AbsolutePunk.net
   Username
Password
Third Eye Blind News - Page 3
Displaying posts 30 - 40 of 40.
04:19 PM on 05/30/13
wtfjaked
Tortoise Tamer
Offline
User Info.
wtfjaked's Avatar
Jenkins does this all the time. What a twat.
Tell em Steve!
04:46 PM on 05/30/13
The_Effort
Regular Member
Offline
User Info.
The_Effort's Avatar
Was there ever an update on the repress of the S/T? I remember a news post a while back about it happening and then I never heard about it again.
07:52 PM on 05/30/13
NorthstarPark
Jiggin'
Offline
User Info.
NorthstarPark's Avatar
People really love nostalgia. This band will always be just another 90's band to me. I don't get the hype they still get.
01:26 AM on 05/31/13
Gumbyjag
Everything Evil
Offline
User Info.
Gumbyjag's Avatar
People really love nostalgia. This band will always be just another 90's band to me. I don't get the hype they still get.
QFT
07:07 AM on 05/31/13
ReidAR27
let's chop cats! let's chop cats!
Offline
User Info.
ReidAR27's Avatar
You sound way too pissy about people being way too pissy.
This is true.
10:16 AM on 05/31/13
brookssurrender
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
brookssurrender's Avatar
What in the actual fuck is this?

I get secondary markets and people like Lazy Labrador Records asking for absurd amounts for sealed LPs like this, but this is legitimately coming form the band?

The idea of bands asking ridiculous amounts of money for a record because they know the demand for it is high is the shittiest thing in the world. I can see labels jacking up RSD prices for re-issues, but for a band to openly do something that screams "hey, while this was worth 10 bucks ten years ago, I'm gonna take advantage of a fan for finding it after the fact." This is why a lot of recent bands keep copies of variants to flip on ebay and things like that, which is totally not cool.

3EB is notorious for this, more so than any other band. Just another example of it.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you guys and what 3EB did in this case was kind of shitty, seing as how they could have easily done something cool and auctioned these off for charity, etc, given their level of visibility and assumed financial position having been around for so long and sold millions of records in the past, I have to play devil's advocate for a minute.

Why is it okay as a record collector to pay upwards of $200 for an LP from some random person on eBay, but it's not okay for a band to charge that amount of money for the same collector's item? If you're willing to pay that much in the first place, wouldn't you rather the money be going directly to support a band you like rather than some kid looking to make a quick buck? Especially if they're a struggling up-and-coming band who could actually use that money to stay on the road.

Not that I think bands should do that, but it's an interesting question. Seems like there's a double standard there and for some reason it seems like bands shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of market value for a product THEY created. I can't think of another business where that happens. No one shits on a painter for selling their work for hundreds of thousands of dollars at art shows. Or maybe they do, I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud.
10:46 AM on 05/31/13
xHoodieWeather
I Just Want To Sell Out My Funeral
Offline
User Info.
xHoodieWeather's Avatar
While I don't necessarily disagree with you guys and what 3EB did in this case was kind of shitty, seing as how they could have easily done something cool and auctioned these off for charity, etc, given their level of visibility and assumed financial position having been around for so long and sold millions of records in the past, I have to play devil's advocate for a minute.

Why is it okay as a record collector to pay upwards of $200 for an LP from some random person on eBay, but it's not okay for a band to charge that amount of money for the same collector's item? If you're willing to pay that much in the first place, wouldn't you rather the money be going directly to support a band you like rather than some kid looking to make a quick buck? Especially if they're a struggling up-and-coming band who could actually use that money to stay on the road.

Not that I think bands should do that, but it's an interesting question. Seems like there's a double standard there and for some reason it seems like bands shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of market value for a product THEY created. I can't think of another business where that happens. No one shits on a painter for selling their work for hundreds of thousands of dollars at art shows. Or maybe they do, I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud.

I like your painter example. One photographer in particular, Peter Lik, increases the prices of his prints every 10% he sells, so that the last 1% available end up costing ten or twenty times the price of the first few purchased.

When it comes to records, nobody likes someone who flips a record, so a band is held to the same standard. The item gaining appreciation over time is a different story, but these are promo/retail copies that were accidentally not sold (or purposely, who knows) and not personal items that have become difficult to part with and extremely valuable, so it seems more like flipping than collecting at this point.

To put it simply: this is the same thing that record label pulled with YFW original vinyl, they sold them for 150 a piece on eBay as they "kept finding more"

I do think it is up to the costumer (or fan) to keep that in check by not purchasing products that they are being overcharged for and understand the band is just trying to make a quick buck.
11:28 AM on 05/31/13
brookssurrender
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
brookssurrender's Avatar
I like your painter example. One photographer in particular, Peter Lik, increases the prices of his prints every 10% he sells, so that the last 1% available end up costing ten or twenty times the price of the first few purchased.

