Universal Music finally figures out how to handle reissues in the digital age

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Perhaps:

UNIVERSAL MUSIC DIGS DEEPER TO LAUNCH DOWNLOAD-ONLY REISSUE PROGRAMME
Out-of-print albums return exclusively online
LONDON, January 18, 2006 – The deeper vaults of the world’s largest music company are beginning to open for the digital download era.
Next month, Universal Music Group International (UMGI) takes the first steps in a major, multi-year programme to make more than 100,000 deleted European recordings available once more – exclusively as digital downloads.

This is all I have of the story. Makes perfect sense to me; I know I've heard about similar burblings from other sources.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 14:05 (twenty years ago)

While this is great and all, and obviously a much cheaper way for the likes of Universal to, um, mine their backcats for cash, I have to wonder what the quality and format will be like. It's OK (for me) to download something as a taster, knowing I can get a proper CD or LP of it to play through my hi-fi, but if I could only get stuff as an MP3 I'd be less interested, I think.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 14:11 (twenty years ago)

I just recently heard a releated story on this .. They mentioned that out of print music was available for free on various websites, but I thought the reason that they weren't being released/posted by the publisher was more commonly a contractual or legal trap than an unwillingness to make them available online for a charge...

Although, I can't believe that to be true in every case and yes, this does seem pretty obvious and overdue.

― D.I.Y. U.N.K.L.E. (dave225.3), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 14:12 (twenty years ago)

Well, some of the larger and older labels would have contractual problems. In every case.

If all their artists didn't have clauses in their contracts covering this, they'd all have to be negociated. Even if the artist accepts the offer straightoff, that's still a lot of old stuff to plough through.

And how do you know there is no demand for some pop-prog LP from 1974 on DJM records, say, until you host it and get no downloads ever? After you went and got their OK, which took a month at the fastest?

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 14:17 (twenty years ago)

Ned, we were just talking about Universal and their lovely reissue policy here, specifically the case of Davy Graham, who currently earns approx £0.04 for every £12.99 reissue CD sold. Sure, this venture sounds exciting for fans, but I now suspect that this is just another means of fucking over the artists.

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 14:23 (twenty years ago)

"exclusively online"

exclusively cheap too? or just raking it in without incurring the costs of an actual product to sell? Pah!

― fandango (fandango), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 15:36 (twenty years ago)

most artists prefer four cents to nothing, which is what they get in the absence of something like this

― Mr Straight Toxic (ghostface), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 15:36 (twenty years ago)

Speaking of Universal, I recently got a press release from them about something I didn't care about, but at the bottom was a little blurb "About Universal Canada" that said they have a 35% market share (in Canada, which means, um, they handle Michael Buble or something).

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 15:38 (twenty years ago)

Presumably Davy, like the Beatles, signed a contract at the time, promising an actual money amount of slightly over one shilling per album sold. And kept the terms and conditions in perpet, in their favour.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 15:51 (twenty years ago)

most artists prefer four cents to nothing, which is what they get in the absence of something like this

-- Mr Straight Toxic

You're right. Still annoys me though... Ii they make the files available in a lossless format, with printable artwork & such then I'll quit my (admittedly jumping the gun) whining.

― fandango (fandango), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 15:56 (twenty years ago)

most artists prefer four cents to nothing, which is what they get in the absence of something like this

Sure, but it certainly undermines the record company argument that illegal downloading is somehow depriving artists of a living.

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 16:03 (twenty years ago)

I now suspect that this is just another means of fucking over the artists

how is this?

― don weiner (don weiner), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 16:09 (twenty years ago)

current AAC or MPEG compressed audio can often sound better than music released on CD as recently as ten years ago, so it seems a bit silly to worry that much about the sound quality aspect.

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 16:11 (twenty years ago)

how is this?

Reissuing back-catalogue with greatly reduced costs and presumably maximum profits, without reviewing the contracts signed a great many years ago in a time when none of this was envisaged. Contracts that might have made some financial sense back then, but that seem laughable now. I don't think it's ridiculous to expect artists to get something out of this prospective bonanza. But I know I am greatly extrapolating from the Davy Graham example - maybe it's high cotton for everyone else.

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 16:22 (twenty years ago)

true but as things stand, nobody wins (artists don't get anything for material people cannot actually hear) anyway.

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 16:24 (twenty years ago)

But maybe reviewing contracts might not preclude any of this happening? It's not unreasonable to reconsider business agreements made 40 years ago? Dunno if you looked at that link, but Davy Graham would appear to have received a payment five pounds for the 'Folk Roots/New Routes', something that's just been reissued and rightly stands as a towering fucking milestone in the history of folk and beyond.

But I'm wandering way off-topic perhaps, so I'll sit down and shut up I think.

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 16:33 (twenty years ago)

"maybe it's high cotton for everyone else."
doubt it..im sure lawsox will try and argue th validity of antique contraxx now and well into th future

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 16:56 (twenty years ago)

Hasn't Universal been doing this or something like it for a while now?

About 8 months ago I bought online (second hand) what was described as a Universal CD "reissue" of Orange Juice's You Can't Hide.... It turned out to be a CD that the seller had obtained online with an enhanced section consisting of a file with the cover art (from which you could make your own CD 'booklet').

― Jeff W (zebedee), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 17:49 (twenty years ago)

ah, it seems this is something new after all:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4625332.stm

― Jeff W (zebedee), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 20:08 (twenty years ago)

So...they're releasing music that I can't actually go to the store and buy. Oh, hooray.

― John 2, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 23:26 (twenty years ago)

Contracts that might have made some financial sense back then, but that seem laughable now

that doesn't necessarily invalidate the contracts. In other words, what the label didn't know "back then" is the same thing as what the artist didn't know "back then." Are you saying that if, somehow, current technology was unfavorable to the label that the artist should be forced to compensate? I don't really think it's exploitation when (assumedly) the artist entered the contract willingly.

― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 01:14 (twenty years ago)

For what it's worth, iTunes did a handful of Verve catalog (re)issues (is that the word?) last year that remained unavailable on CD.

― Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Thursday, 19 January 2006 09:42 (twenty years ago)

Don: yeah, I can see that. Just seems to be a vast gulf here between what is legal and what is just. And I can't quite envisage a situation where technology would be broadly unfavourable to a major label (in the context of legal activity)(and after all, the labels are to some extent (at least in the case of CDs and DVDs) the drivers behind the technology).

I see this whole thing as a response to illegal downloading rather than as a benevolent service to the musician or the music fan. It's all about stopping the value of the label's commodities being eroded by having them in free circulation. I don't buy any of this shit about this being in the artist's interest. That is not the main motivation and if the labels were remotely concerned with this, they would be seeing to it that the artist got a deal which reflected current worth.

As it stands, if the artist's concern was to have more people hear their art, it might make more sense for them to encourage people to download all their stuff for free and build up a new fanbase that way.

I see any sort of reissue as an opportunity to put right past wrongs, not just in terms of musical history, but in terms of remuneration. Sounds like folks got ripped off in the past in what was maybe a more innocent age; might just be nice if Universal recognised this.

Obviously, you're quite right that there's no real reason why they should. But then again, as far as I see it, there's no real reason why we should pay for 'exclusive' downloads.

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 19 January 2006 10:28 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.