Rephlex REPHLEX . COM

[awepittance]

this thread is drop dead fred, long live Phoebe Cates

[SR4]

whats she up to btw?

[karmakramer]

When abstract painters can charge 100,000's of bucks for some triangles and squares in different colors... why is it absurd for a musician to do the same? Obviously it has something to do with the quantity of the item, but its still a little strange that corporatism has set a standard pricing on music, and if you go beyond the normal, your considered greedy? So Brittany Spears has millions of supporters and the dude who has a second job and makes music out of passion has to be relegated to a similar pricing structure or face criticism?

 

 

you are only seeing in from the side of the artist. in a consumerist society, the consumer plays half the part as well. if the majority of the consumers do not wish to repurchase all of this, it sends a message that yes, that art is not worth that monetary value to consumers.

 

I'm just saying that pricing standardization of music is completely based around our society/consumerism... when it should be more based on the value of the artist's work and its importance to the individual. To proclaim a price as a scam is to proclaim the length of music is what decides it value... when a track like Nanou 2 has far more value to me then a track like Taking to the Grapevine by Creedence Clearwater Revival.

[SR4]

When abstract painters can charge 100,000's of bucks for some triangles and squares in different colors... why is it absurd for a musician to do the same? Obviously it has something to do with the quantity of the item, but its still a little strange that corporatism has set a standard pricing on music, and if you go beyond the normal, your considered greedy? So Brittany Spears has millions of supporters and the dude who has a second job and makes music out of passion has to be relegated to a similar pricing structure or face criticism?

 

 

you are only seeing in from the side of the artist. in a consumerist society, the consumer plays half the part as well. if the majority of the consumers do not wish to repurchase all of this, it sends a message that yes, that art is not worth that monetary value to consumers.

 

I'm just saying that pricing standardization of music is completely based around our society/consumerism... when it should be more based on the value of the artist's work and its importance to the individual. To proclaim a price as a scam is to proclaim the length of music is what decides it value... when a track like Nanou 2 has far more value to me then a track like Taking to the Grapevine by Creedence Clearwater Revival.

 

 

based on what you have stated here, Radiohead's idea for "In Rainbows" should be applicable to all music....pay what you believe its worth, yeah?

[karmakramer]

When abstract painters can charge 100,000's of bucks for some triangles and squares in different colors... why is it absurd for a musician to do the same? Obviously it has something to do with the quantity of the item, but its still a little strange that corporatism has set a standard pricing on music, and if you go beyond the normal, your considered greedy? So Brittany Spears has millions of supporters and the dude who has a second job and makes music out of passion has to be relegated to a similar pricing structure or face criticism?

 

 

you are only seeing in from the side of the artist. in a consumerist society, the consumer plays half the part as well. if the majority of the consumers do not wish to repurchase all of this, it sends a message that yes, that art is not worth that monetary value to consumers.

 

I'm just saying that pricing standardization of music is completely based around our society/consumerism... when it should be more based on the value of the artist's work and its importance to the individual. To proclaim a price as a scam is to proclaim the length of music is what decides it value... when a track like Nanou 2 has far more value to me then a track like Taking to the Grapevine by Creedence Clearwater Revival.

 

 

based on what you have stated here, Radiohead's idea for "In Rainbows" should be applicable to all music....pay what you believe its worth, yeah?

 

Kind of... but I am more saying, I have no problem with artists deciding how they want to sell, or how much they want to sell their music. Think of it more like a restaurant... a small piece of whatever at some fancy place could cost $100... if the chef thinks the art is that significant and wants to have the balls to charge a ridiculous amount for it, then fine. People will try it and decide... unfortunately the music business doesn't really allow artists to do something like this, because pricing is now standard, and people can access the item illegally easily. So if Richard and his buds want to charge more for his stuff, I don't mind, cause its that important to me.

Edited December 25, 2009 by karmakramer

[FLA FUR BIS FLE]

 

 

I don't know shit about hacking; I wouldn't advocate that truthfully; I was just really pissed and even more so that few people seemed to feel the same way.

 

Then why even get on that tip at all? Are you sitting at home seething over this, really? A label that you claim to support and love just opened a digital shop filled to the brim with new releases from new and old artists alike, and a bucket load of hard to find shit as well. You have a grievance over one aspect of a shop that has literally had legs for 24 hours. Which, by the way, is over a collectors item that was advertised as such from the start. I could go on and on about this, and I did have a post that was much lengthier than this one about 15 minutes ago, but it just isn't worth it to try and convince you otherwise, considering you have such an idyllic version of Rephlex swimming around in your head. A digital shop has opened. If it hadn't, you would never have known about the unreleased material, and that would be that. But now that you do know about it, and it hasn't been handed to you in the manner you expect or demand it to be, you've done your self in. Rephlex has never given you enough information to form a taste from the start, you did that to your self. A braindance phenomena? I don't know. But I will reiterate that no one is forcing your hand. Plus, we both know that you will end up hearing it whether money is changed hands or not, so is it really worth having a hemorrhoid over? As I said in the post I deleted, you can resort to sending an angry letter to the editor if need be. I am sure they will read it.

 

 

Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah. Good night.

Edited December 25, 2009 by thanks robert moses

[SR4]

id say that pretty much covers it.

