagined that anybody would care an ounce about even 10 years later - is landing in found money.
    Sorry, that's a load of hooey. Music is also a business, and if an artist makes a record that continues to have legs 40 years later, why should he not make money? More to the point, why should someone else (Spotify) make money on that music' and not the artist responsible for it? This is the kind of half-baked justification for streaming's relentless ripping off of artists, and not just 'legacy' cats like Fripp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    Fripp was the beneficiary of many factors well beyond his control that kept a certain degree of public interest focused on recorded music and popular culture made within a certain era, to the exclusion of recorded music and popular culture made in other eras. For whatever reason, '70s music is a much greater part of popular culture in the 2010s than '30s music was in the '70s, or '40s music was in the '80s. He really should just be grateful that he had the opportunity to be part of an era that, thus far, has refused to ever completely go away.
    I'm sure he is. But does that mean he should give his music away, essentially for free?

    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    If he's so concerned about the money, perhaps he should consider making music with greater commercial potential.
    That's also bullshit. Fripp has been able to make a living as a musician on his own terms. Again, you skirt the issue of streaming services and the fact that they make money while the artist does not. How, in any way, is this right? And why shouldn't Fripp want to make a living...and on his own terms? Isn't that what most people aspire to?

    Suggesting he make more 'commercial' music is absurd, because he has proven be doesn't need to do that - nor does he need to allow his music to be streamed or downloaded - in order to do so. So more power to him.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    You don't have to care.

    You do have to respect his right to say "no" to what he feels is a bad business deal for him.

    He isn't required to opt-in to what he feels is a bad business deal, just because some people want him to, you know?
    +1

  3. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Iowa City IA
    Posts
    2,436
    I believe that Fripp deserves credit for his consistent ahead-of-the-curve vision regarding the potential demand for archival live recordings.

    Back in the 1990s when no one other than a small group of collectors and bootleggers cared, Fripp did the unthinkable and proved that fans were willing to praise and buy a box set with multiple versions of the same tune (The Great Deceiver). I still remember a few of the initial scathing reviews complaining why someone should want 4 versions of Exiles, etc. Of course these quickly gave way to the thumbs up when everyone realized how great that band really was.

    Then five years later he started the Collectors Club and managed to secure ownership of all the old live recordings (I presume this went along with regaining rights to the back catalogue) and proved that there was demand for that. Fripp showed that there was some money to be made in providing quality product that fans really wanted. He steered clear of all the legitimate-if-sleazy record labels who would have happily reissued these recordings many times under different titles and thoroughly confused the fans (cf Classic Rock productions). Instead he realized that he had to manage everything himself, and has done a damn good job of it.

    Then, forward to the 2000s. He now realized that CC releases via mail order was yesterday's technology and started dgmlive which has also been a big success. While other artists' material sits on dime and other trackers, Fripp acted quickly to keep everything off these sites. Another wise and prescient move. Because of that he now is able to still make some money by providing recordings in the most efficient manner, via download.

    Finally, he has reconnected with the most serious collectors and has begun releasing these big behemoth box sets. I'm not along for the ride on this one--too much of the same music over and over for me. But still, it is quality product presented in a very attractive fashion. Again he and DGM make some decent money while most bands do not, and the fans get something unique and special.

    I don't think Fripp is wealthy because of any of this, like say Ian Anderson (see the thread on IA's house!) but he seems solidly upper middle class and from music, his own music, that is achievement enough.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    You don't have to care.

    You do have to respect his right to say "no" to what he feels is a bad business deal for him.

    He isn't required to opt-in to what he feels is a bad business deal, just because some people want him to, you know?
    Of course not.

    I'm not required to warn anybody before I let loose a giant fart in a closed room, either, but criticism of such a behavior by others would not be unwarranted.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post

    That's also bullshit. Fripp has been able to make a living as a musician on his own terms. Again, you skirt the issue of streaming services and the fact that they make money while the artist does not. How, in any way, is this right? And why shouldn't Fripp want to make a living...and on his own terms? Isn't that what most people aspire to?

