Universal doesn't want releases advertised anymore?

I just read on another music forum where a member received a message from Universal that reads:

Quote:

---

UNIVERSAL:
Universal no longer wish to have any of their tracks, downloads, albums or releases [[other than major album titles) within the release schedule disclosed

---

I wonder if this has something to do with advertising something and then not being able to deliver the product. Could there have been another shake-up at the label? If this is true, who is making these decisions at the label?

I do have an idea of why they might be doing this. They have been releasing a lot of vinyl-only titles lately. But, when word gets out, they get criticized from the CD and download crowd, as not everyone does vinyl, and they don't want the potential loss of sales because of their decisions. A while back, they announced a Marvin Gaye EP in vinyl that some weren't too happy about, let alone that it it is a [[IMO) a useless waste of time. On another issue, they are getting criticized for a new forthcoming Beatles vinyl reissue.

As we know, record labels are very traditional, and still haven't quite adjusted to the realities of the internet, except that everyone now has an equal voice and opinion, and can post whatever they want on social media.

Vinyl seems to be the way forward in the UK

I've just seen vinyl albums of Pet Sounds. Sgt Pepper, Marvin Gaye etc on sale on a big supermarket [[Sainsbury's) for sale at £12...about the price of a cd issued by ACE

There are Motown [[set of 7) double sided vinyl 7" releases which seem to be selling well and priced at the £50 mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soulster

I just read on another music forum where a member received a message from Universal that reads:



I wonder if this has something to do with advertising something and then not being able to deliver the product. Could there have been another shake-up at the label? If this is true, who is making these decisions at the label?

I do have an idea of why they might be doing this. They have been releasing a lot of vinyl-only titles lately. But, when word gets out, they get criticized from the CD and download crowd, as not everyone does vinyl, and they don't want the potential loss of sales because of their decisions. A while back, they announced a Marvin Gaye EP in vinyl that some weren't too happy about, let alone that it it is a [[IMO) a useless waste of time. On another issue, they are getting criticized for a new forthcoming Beatles vinyl reissue.

As we know, record labels are very traditional, and still haven't quite adjusted to the realities of the internet, except that everyone now has an equal voice and opinion, and can post whatever they want on social media.

---

I'm not sure I understand your term ' a waste of time' that is surely a personal point of view as you so rightly point out BUT I cannot for the life of me seeing a business model that only produces things that are a waste of time.
It is obvious CD sales have fallen largely do to streaming and formally pirating and sharing all brought about by whoever invented the digital movement in music. Once that particular Pandora was out of the box the writing was on the wall - there was no going back.
Companies exists to make a profit - they are there obviously to sell products that appeal to the market and the CD obviously just doesn't do it anymore and only a foolish CEO would sanction the continued production of unprofitable goods.
So what do you so - you look quite rightly for other revenue streams and the collectors market is the place to concentrate all your efforts, nobody has yet come up with a way of illegally sharing vinyl and the recent spate of box sets have been so dammed attractive you can see why they appeal to collectors even if they don't have a record player.
So if you can sell thousands of collectors box sets or a few dozen CD's what would you do - I know if I were the boss of any company facing a situation like this what I would do and it wouldn't be the latter - it's just the way of the world and if you don't move with it you get swallowed up.
As far as I'm aware very little 'new' material has been released vinyl only, they are all special editions of catalogue material so in fairness at the moment nobody is missing out.

[QUOTE=theboyfromxtown;342298]Vinyl seems to be the way forward in the UK

It would seem so. Who would ever believe we would see Dusty Springfield's canned Atlantic album 'Faithful' being issued on orange vinyl?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_nixon

I'm not sure I understand your term ' a waste of time' that is surely a personal point of view as you so rightly point out BUT I cannot for the life of me seeing a business model that only produces things that are a waste of time.
It is obvious CD sales have fallen largely do to streaming and formally pirating and sharing all brought about by whoever invented the digital movement in music. Once that particular Pandora was out of the box the writing was on the wall - there was no going back.
Companies exists to make a profit - they are there obviously to sell products that appeal to the market and the CD obviously just doesn't do it anymore and only a foolish CEO would sanction the continued production of unprofitable goods.
So what do you so - you look quite rightly for other revenue streams and the collectors market is the place to concentrate all your efforts, nobody has yet come up with a way of illegally sharing vinyl and the recent spate of box sets have been so dammed attractive you can see why they appeal to collectors even if they don't have a record player.
So if you can sell thousands of collectors box sets or a few dozen CD's what would you do - I know if I were the boss of any company facing a situation like this what I would do and it wouldn't be the latter - it's just the way of the world and if you don't move with it you get swallowed up.
As far as I'm aware very little 'new' material has been released vinyl only, they are all special editions of catalogue material so in fairness at the moment nobody is missing out.