[Guest abusivegeorge]

 

im happy repurchase analords grateful this is an absolutely brilliant marketing idea because i like the guy's music.

Edited December 25, 2009 by abusivegeorge

[kokoon]

i just had a vision

[chim]

im torn on this issue, because really, everyone seems to be making a bigger fuss over it than there should be.

 

im happy that they reorganized and set up a catalogue like this with the option to repurchase the analords, etc. etc., but in no way am I somehow obligated to be grateful, or immediately say this is an absolutely brilliant marketing idea just because i like the guy's music.

 

it's a classic case of these guys owe me something because i sucked their dick in the past.

 

Think of it more like a restaurant... a small piece of whatever at some fancy place could cost $100... if the chef thinks the art is that significant and wants to have the balls to charge a ridiculous amount for it, then fine. People will try it and decide... unfortunately the music business doesn't really allow artists to do something like this, because pricing is now standard, and people can access the item illegally easily

 

ballsy is to have things for free. charging more than the present market value is called stupid

[BCM]

this thread turned negative didn't it? oh well, fuck it xxx - if you don't wanna pay for 'em, don't mate, problem solved. I own the vinyls too but am happy to pay £35 to get the new tracks. dunno why but because it's rephlex, I feel good about giving them my money. I wouldn't feel the same about any other label I don't think (except perhaps envmod of course).

 

bottom line is, you'll get the tracks anyway whether you pay for them or not, so complaining loudly about it seems a bit pointless really.

 

anyway, whatever, merry christmas and thanks rephlex!!

[karmakramer]

ballsy is to have things for free. charging more than the present market value is called stupid

 

haha true perhaps

[zazen]

edit: n/m

 

edit: There's nothing more christmassy than a big online argument about the pricing of IDM. Merry Christmas!

Edited December 25, 2009 by zazen

[FLA FUR BIS FLE]

not so much an argument as it is a bunch of cry baby sissies who need to put on their pants.

[chim]

But we should clarify that it only works out more than the market value if you're buying the Analords _just_ to get the bonus tracks.

 

Absolutely. The fact that this is the situation, that they are limiting the consumer choice merely because they can, that they are putting something people do want together with something they don't want to increase the price... It kind of tells me that Rephlex are either cunts or don't like money.

 

Mind you, maybe I'd do the same if i was sitting in their cornish leather chairs, but I wouldn't call it a smart business decision. It reeks of a last minute "how can we squeeze the most short term dollar out of this from the fanboys".

 

Fucking people over in some market no mans land based on the exclusivity of your business is kind of unmodern, isn't it?

[thief]

 

[o00o]

all releases are cheap as hell

 

the quality is better then all vinyl rips on the net

 

you get wav too

 

+ extra tracks

 

wtf is not ok with that?

[Guest Bramsworth]

So I've got a question: if you buy these songs and then after downloading you suddenly get a virus that forces you to reformat, are you screwed over if you want to get the files again after the reformat?

 

I ask because I was considering buying a couple of the CDs today, and now I'm back after having to reformat after getting an unexpected virus that left me unable to recover anything from my HD. One reason I just can't see music becoming a download only thing, you could end up losing everything you just bought with no way to get it again unless you pay them all over.

[o00o]

So I've got a question: if you buy these songs and then after downloading you suddenly get a virus that forces you to reformat, are you screwed over if you want to get the files again after the reformat?

 

I ask because I was considering buying a couple of the CDs today, and now I'm back after having to reformat after getting an unexpected virus that left me unable to recover anything from my HD. One reason I just can't see music becoming a download only thing, you could end up losing everything you just bought with no way to get it again unless you pay them all over.

 

The support is done by humans I assume the will find a solution for that in case it is happening

[Food]

One reason I just can't see music becoming a download only thing, you could end up losing everything you just bought with no way to get it again unless you pay them all over.

 

Backup

Edited December 25, 2009 by Food

[Caretstik]

all releases are cheap as hell

 

the quality is better then all vinyl rips on the net

 

you get wav too

 

+ extra tracks

 

wtf is not ok with that?

Agreed. I would've still eventually bought the Analords all over again anyway (instead of having bought them all today) for this reason, even without any extra tracks.

[xyrofen]

So, I bought the new Wisp album. All I have to say is that it's now one of my top 3 releases of 2009, I fucking love it!

[chassis]

I need to get me a fucking credit card so I can get me some IDMz.

 

Who wants to give their old buddy chassis a christmas gift of We Miss You? Gwon.

[delet...]

When abstract painters can charge 100,000's of bucks for some triangles and squares in different colors... why is it absurd for a musician to do the same?

 

OMG no way !!

 

We're not paying for an original, but for an unsigned print. A print which in this market has to compete with free. So it is in their best interests to both keep the prices reasonable, and keep their market happy by not cheating them.

 

----::

Edited December 25, 2009 by delet...

[delet...]

On the first one they have kept the prices reasonable, as to the keeping their market happy and not cheating them. Well in the case of the analord thing it seems the consumers are divided. I think perhaps those on here with more money don't seem to notice the idea of expending a couple of extra pounds, but for others it seems a little galling both morally and financially to not be able to buy the new tracks separately.

 

I didn't buy any analord so it doesn't bother me, and don't listen to any of it so that shouldn't bother them.

 

heh ...

Edited December 25, 2009 by delet...