|
|
Post by spongeboy on Jan 24, 2002 9:44:16 GMT 10
I noticed today on ebay today an item that is listed as "jebidiah signed + s4k bonus".
Well, i was intrigued, and had a look. There was no s4k bonus at all. I felt dirty, like i'd been used and then discarded. Its not that i don't like the jebs, god bless 'em, but i just love s4k so much more......
Was the seller using the s4k line to draw in viewers? I get the feeling that s4k are THE collectable aussie band at the moment....even a few record stores seem to be bidding rarer items.
is this just because of the new album and its brilliant reviews? i suppose it helps that to have good b-sides and earlier work that were limited releases....are people 'investing' in the band, hoping that as their star shines brighter that copy of intermission gathering dust will increase in value?
its about the music.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheAstronaut on Jan 24, 2002 12:27:44 GMT 10
a fan asked paul about merchandise & sfk collectables at the cold live gig. heres his response from an article on my site
How do you feel about online auction sites selling your memorbillia for zillions of dollars ?
" I think its pretty dodgy, but sadly, thats the way it works. Old singles are deleted and become rare and people charge whatever they think people will pay. You can't stop it. We'd make our whole back catalogue available if we could, but its just not a possibility "
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtgirl on Jan 24, 2002 21:21:15 GMT 10
Unfortunately this is what happens when you start getting commerically successful. If you were cyncial one might even suggest that limiting the production of the B-sides was part of a long-sighted marketing strategy. The record companies and similiar parasites are laughing all the way to the bank - perhaps I should get stocks in sony? Maybe sfk could become a publically listed company (hell David Bowie did)- wouldn't THAT be ironic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rendered Pointless on Jan 24, 2002 21:31:13 GMT 10
Here's the question: B-sides and deleted singles and releases are valuable because fans are willing to pay that much. So who is responsible for higher prices? If people stop paying, then the merchandise may experience a sudden drop in expense.
I think B-sides are more a tradition now than anything else; record companies do use them as a fund raiser, but let's remember that when the idea of B-sides and double A-sides etc. started, no-one really seriously entertained the thought of them becoming incredibly valuable in the future. It was just simple economy; you had extra space on the record, give the consumer a taste of what else you had to offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtgirl on Jan 24, 2002 21:53:48 GMT 10
I concur with your premise about supply and demand. Maybe B sides were intended as fillers but they can also be used as vehicles for further cash generation (along with all the other merchanising merde). Shame the only way an artist today can make a public statement and be heard by more than a select few is to effectively prostitute oneself and play the corporatist game (give it to the big boys the way they like it  ). sfk have managed to resist the more crass aspects of music's big business muscle so far, but i am in no doubt if they want to go all the way they'll have to submit to the will of the suits who hold the investment dollars (and it will be ugly)... |
|
|
|
Post by spongeboy on Jan 25, 2002 7:39:49 GMT 10
warning - read last line first
b sides are for the fans - they allow bands to release potentially crap material that would never make it onto full length albums because its too experimental, too different, or doesn't fit into the albums vibe. that said, i think s4k should collate the b sides of each album and release them, much like the beautiful bsides bootleg.....i think singles are used by record companies to sell the album...though there is a sorta famous case with a elton john album, where they lost money because an extraordinary amount of people bought the single, but noone bought the album.
i mean, if it weren't for singles, i doubt if sony would have ever released songs like rockwell, friendly, submarine, floatation, etc. not because they're bad songs (they're not) but because they don't fit the planned image....
hmmmmm...this post is way too preachy.
|
|
|
|
Post by somethingforkaty on Jan 25, 2002 22:21:00 GMT 10
without wanting to interupt the heated debate, id just like to go back to the first question. what was the track listings? perhaps if 'harpoon' was on there, it was SFK's version of it. im pretty sure when they covered each others songs they both had them as bsides on each others releases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glen on Jan 25, 2002 23:36:49 GMT 10
They even released the single together - Harpoon (Jebediah)
- Clint (Jebediah)
- Harpoon (Something For Kate)
- Clint (Something For Kate)
 |
|
|
|
Post by dirtgirl on Jan 26, 2002 19:08:54 GMT 10
I'm very interesting news about that single - thanks Glenny boy?
Why are things getting to peachy for you spongeboy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain BJ on Jan 27, 2002 20:19:58 GMT 10
I have no doubt that b-sides use is completely different to their intenion. It's a chance to release songs that are experimental or just don't quite fit the album like spongeboy said... They are used, however, to get people like us to buy the singles even though we have the album.
Not that I have a problem with it. Unfortunately that's just the way it is, and these people will continue to succeed and getting ahead because they're experts at consumer behaviour.
Marketing simplified means giving the customers what they want. As long as people want to buy singles for b-sides, the b-sides will be released. As long as people request Alien Ant Farm, Triple M will play it much to many people's dismay. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by TheAstronaut on Jan 28, 2002 9:20:05 GMT 10
personally i think sfks a-sides rule, and then their b-sides are even better ( with the exception of remixes & live tracks )
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtgirl on Jan 28, 2002 11:01:00 GMT 10
Captain BJ said:
"They are used, however, to get people like us to buy the singles even though we have the album."
This is what peeves me about the whole b-side thing! I used to be dead against getting the singles of any artist (before sfk came along) because at most you would get 25% of the single which was new (somehow that just doesn't seem a reasonable investment). And yet it often the case that the true jems lurk amongst the single releases (so as a consumer you are left in a rock and a hard place!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Catfish on Jan 28, 2002 12:42:52 GMT 10
a fan asked paul about merchandise & sfk collectables at the cold live gig. heres his response from an article on my site How do you feel about online auction sites selling your memorbillia for zillions of dollars ? " I think its pretty dodgy, but sadly, thats the way it works. Old singles are deleted and become rare and people charge whatever they think people will pay. You can't stop it. We'd make our whole back catalogue available if we could, but its just not a possibility " But yes! You CAN stop it using today's technology. I've got the whole collection of B-Sides and singles in MP3, otherwise not possible for me to get, and no-one made a red cent out of it besides my ISP, and it probably costs them cos I download so much a month anyway. If you ask me, this is another pro of MP3 usage. Once CDs aren't produced anymore you can get a free copy of the tracks in MP3. It's not the original but it's the music, if you are really serious you would want the original, so go buy it off some greasy ebay person. And if everyone's able to grab the music in abundance it might lower the cost of these no-longer-available items. (Because less people want it) |
|
|
|
Post by TheAstronaut on Jan 28, 2002 13:46:39 GMT 10
i think some of them sell the valuables for high prices is not because of what the tracks are, maybe its because of the demand for it. i dont why everyone wants a copy of intermission. i have all the mp3s, but if i got offered it for like $20 i'd take it yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catfish on Jan 28, 2002 15:55:51 GMT 10
Yeah, but you wouldn't if someone offered it for 200$. Probably because you already got the tracks in MP3, and to own the original is just like a loyalty to the band, or gives you some inner-comfort knowing you paid for the music especially when you like it so much. I know I wouldn't pay anything over $20 for their early singles, not now anyway. Maybe going back to realy early stuff I would pay more for and stuff I don't have already and you cant get anymore (like the $40 I paid for the 2CD BS.) PS: And I know that the early singles are "stuff I don't already have and can't get anymore" but it depends on what you're getting for your money.  A 3-5 track single for $30+ is not acceptable, whereas a 2CD 13 tracks + multimedia set for $40 is. |
|
). 
A 3-5 track single for $30+ is not acceptable, whereas a 2CD 13 tracks + multimedia set for $40 is.