When it comes to records, nobody likes someone who flips a record, so a band is held to the same standard. The item gaining appreciation over time is a different story, but these are promo/retail copies that were accidentally not sold (or purposely, who knows) and not personal items that have become difficult to part with and extremely valuable, so it seems more like flipping than collecting at this point.

To put it simply: this is the same thing that record label pulled with YFW original vinyl, they sold them for 150 a piece on eBay as they "kept finding more"

I do think it is up to the costumer (or fan) to keep that in check by not purchasing products that they are being overcharged for and understand the band is just trying to make a quick buck.
That's interesting about that photographer. I'm sure people (probably including me) would get upset if a band or label did that same thing with a limited release LP, but I couldn't tell you why. Seems like they'd be justified given that, arguably, the costs of recording and pressing and album are much higher than printing a photo or making a painting.

When it comes to flipping, I agree completely. Nobody likes a flipper. But don't people do that because they know they can make a profit in the secondary market because people are willing to pay for it? Theoretically, if everyone knows people are willing to pay more than what bands are charging couldn't flipping be combatted by bands charging more in the first place? That way there'd be no profit left to be had by flippers. Or maybe the Peter Lik method would work as a kind of middle ground. Or maybe you charge more for limited pressings to dissuade flippers from getting the rarest ones.

I think I'm way off base from my original point, but basically, yeah the YFW thing was super sketchy but sometimes you do just find things years down the road that you didn't know you had and if that's the case is it wrong to charge market value for it? At the very least it's a way to guarantee that they won't be flipped.

For the record, as a vinyl collector myself, I hate everything I'm saying because I would be so bummed if records cost way more to begin with - they're already starting to get out of my price range. BUT if I'm going to pay a buttload for a rare LP anyways, I'd rather it go directly to the band somehow. And I just think it's interesting that music is valued SO much differently than almost any other form of art.
12:30 PM on 05/31/13
xHoodieWeather
I Just Want To Sell Out My Funeral
Offline
User Info.
xHoodieWeather's Avatar
That's interesting about that photographer. I'm sure people (probably including me) would get upset if a band or label did that same thing with a limited release LP, but I couldn't tell you why. Seems like they'd be justified given that, arguably, the costs of recording and pressing and album are much higher than printing a photo or making a painting.

When it comes to flipping, I agree completely. Nobody likes a flipper. But don't people do that because they know they can make a profit in the secondary market because people are willing to pay for it? Theoretically, if everyone knows people are willing to pay more than what bands are charging couldn't flipping be combatted by bands charging more in the first place? That way there'd be no profit left to be had by flippers. Or maybe the Peter Lik method would work as a kind of middle ground. Or maybe you charge more for limited pressings to dissuade flippers from getting the rarest ones.

I think I'm way off base from my original point, but basically, yeah the YFW thing was super sketchy but sometimes you do just find things years down the road that you didn't know you had and if that's the case is it wrong to charge market value for it? At the very least it's a way to guarantee that they won't be flipped.

For the record, as a vinyl collector myself, I hate everything I'm saying because I would be so bummed if records cost way more to begin with - they're already starting to get out of my price range. BUT if I'm going to pay a buttload for a rare LP anyways, I'd rather it go directly to the band somehow. And I just think it's interesting that music is valued SO much differently than almost any other form of art.


I think it honestly has something to do with the punk/alternative/counter culture DIY ethos and anti commercialism. Fine art collections not only become pricier as their popularity increases, but also increase in popularity/exclusivity/collectors value as price increases as well. While with our recent vinyl surge a $10 /100 record to be more exclusive than a $50 /200 variant while the more expensive one would be the more coveted one in the art collector world regardless of how limited it is unless the gap is large (like a /10 item vs /500) while with music price wouldn't matter at all as long as there is something more limited.

I find it interesting how music is different in every aspect to other arts or anything really. I think the price is infuriating, but I'm also aware that it is realistic. We drove up the price of vinyl and so did labels, so there is no point in pouting about it when as a consumer the only weapon we have is to choose wether to "vote" through or purchases or not.
04:21 PM on 06/10/13
alegnaanaconda
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
alegnaanaconda's Avatar
A new album sounds reasonable. This sounds stupid.
Options
Related News Stories
Buy the Music

NEWS, MUSIC & MORE
Search News
Release Dates
Exclusives
Best New Music
Submit News
CONNECT
Forums
Contests
RSS
Mobile Version
Banners, Flyers, Widgets
HIDDEN TREASURES
Free Music
Video News
Sports Forum
AP.net Related News
Recommendations
INFORMATION
FAQ
Contact Us
Copyright Policy
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
FOLLOW
Twitter | Facebook
PropertyOfZack
PunkNews.org
UnderTheGun
Chorus.fm