Messages

5191

Music Shit / Re: Crazy recent eBays

« on: February 26, 2008, 01:05:15 PM »

honest question: does anybody ever feel totally had when they get this stuff?  i dont buy expensive or vintage copies, but i was just curious.  i know its cool to get something if you really have your eye on it, but if you bought that pen or something or whatever that Ramones lett-opener thing there was an article in razorcake about a few months ago....doesnt that just make anybody ever look at it later and go "oh....a letter opener.  i guess ill open letters now". 

5192

Music Shit / Re: Crazy recent eBays

« on: February 25, 2008, 12:31:33 PM »

unless its "punk rock" to have people not be able to hear the music.  to me thats sometimes more pretentious than sipping out of a brandy snifter at a big mohogany desk under a Rembrandt. 

5193

Music Shit / Re: Crazy recent eBays

« on: February 25, 2008, 12:28:22 PM »

it depends on the band.  blank dogs will obviously sell out of 500 immediately. 

a label should not have a rule that denies the needs of a band it works with. 

5194

Music Shit / Re: Crazy recent eBays

« on: February 25, 2008, 12:18:26 PM »

I think this would be a terrible movie.  But if it does come out, it should be definitely limited edition.

5195

Music Shit / Re: 7" sleeve printing

« on: February 22, 2008, 05:55:29 PM »

no, they dont seem to have any examples of it i know of.  i think they just started doing 12"s though not too long ago at imprint so that might have something to do with it.   but i just did the black sunday /le jonathan reilly one there (at imprint).  it came out cool.  but they actually outsource 12"s to Ross Ellis.  So if you have any like or dislike for that company this will be in play of course.  to be dead honest about it, i like dorado a little better, but the price difference is really big with that shipping gap, and the quality difference is really very very subtle when you think of it.  Theres a slight bit more meat on the dorado sleeves.  not much though.  the price at imprint can sway you really good sometimes because looking at side by sides, in my opinion its not "convincingly" better.  Just subtleties.  Like how much ham you can rub against it without getting it sticky.  The usual tests.   

5196

Music Shit / Re: 7" sleeve printing

« on: February 22, 2008, 03:54:17 PM »

I stupidly recommended Thingmakers to my brother judging by his website work and the fact it was a really custom job....the CDs came wrong, and he kept about $500 in some kind of shady teeter-totter communications that should've been going back to him.  he is still chasing him for the money. 

I personally use Imprint and Ad Nauseum and Dorado.  Imprint is very super professional and fast its true.  Walter at Imprint probably shouldve kicked my ass when I was behind a few times on payment, and he is so cool.  Very very VERY nice people over there.  And ad nauseum has a little cheaper prices and good paper stocks for seemingly the same price and they look good too.  And Dorado is super reliable too but much more expensive....they handle a lot of indie major releases so you know they are aware that quality and deadlines are important.  Imprint has the best rate on 12" sleeves Ive ever seen tho.  Because it includes shipping.  Thats really dirt fucking cheap.  It was like $550 for 500 full colors SHIPPED at Imprint.  I think thats fucked up low for a 12" sleeve.

thingmakers is (from what i heard) a guy who's really good or creative but who takes forever and lives in his own world.  you literally have to accept that if you're going to throw biz at him.  and he operates on the "answer the most pissed off one" principal.  so everyone is always pissed off just taking turns.

5197

Music Shit / Re: siltbreeze feature on pitchfork

« on: February 22, 2008, 03:29:57 PM »

Windows Cool Points is now available on Mac.  It was proprietary, but the kid on those Mac commercials actually works for Pitchfork.  You can find out what's cool from home now.  Just type in your opinions and it will correct you.

5198

Music Shit / Re: siltbreeze feature on pitchfork

« on: February 22, 2008, 10:45:39 AM »

pitchfork just reviewed the Norton "I Hate CDs" 3xcd comp... gave it a glowing review...read like a 10.0... but only a 7.9.. what the fuck is the point?

after they cross-referenced it with "Windows Cool Points", their proprietary computer program, they realized they couldn't break into the 8's and maintain cool accuracy.