    Suggesting he make more 'commercial' music is absurd, because he has proven be doesn't need to do that - nor does he need to allow his music to be streamed or downloaded - in order to do so. So more power to him.
    It's not absurd.
    If he wants to be a businessman, then he could make more money by making more commercial music. That's it - case closed.

    Instead, he'd rather cry about how changing economics and new technology is robbing him of royalties for music that, when made, was never conceived to have potential for an audience 40 years hence anyway. He's incredibly lucky to have lived during the (relatively short) era when making a lot of money off of recorded music was realistically possible. He has calculated his marketing strategy in a manner so as to extract the most amount of money from his existing fanbase as possible.

    If it's money that he cares so much about, he really should just make more commercial music. Then he'd sell more albums and make more of the glorious money that appears to have become his exclusive concern.

  6. #56
    Member Steve F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fluffy Cloud
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    ...I let loose a giant fart in a closed room....
    Glad to see you are such a supporter of artist's rights, especially of artists you appear to like so much.
    Steve F.

    www.waysidemusic.com
    www.cuneiformrecords.com

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    “Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin

    Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]

    "Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"

    please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    Glad to see you are such a supporter of artist's rights, especially of artists you appear to like so much.
    Your statement is a red herring; it doesn't mean anything. Supporting a particular artist's decision simply because they have it within their rights to make seems rather value-neutral. Not supporting a decision that an artist has a right to make and using this non-support to brand the person as a non-supporter of artist's rights in general is completely absurd. I have a right as a US citizen to walk up to random people on the street and tell them to go fuck themselves. If you didn't support this behavior, are you against civil rights?

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Iowa City IA
    Posts
    2,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    He has calculated his marketing strategy in a manner so as to extract the most amount of money from his existing fanbase as possible.
    Ah, yes, a variation of the classic "Fripp is putting a gun to my head and forcing me to buy stuff" argument rears its head yet again... Why can't you just see it that he is putting out material in a manner that actually makes people want to buy it? In other words, that it adds value to their lives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    If it's money that he cares so much about, he really should just make more commercial music. Then he'd sell more albums and make more of the glorious money that appears to have become his exclusive concern.
    I don't think money is his exclusive concern. I think his (very legitimate) concern is that, given there is money to be made from his music, that he should be the one who makes it. And as per my post above he has been very intelligent and savvy in that regard. Why let Spotify or Classic Rock Productions or Universal or EG make the money from your music?

  9. #59
    Member Steve F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fluffy Cloud
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    He has calculated his marketing strategy in a manner so as to extract the most amount of money from his existing fanbase as possible.
    Speaking of red herrings: This is also a red herring and also begs the reply:

    So what??

    If he sold stock in his company, everyone would say he had great shareholder value for his shareholders.

    It isn't your right to have it offered to you the way you want it offered to you.

    It is your right to not buy it if you don't like what it is and / or how it is being offered.

    Don't buy it if you don't want it in the way he offers it. Buy something else by someone else that offers it to you in the way you want it. There's plenty of 'prog' you can listen to on Spotify. You just can't listen to Robert Fripp's prog.

    People complain because Apple products cost too much. "They should cost less". Apple doesn't care. Apples charges what it wants to charge/what it thinks its market will bear for what it feels it is giving to the public.

    You don't have to buy Apple products. There are many similar-ish products to Apple products that cost less. You can buy those.

    But you don't get to choose how much Apple sells its product for or how it sells it. Don't like it? Fine. Don't buy it. But not buying it is the end of your legal rights because it isn't yours unless you buy it and (within reason) Apple gets to determine how you buy it and what you pay for it since it is their product.

    Substitute King Cimson for Apple and that's just the way it goes.
    Steve F.

    www.waysidemusic.com
    www.cuneiformrecords.com

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    “Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin

    Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]

    "Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"

    please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.

