Re: Bad news from MCA...

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>         >So, if YOU want to make a difference (and, yes, it is possible)
>I'd like to see true evidence of that, other than a polite, "Oh, thanks for
>your suggestion, we'll consider it."  Again, a few loud hard-core fans can't
>assure $10 million in sales.

Doug:

I'm not Donald Trump (and then again, maybe I am)...
Since the almight "sales" seems to be the issue (and I understand being in
business to make money; I am too), then the proper course might have been to
release a remixed TOMMY AT LEEDS rather than LAL, and then LAL and the
remixed TOMMY at a later date. How many of us (and the others who bought
LAL) wouldn't rather have TAL...I am confident that the sales of TAL would
have exceeded those of LAL and also not cut the sales of either of the other
releases. THAT would have been good marketing...
It's too late for that now, tis true...but there are other ways of doing it.
Since MCA doesn't want to market it, they could license it to another label.
It could be released via mail order, as the Townshend Deep End concert was.
You realize, I hope, that these remixed releases don't cost MCA nearly as
much as a new album would...all of the work (except the remixing, and that
may have been done too when the rest of LEEDS was done) has been done. The
cost of the packaging etc. is very low (on the order of $1 per disc).
Distributing is absorbed by the retailer. Since very little marketing is
being done for these remixes, even that doesn't cost much/anything. So I
have to ask: WHAT THE FUCK DO THEY HAVE TO LOSE??????????
(understand that my anger is aimed at MCA, not you)
They're freakin' shaved monkeys with pens, I'm tellin' ya!


                   Cheers                   ML

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."  L. Long