5199

Non-Music Shit / Re: $600

« on: February 21, 2008, 04:29:27 PM »

your employers should have them on file.  businesses have to keep them on file i think for a few years. 

also, kevin...there must be a trail of some of that money somehow.  if you know you made money from this or that, just file it.  dont lie.  but report what you made.  from shows etc.  there are enough touring musicians that it isnt going to shock the IRS if they audit you and you say what you said right here.  and I really dont think they care that much about 3 grand anyway...so they probably wont sweat it regardless.  Just itemize records, shows, merch and whatever else and try to be honest, and itll come out to make you eligible for the $600. 

5200

Music Shit / Re: siltbreeze feature on pitchfork

« on: February 20, 2008, 08:30:05 PM »

theres no question they are smart enough to know when to feed their cash cows.  That's my take on the modernized payola game. 

It's not supposed to be on some chart printed out that says "hey, we'll give you a 9.1 review and a banner for two weeks for $3,000".  Because if it back-fired once and some label got pissed at them, then the whole money-machine would die under the scrutiny of people who knew from that leaking.  But the thing is, they aren't stupid enough to create circumstances that make advertisers pull out.  and of course the labels dont want to believe that shit.  but its probably true.  they're not going to leave a big spender on the line out to dry in terms of....anything.  because thats their paycheck man.  the big spender.

5201

Music Shit / Re: siltbreeze feature on pitchfork

« on: February 19, 2008, 05:50:20 PM »

But i gotta leave again my blood pressure is going nuts.  Sorry for the heated words.  This stuff just pisses me off so bad.  I cant explain it.  I try to.  But its hard to see what Im saying I guess.

5202

Music Shit / Re: siltbreeze feature on pitchfork

« on: February 19, 2008, 05:47:59 PM »

yeah, this is called "strategies of businesses that are in no way at all interested in independent music".  This is the explanation of a company with policies to make money and ensure "a certain quality".  Not take risks and try stuff.  To me, rock n roll is "trying stuff". 

If they cant act like an independent business, then they should not act like one.

5203

Music Shit / Re: siltbreeze feature on pitchfork

« on: February 19, 2008, 05:39:04 PM »

Editor-in-Chief/Publisher
Ryan Schreiber

I was introduced to this guy through a friend who works for an indie label.  He seems to genuinely like both Jay Reatard and King Khan & BBQ, and he was at recent shows of both bands at Cakeshop fronting a 3-camera film crew.  Although I'm not sure why none of the footage has shown up on the Forkcast part of their site yet.

He works for a music site.  I'd expect him to at least be able to hit the tip of the iceberg like that.  Where's the risk?  These bands are sure bets.  Where's the adventurous fantacial journalism the "independent community" is known for?

plus a list of about 30-40 contributing writers.

These would be poorly-paid freelancers.

I'm sure they even work for free to look cool by telling their friends they work at Pitchfork because they are all equally retarded.  Just makes the editor in chief more money too.  win win.

so i am just posting this with job titles to emphasize the fact that they are looking to fill out all those salaries every year. 

As someone who works for an advertising-based internet business, I can tell you that there is very good money for high-traffic, highly-targeted sites.  I can't say anything about whether labels who advertise get better editorial coverage, but the legit money is there regardless.  Covering a payroll of 16 full timers, plus NYC office space, and everything else, along with a profit on top, would be no problem.

I think my main point is that they have seen the profit come pouring down, and they have abandoned the "independent" building so to speak, but left the architecture to stand in for them while going out to collect the $$$ raining down.  The problem is that now it's crumbling from lack of maintenance, and every time they try to get back in there and wave to people showing signs of life, well, that's when people start saying, "hey, where the fuck have you been?".  And that's when they run out of the building again.

5204

Music Shit / Re: siltbreeze feature on pitchfork

« on: February 19, 2008, 05:19:10 PM »

I sent Pitchfork stuff to review early on - A Frames CDs, Monoshock, Babyhead, etc. - thought they my be interested. Gave up after no reviews. A Frames sign to Subpop and immediately they ask me to advertise. Pitchfork is pay to play, no different than Spin or Rolling Stone, except that their client is the "indie community." Pitchfork, CMJ, the "indie" promo companies are all parasites. I agree that the Siltbreeze article is charity. It is also an attempt to recapture the hip. Because these guys are establishment, they have lost touch with what is truly independent.

100 percent AMEN. 

5205

Music Shit / Re: siltbreeze feature on pitchfork

« on: February 19, 2008, 04:02:00 PM »

Oh, I made a mistake.  Those last two on the staff were interns.  So subtract $40,000-100,000.