  10. #60
    Mod or rocker? Mocker. Frumious B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post
    You're absolutely right, for the most part. But it's not a diminishing fan base, at least not at this point, since RTR sold out, and the ItCotCK box sold its initial 7K run and they made the mistake of annoying the fan base that bought into its exclusivity by issuing another run - something they did not do with the LTIA box or, AFAIK, the RTR box.

    I agree with you, but only to some extent. I support artists who refuse to embrace streaming by not subscribing to streaming services myself. Fripp chooses not to support a business model that puts him exactly back in the place in which he fought for 10 years in order to extricate himself - one where he has no control over how the music gets out there, and one which compensates everyone except the people who make the music. I can't say as I've not spoken to him, but I suspect, at least, that this is part of the reason why he refuses to participate in streaming. As for how other Crimson members past and present feel? I've no idea, but at the end of the day, Fripp owns the rights to the Crimson catalog and, while my understanding is he shares profits with those members, he is the decision-maker. He may or may not have the support of the others.

    I do agree that there needs to be a way to get a younger demographic in through exposure, but does it have to be at the expense of selling out? Frankly, I used to think YouTube was a pretty great way of getting the word out (others still think it is), until they killed the 10-minute max on clip lengths. Now, with people posting entire DVDs and entire albums, it's just one more way that artists are being robbed of their ability to make a living from their work. Yes, some folks do check these things out and, if they like 'em, buy 'em, but that's a relatively small percentage, by all accounts.

    You would not believe the number of people I meet these days who extol the virtues of Spotify, for example; when I tell them that it may be great for them but not for the artists, their response is (and rightfully so, I suppose): "I didn't know that," but when I suggest that if they really love these artists as much as they say, why not cancel their subscription in support of the artists, they reply "but I have access to over 200,000 albums!!!" Truthfully, I cannot fault them; it's not their job to ensure that means of music distribution adequately recompense those who make it possible; their responsibility is to pay their $10 or $20/month, which they do, and reap the benefits. For me, I deal with too many musicians on a scale where services like Spotify seriously impact their ability to make a living, to the point where, someday, they may no longer be able to make recordings at all, unless the business model changes.

    My feeling is the model has to change so that there is some more appropriate compensation for the artists. If that were to happen, it would be terrific, as streaming is, indeed, a great way to get heard. But until that happens, I vote with my wallet, and support the musicians who have given me decades of real pleasure by not supporting services that do not adequately compensate them, and purchasing their music, if possible, directly from them. And while you may be absolutely right about Fripp losing potential young fans, using your argument it's also something to consider that he ain't exactly a spring chicken anymore, so maybe as long as he is making sufficient money from the model he uses, then he doesn't really care what happens after he's gone....as far as the history books are concerned, both he and Crimson have already earned their rightful place. So if he prefers to cater to a smaller audience that is prepared to adequately compensate him for a lifetime's work, who are we to argue?

    Yes, you're right. He may be shortsighted. But given how considered most of his actions have been throughout his career, I'd suggest he knows exactly what the consequences of his actions are, and is perfectly happy with them.

    Let me ask you a question: where does the balance tip over, when it comes to providing enough access to an artist's music to garner new fans, to the point where it's meaningless because, unless those new fans generate income, well, it's very nice to be popular but it sure doesn't put food on the table, a roof over your head, your kids through college....and all the other things to which many regular folks aspire...

    Musicians are artists, yes, but being a musician is also a career choice (at least for some), so let me ask you this: if tomorrow, your boss (assuming you have one) came to you and said "We're making some changes; we'd like you to continue doing the work you're doing, but rather than paying you $20 an hour, we're going to pay you $.0006/hour, so that you'll have to work 3,333 hours to make that $20 you used to make." No, not an exact analogy, but I think you get the point.

    This is a progressive rock board where (for the most part) hardcore fans congregate to talk about the musicians they love, the musicians who, for many (like myself) have been given decades of pleasure thanks to the music they make. Surely I'm not the only who sees streaming - at least, with the current business model - and YouTube, with its current total lack of restriction on content, as problems that will jeopardize the very musicians we profess to love and their ability to continue making records. I am not so naive as to be unaware that streaming is here to stay, just as downloading is here to stay, nor do I underestimate the value of the exposure these things provide. But if they provide exposure but no compensation, where's the real value?

