Re: MCA sucks

[Phil McRevis <legalize@xmission.com>]

In article <20000112032253.58199.qmail@hotmail.com>,
    "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>  writes:

> Who's actually doing this?  I got the idea from the early squabbling over 
> the recordings that the BBC might be party to it--as in, actual owners of 
> the tapes.  They'd have to have permission from TED+Keith's heirs to release 
> them, but it's not like TED releasing some old studio recordings.  Maybe the 
> BBC went to MCA.

By "new album" I was referring to what Pete and Roger have been
talking about as new Who recordings in the studio.  I wasn't thinking
of the BBC disc, which is a done deal.

But the questin is just as equally valid for the BBC disc -- who's
idea was it to use MCA for this?  I bet its something in the band's
contract with MCA that states they have rights to all material
produced in a certain period.

On the other hand, if there is a contract still in force between MCA
and The Who, it really makes me wonder -- just what the hell do The Who
get out of this contract?  Clearly MCA routinely fumbles the ball in
promoting the band.  If it weren't for this mailing list I wouldn't
have heard about any of the remasters, the Isle of Wight disc or the
BBC disc or the concerts or etc. etc. etc.

I am thankful to be having this material in a decent quality recording
so I can stop listening to crappy vinyl bootlegs of Pete's demos.
Literally! -- the raw vinyl material used by the bootleggers was always
inferior to legit. product, and for that matter MCA vinyl always sucked
compared to the polydor vinyl!

Dum Dum Dum Do-Rang!
--
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>	Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,     
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT     
legalize@xmission.com	<http://www.thewho.net>