---

There was no need for the marketing lesson, as I already know all of what you posted. Still, I saw the EP as a waste of an opportunity [[yes, let's call it that instead). Why not release a whole new product of Marvin material. Several years ago, they already had issued a vinyl-only set for the "What's Going On" album. Many other artists and albums, and they keep reissuing the same old shit. Next, someone's gonna remix the album. Where does it stop?

CD isn't totally finished, but I do see trouble with downloads. The hi-rez market is holding, but tiny, as it mainly appeals to audiophiles who demand the best. Streaming is killing everything. You can stream some hi-rez, but it will cost a lot more than what most people are willing to pay, even if they could do it on their smartphones.

Vinyl may be a "thing" these days, but I do not see a long-term viability for the format. I give it another couple of years before the millennials discover what we older folks always knew: the format has serious drawbacks. The sound quality is very dependant on the playback chain, records can degrade in sound quality, they demand the utmost care to maintain that quality, and resale value, today's vinyl is plagued with high volumes of manufacturing defects, it can get quite expensive, and it takes up space. Then, the labels lose potential sales because they neglect their other customers. Look, the labels bought into the streaming model because it's a cash cow for them. They didn't have to go down that road. Of course, all they think about is profit and control. If they can move everyone to streaming, there'll be no manufacturing and distribution costs, and they will have the ultimate control over availability. And, when the consumer loses, they lose, too.

Back to the request of not announcing product: the label is only hurting themselves. If the consumer doesn't know what's coming out or when, they can't spend money on it, now can they? Some people who have limited funds can't plan to by something. They still lose.

I hear you, Soulster. For Universal [[or any company) to make a product available for sale, but purposely keep it a secret from its potential customers, is not only counter-productive; it's totally irrational and unreasonable. I can't help but feel that, if it's gotten to the point where the powers-that-be at Universal truly consider Motown a thorn in its side, everyone might be better off if they just sell the Motown catalog to a record company who still cares enough to treat Motown with the respect it deserves. At least, that seems the logical thing to do.

Also, regarding the vinyl resurgence, I'm afraid that I don't understand it, either. I have to wonder...why would anyone choose to revert back to scratchy surface noise, ticks, and pops inherent in vinyl after being exposed to pure, studio-quality music in CD's from the mastertapes? Sure, after growing up with records, I still get a tug at the old heart-strings when I see a Mint condition Philles or Motown 45 or LP, but as far as sound quality, I know that it can't compare to the CD mastertape version if remastered properly. If musc lovers are really serious about getting back into vinyl, you'd think they would at least seek out the original Motown vinyl releases from the 1960's -- NOT the new vinyl reissues being made available.

I LOVE the vinyl resurgence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimi LaLumia

I LOVE the vinyl resurgence

---

And you are obviously not the only only one mate as vinyl has been outselling many recent catalogue CD releases. As far as keeping things quiet I think maybe some people are not looking. Amazon has been trailing the next Motown 7's box set for at least two weeks and that is not due to the end of the Autumn - review journalists have already been sent their streams. The Marvin Gaye CD and Vinyl box sets were trailed or months before they were released. Ace put their re-issues up on their website weeks before release. The Second Disc website lists all new upcoming releases several weeks before their release as they are given details being bona fide journalists - not sure \I understand what more could be done - perhaps it's worth a few people emailing Ume and giving them some suggestions I'm sure if they are making mistakes they would like to know about it and put it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimi LaLumia

I LOVE the vinyl resurgence

---

I'm curious, Jimmy -- What is there about vinyl that makes you love its resurgence? All I've been hearing is that more and more people are preferring the download over CD's because of its easy portability and its lack of shelf space requirements. Vinyl records, however -- even 45's -- take up more space than CD's. And those records are heavy, too! [[I know -- I had 1,800 vinyl albums before I turned to CD's.) Given the sound quality and size issues inherent with vinyl, what makes you still embrace it so? - Gary

Another benefit of the CD is the lavish booklet that provides info and good reading. But then that might be the thing that makes them less viable. Its not something you get as standard with vinyl or downloads. Mind you i would certainly welcome electronic copies of all the booklets [[e.g. Ace, Hip-O-Select, Cellarful etc). No I don't understand the resurgence in vinyl, especially since it is so expensive, but it might bode well for when I sell off my collection.