    A jazz artist I know told me, about 7-8 years ago, that his income from recorded music sales has dropped over 75%. As a consequence, where he used to tour 4 months a year to make the income he need, he now has to tour 10. He has a family, kids in college, a mortgage, etc, so that's what he has to do. He's not a youngster anymore, and I can tell you from personal experience that while the travel may seem great (and I am very lucky to be able to do it, but where I get to stay in one place for a few days or a week, most musicians are lucky if they get to spend 24 hours somewhere) it doeswear on you physically, and the older you get, the harder it becomes. So as this guy approaches what should be retirement years, he finds himself having to tour far more than he ever had to when he was younger and, frankly, in a better position to do it.

    I'm not trying to say "poor old musicians," either; they make certain choices and have to live with the consequences, just like any of us do. But that said, when the landscape changes so significantly, is it really right that streaming services like Spotify seem to be reaping great rewards while passing but a small percentage on to the musicians?

    So while it's here to stay, no doubt, and there's value in the exposure it provides, also no doubt, if an artist decides to say "fuck it, I am not playing that game" and has an alternative that works just fine for him/her, then my feeling is it should be supported rather than criticized, since if we were put in the same situation, I am quite certain we would not be happy about it, and would seriously consider whether or not it's worth our while to participate.

    Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I end up in these discussions more and more these days, and what is a sad but true fact is this: the folks who need the exposure the most from these new methods of music delivery are the ones who benefit the least, when it comes to the other side of the equation: actually making a living as a consequence.
    I'm not advocating that the whole shebang get thrown up on Spotify, just the core studio albums sans extras and maybe USA. That way you're taking a two pronged approach of potentially increasing the size of your fan base while also offering that exclusive, premium type product to your existing hardcore followers. Fripp has been doing a great job of delivering on the archival material for a long time. It just seems to me that with all of the specialty packages that the basic catalog has sort of gotten buried in the shuffle. That makes no difference to me because I all ready have all those albums, but put yourself in the shoes of someone trying to check out Crimson for the first time. At the moment it seems to me that it is a harder thing to do than it ideally should be.

  11. #61
    Recently Resurrected zombywoof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sunset Blvd.
    Posts
    385
    If it's really that big of a deal to folks, the last time I checked most, if not all, KC records are on youtube in complete form. I know for a fact that a friend of mine who is 13-14 knows all of KC's catalogue this way and has bought a few titles after hearing them on youtube.
    Last edited by zombywoof; 05-13-2014 at 02:13 PM.

  12. #62
    Member Steve F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fluffy Cloud
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Frumious B View Post
    I'm not advocating that the whole shebang get thrown up on Spotify, just the core studio albums sans extras and maybe USA.
    You're either all in with your catalog on Spotify or you're not in. You can't 'pick and choose' which releases and how much of of your chosen releases.

    At least, that was our experience, which is why, given the choice of all or none, there's nothing from us on Spotify.
    Steve F.

    www.waysidemusic.com
    www.cuneiformrecords.com

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    “Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin

    Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]

    "Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"

    please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.

  13. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by arturs View Post
    I don't think Fripp is wealthy because of any of this, like say Ian Anderson (see the thread on IA's house!) but he seems solidly upper middle class and from music, his own music, that is achievement enough.
    Robert Fripp is "solidly upper middle class" because of his wife, Toyah Willcox. He has some property investments, but it's her out gigging with her band, doing movies and TV, doing the grind of Christmas panto and so forth that allow them to live in "Bredenborough", go to expensive restaurants for tasty cakes and tea and go to the Cote d'Azur in the South of France on vacation.
    ...or you could love

  14. #64
    Mod or rocker? Mocker. Frumious B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    You're either all in with your catalog on Spotify or you're not in. You can't 'pick and choose' which releases and how much of of your chosen releases.

