Shady Record labels

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Hi guys , I wrote a scorching review last night and posted it this morning, but I'd like to open up a subject about shady record label! Actually I had already done this in the collab zone , but I'd like to get a few other opinions:
First the review that prompted this rant of mine:

 Canterbury Scene
(Studio Album, 2002) 
SOFT MACHINE "Facelift"
Review (Permanent link) by Hugues Chantraine @ 3:31:08 AM EST, 10/19/2005 
SPECIAL COLLABORATOR (Honorary Collaborator) 

   The first few sentences of the liner notes tells you all in case you bought this album with your eyes and ears closed: you have been suckered into buying a bad bootleg instead of one of the pristine posthumous recordings from say Hux records (BBC sessions) or Cuneiform (usual stellar selves). But then again, you should’ve known better just by seeing that this is a Voiceprint label release that specializes in doubtful origin recordings, watered down sessions of shady origins. Knowing this (having read the leaflet) I decided to rent the Cd from the library – you did not think this old geezer would get suckered into buying it did you? - just to get confirmation of it and be able to review it honestly and having heard it , at least partially because the sound is so atrocious that scan the first twenty second of each track could’ve been enough. 

The worst part of this hoax is that there is available almost the same concert (on a different night of the tour but with similar set list) called Virtually and Noisette both with a pristine sound on artist-friendly Cuneiform record label - as opposed to the murky sound taken from a bad cassette recorder in the crowd as this junk. I do not mind spending a bit of cash to review expandable but correct albums from great artistes like Soft Machine, but here I have a feeling that outside having rented it to make this horrendous review to warn the planet (I hope) to stay away from such a pile of crap as this “release”. I have a hard time understanding how Brian Hopper (Hugh’s brother) actually wrote the liner notes and can still look at himself in the mirror after that. Well he does warn you in those famous first words…. Another real rip off is that those disc actually last around 40 minutes each and with ac little editing (diminishing the length of the applause for example) the whole thing could’ve been stashed on a single disc. But if you are going to rip-off someone, you might as well do a full scam than half of one, right?

M@X , if I provide you with a receipt for the rental of this double album , do I get a refund from the ProgArchives and you put it down as professional expenses? I will not even count my precious time wasted and the aural damages by the shoddy sound. STAY AWAYYYYYYYYYY from this one! 

And now the text I wrote for the thread in the collab section:

I have encountered throughout my 30 years of listening to music , many doubtful releases both on vinyl and Cd. I'd like to stick to CDs and only so-called legit labels.
In the early 90's , a sh*tload of labels put out those 70's oeuvre in a quick and rather rough manner, not really respecting the oeuvre either. This is why some people are now buying the record for the third time. 
I could eventually speak of the Majors - such as Virgin with the partial artwork reproductions of Genesis, VDGG and TD covers -  with  the music  simply transferred to Cd format , but this is not where I want to get at!
I am speaking of smaller independant labels (see the list below and the comments I have for them) that were so-called more respectful of the artistes. Some did an outstanding job (Musea , Repertoire and Cuneiform come to mind immediately) , but others did not. Among which:

Spalax records: There are many mistakes on their re-editions with tracks linked together , or missing track listings. No mischief from them but rather sloppy or careless work. see Heldon and Lard Free records. 
Charly Records: generally cheaper than other releases, most of the times their catalogue releases were doubling a release on other labels. They used a slightly different colour of artwork reproduction (notably on Magma and GonG releases) , but the music transcriptions were not very well done. Their version of Magma's  UDU Wudu is horrendous and the bass is drowned out! 
Voiceprint records: one of the worst offender. Hardly any infos on recording dates  and some bonus tracks announced but not listed anywhere. See Third Ear Band and Arthur Brown's Kingdom Come releases. 
Materiali Sonori: I find them guilty of watering down original tapes to make full albums out of too few ideas. Recording dates often absent as well! examples": Third Ear Band. 
SPM records: One of my favorite target of late especially with the High Tide releases of late 80's - early 90's. No recording dates anywhere and this is intentional. Black Widow  put out a compilation album but managed to find the dates no problems. In general the SPM releases are shady , with really obscure releases and the recording and musicianship frankly amateurish. But some of those re-issues are acknowledged by real encyclopedaeists. 
Akarma: due to different royalties laws in application  in Italy , Akarma is releasing some (sometimes superb) releases but also "legit"bootlegs - that are not legfitimate at all since most artistes aree not getting a cent of royalties!
 Any other firms that are offenders to artist integrity?
Any thoughts on this?

Edited by Sean Trane