As has been touched upon by other posters, vinyl has had a resurgence because it can't be pirated in the same way as a digital format [[CD/download) can. Ripping the audio from vinyl is a further step away from the master, whereas a digtal-to-digital rip is an exact copy. There is also a "cool" quotient to vinyl that CDs no longer possess - afficianados talk of the "warm" sound of vinyl versus the "cold", "hard", "sterile" sound of CDs. To some, vinyl is synonymous with "authenticity". Also, the size of vinyl discs, and thus, their packaging, has greater visual appeal to some consumers. As mentioned, some collectors buy vinyl without actually owing a vinyl player - think picture discs, LP covers that are framed and hung on a wall etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philles/Motown Gary

I hear you, Soulster. For Universal [[or any company) to make a product available for sale, but purposely keep it a secret from its potential customers, is not only counter-productive; it's totally irrational and unreasonable. I can't help but feel that, if it's gotten to the point where the powers-that-be at Universal truly consider Motown a thorn in its side, everyone might be better off if they just sell the Motown catalog to a record company who still cares enough to treat Motown with the respect it deserves. At least, that seems the logical thing to do.

---

We can't assume this is about Motown. Universal owns lots of labels, many of which were mighty independants in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, such as A&M, Polydor, and, yes, Motown. They have also acquired distribution for Apple Records, which means The Beatles.

Quote:

---

Also, regarding the vinyl resurgence, I'm afraid that I don't understand it, either. I have to wonder...why would anyone choose to revert back to scratchy surface noise, ticks, and pops inherent in vinyl after being exposed to pure, studio-quality music in CD's from the mastertapes? Sure, after growing up with records, I still get a tug at the old heart-strings when I see a Mint condition Philles or Motown 45 or LP, but as far as sound quality, I know that it can't compare to the CD mastertape version if remastered properly. If musc lovers are really serious about getting back into vinyl, you'd think they would at least seek out the original Motown vinyl releases from the 1960's -- NOT the new vinyl reissues being made available.

---

I do understand the vinyl resurgence as far as how the industry has screwed up the sound on CDs and downloads. Oh, I know most "average" people can't tell the difference, but they can sure sense it. Their body senses it when they want to tune out from the music being in your face from all the compression and EQ they use. I can understand how older albums produced in the 80s and before can be closer to the master tape simply because it was screwed with less, although it is a case-by-case thing. I can understand how people like to touch, see, and smell vinyl records, and look at the big artwork. I understand that the record industry likes it because fewer people know how to copy them and put them on the internet for free. I even like that there is tons of music on vinyl that hasn't, or will never make it to the digital realm.

But, vinyl doesn't have to sound crackly and fuzzy. If you take care of your records, and play them on a good turntable with a quality cartridge, and a good pre-amp, you really should get sound as good as a CD. But, it's expensive, and, a lot of music we love, especially lots of soul music will never make it to a vinyl reissue. Records are bulky and take up living space, and you can't play them on the go. The funniest thing is that just about all new and reissues are made from digital masters, complete with all that damn compression and EQ'ing that the CD has. I think people are in love with vinyl just because it's old technology. the younger set likes it because they didn't grow up with it. It's quaint to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallworld

As has been touched upon by other posters, vinyl has had a resurgence because it can't be pirated in the same way as a digital format [[CD/download) can. Ripping the audio from vinyl is a further step away from the master, whereas a digtal-to-digital rip is an exact copy.

---

On the other hand: have you heard what some of these guys can do with vinyl? Given the right skill, equipment, software, and skill, they [[and I) can create a vinyl rip that sounds just like, or better than a CD.

{On the other hand: have you heard what some of these guys can do with vinyl? Given the right skill, equipment, software, and skill, they [[and I) can create a vinyl rip that sounds just like, or better than a CD.}

I use a 10 band EQ and a vintage DBX unit for my rips and playing my records and they sound very good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallworld

As has been touched upon by other posters, vinyl has had a resurgence because it can't be pirated in the same way as a digital format [[CD/download) can. Ripping the audio from vinyl is a further step away from the master, whereas a digtal-to-digital rip is an exact copy.

---

What we need is for someone to invent the cassette tape. The people will be able to store whole albums on them. Music systems will have a record deck, twin cassette recorders, mini disc, 8 track cartridges and a USB to input and output. All in a handy sized unit that you can carry on your shoulder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mysterysinger

What we need is for someone to invent the cassette tape. The people will be able to store whole albums on them. Music systems will have a record deck, twin cassette recorders, mini disc, 8 track cartridges and a USB to input and output. All in a handy sized unit that you can carry on your shoulder.

---

But what will I do with my "chip"? Not to mention my monkey ....

Trade em in for a parrot - or better still a toucan - cos toucan have a party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daddyacey

{On the other hand: have you heard what some of these guys can do with vinyl? Given the right skill, equipment, software, and skill, they [[and I) can create a vinyl rip that sounds just like, or better than a CD.}

I use a 10 band EQ and a vintage DBX unit for my rips and playing my records and they sound very good.

---

I use the same type of tools that are used in mastering studios, the ones they use to make our CDs. If you use a computer, you can get exacting results.