    At least, that was our experience, which is why, given the choice of all or none, there's nothing from us on Spotify.
    The core Pink Floyd albums are on Spotify, but not the Experience or Immersion editions. Up until very recently only the Dio era and later Black Sabbath albums were there. Clearly some sort of separate deal was required for the Ozzy era.
    "It was a cruel song, but fair."-Roger Waters

  15. #65
    Member Plasmatopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Plague Sanctuary, Vermont
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    Your statement is a red herring; it doesn't mean anything. Supporting a particular artist's decision simply because they have it within their rights to make seems rather value-neutral. Not supporting a decision that an artist has a right to make and using this non-support to brand the person as a non-supporter of artist's rights in general is completely absurd. I have a right as a US citizen to walk up to random people on the street and tell them to go fuck themselves. If you didn't support this behavior, are you against civil rights?
    That's not really the same. You would be forcing your offensive behavior on other people. If you started your own website and allowed people to sign up to be subjected to your offensive behavior for $$$ then you might be getting closer to a viable analogy. But I think it still falls apart. There's no reason to be offended by a business transaction (the sale of music) you have a choice in and can easily avoid. Unless you're just miffed that you can't get the music cheap enough to suit your budget.
    <sig out of order>

  16. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    Speaking of red herrings: This is also a red herring and also begs the reply:

    So what??

    If he sold stock in his company, everyone would say he had great shareholder value for his shareholders.

    It isn't your right to have it offered to you the way you want it offered to you.

    It is your right to not buy it if you don't like what it is and / or how it is being offered.

    ...

    Substitute King Cimson for Apple and that's just the way it goes.
    You said it, not me. Fripp is in a business and he's selling widgets. Fine. But then all of what he's said over the years about being an "artist" was just bullshit. And BTW, if he's a business trying to maximize profits the old miser might want to start making more commercial music.

    In fact, if I was a shareholder, I'd probably demand it.

    Substite King Crimson for Apple, and that's just the way it goes.
    Last edited by Facelift; 05-14-2014 at 10:40 AM.

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    Fripp is in a business and he's selling widgets. Fine. But then all of what he's said over the years about being an "artist" was just bullshit. And BTW, if he's a business trying to maximize profits the greedy, grasping old miser might want to start making more commercial music.
    Black. White. Ever heard of that other colour - grey (and shades thereof) ?
    Calyx (Canterbury Scene) - http://www.calyx-canterbury.fr
    Legends In Their Own Lunchtime (blog) - https://canterburyscene.wordpress.com/
    My latest books : "Yes" (2017) - https://lemotetlereste.com/musiques/yes/ + "L'Ecole de Canterbury" (2016) - http://lemotetlereste.com/musiques/lecoledecanterbury/ + "King Crimson" (2012/updated 2018) - http://lemotetlereste.com/musiques/kingcrimson/
    Canterbury & prog interviews - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdf...IUPxUMA/videos

  18. #68
    Member proggy_jazzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Waterloo, IA, USA
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Frumious B View Post
    ...put yourself in the shoes of someone trying to check out Crimson for the first time. At the moment it seems to me that it is a harder thing to do than it ideally should be.
    Gotta chime in here on this, because I think it's key to the discussion. How easy should it "ideally" be? Fact is, it's not hard at all to check out Crimson (or any other artist with recordings in print), provided you're willing to take a chance and buy the recording. You know, like we used to do in the age before the internet? In fact, it can be argued that it's far easier now than it ever has been to make such a purchase for many people; you can do it without ever leaving your home, and in many cases have it in your hands in a couple of days or even less. It's only because some things are available instantly (not necessarily a good thing IMO) that some people (not saying you specifically, Fruminous) feel this same entitlement to all music produced by anyone, anywhere, from any time period.
    David
    Happy with what I have to be happy with.

  19. #69
    Member Plasmatopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Plague Sanctuary, Vermont
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    You said it, not me. Fripp is in a business and he's selling widgets. Fine. But then all of what he's said over the years about being an "artist" was just bullshit. And BTW, if he's a business trying to maximize profits the old miser might want to start making more commercial music.

    In fact, if I was a shareholder, I'd probably demand it.

    Substite King Crimson for Apple, and that's just the way it goes.

    I'm sure we can all name dozens of completely (or at least relatively) unknown artists who are making music that is more commercial than KC...and yet they are still basically unknown. The KC fan base seems almost entirely built on the notion that you don't get too many KC albums in a row that are very much alike. Suddenly going "commercial" (for more than an album or two) seems entirely antithetical to the KC brand.

    And, in light of the various disparate eras of KC's career, what does it even mean to "check out" KC? That's not going to be a task easily satisfied by hearing 3 tracks on YouTube or Spotify anyway.
    <sig out of order>

  20. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by zombywoof View Post
    If it's really that big of a deal to folks, the last time I checked most, if not all, KC records are on youtube in complete form. I know for a fact that a friend of mine who is 13-14 knows all of KC's catalogue this way and has bought a few titles after hearing them on youtube.
    Of course this is also a big problem as more folks don't buy the records' they just listen to them on YouTube...my big issue with them opening up their original 10-minute restriction.

    For those who listen and then buy, great; but, sadly, that is not the way it works, at least not enough to make it worthwhile. I am actually surprised fripp hasn't contacted youtube to put a stop to it...but then again, as one musician once told me about this and other methods of stealing, it could be a full-time job just policing the web and catching all the illegal uses of their music. So they have to sigh, shrug, and go after the big ones and let the other stuff stay as-is...otherwise we'd never get new music from them!

  21. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    You said it, not me. Fripp is in a business and he's selling widgets. Fine. But then all of what he's said over the years about being an "artist" was just bullshit. And BTW, if he's a business trying to maximize profits the old miser might want to start making more commercial music.
    Sorry, but cannot agree. Art and commerce, if the artist is trying to make a living, go hand in hand. Fripp has every right and need to protect his intellectual property and release it in ways that he feels both satisfy his fans and his bank account.

    that does not mean he is not an artist; it just means he's an artist who wants to make living from being one. This idea that tuere's something altruistic about the struggling artist is a load of hooey. While I would agree with some that the artists making multi-millions are being over-compensated just like sports cats (though it is a free market, so more power to them, on the other hand), most musicians just want a secure roof over their head, food on the table, the ability to have a family (if they want).... The regular stuff to which most working folks aspire.

    And that's because musicians are not just artists' they're working stiffs like the rest of us. Some of them own the company (Fripp), others work for it (his band mates, though the relationship is a little more complex than that)......

    so while the Apple comparison applies from a business perspective, it does not negate the fact that Fripp is also an artist...
    Last edited by jkelman; 05-14-2014 at 10:36 PM.

  22. #72
    Highly Evolved Orangutan JKL2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    16,529
    They have a lot of stuff promised for October. Any chance they will deliver on the Starless box and Beat remaster?

  23. #73
    So, here it is: https://www.burningshed.com/store/ki...duct/313/6012/

    It was slightly cheaper to order from Burning Shed vs. DGM and...with all apologies due, Burning Shed has been the more reliable vendor for me, even being overseas.

    And yes...I ordered it
    If you're actually reading this then chances are you already have my last album but if NOT and you're curious:
    https://battema.bandcamp.com/

    Also, Ephemeral Sun: it's a thing and we like making things that might be your thing: https://ephemeralsun.bandcamp.com

  24. #74
    Member zorknapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by battema View Post
    So, here it is: https://www.burningshed.com/store/ki...duct/313/6012/

    It was slightly cheaper to order from Burning Shed vs. DGM and...with all apologies due, Burning Shed has been the more reliable vendor for me, even being overseas.

    And yes...I ordered it
    As have I, also from Burning Shed.

    Mike

  25. #75
    I pre-ordered too! Now I wonder whether i should tell my wife or not...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •