Minimal Wave Records

even if it were a techno remix record (like let’s say it was a Carl Craig remix rather than a Chris Carter remix), I don’t recall V ever committing to some kind of manifesto for what her label will and will not release.

besides there are people who are passionate techno and minimal synth, for example the two people who introduced me to most of these bands in the first place, both key figures of “the scene”—Roger of TV Set/Bakterielle Infektion (minimal synth), Skanfrom (electro/IDM), and Sleeparchive (hugely successful minimal techno), and Rhona of Genetic Music… both of whom also work at Hardwax, which is like techno’s ground zero in Germany.

i’m not suggesting that you have no right to loathe the idea of this record, or to loathe techno in general. but the record has a right to exist whether you like it or not - early ‘80s synth music reissues don’t need to follow early 80s synth music rules. or your rules. i’m not personally interested in this record myself either, but i can tell you that if there was a 12” with Sleeparchive and Mika Vanio remixes of Das Ding (just an example) i’d be all over that. i’m quite the purist in my own way, but my purist ideals don’t adhere to yours at all, and i wouldn’t think to push them on people like they’re the law

obscure - 27 February 2011 10:49 PM

Flatsharp’s comments, and their minimal synth intelligence and credibility went down to zero

hi, i guess it wasn’t as obvious as i thought, but this IS Jeremy from Futurisk
(“flatsharp” was the production co named on the Futurisk 1st single)

obscure - 03 February 2011 01:13 PM

I miss the ‘03 Jeremy Kolosine

who are you? my ex-girlfriend?

obscure - 27 February 2011 10:49 PM

I definitely sense that both you and Jeremy are feeling very guilty about this release.

what are you? my fucking psychoanalyst?

obscure - 27 February 2011 10:49 PM

I clearly remember him telling me in 2003 that
he would let the past be the past,and would never release any more futurisk records reissues or
otherwise.

who ever you are out of the possible 2 people i might have said that to in an email at the time, i either
1. i changed my mind   2. i lied

i can’t be bothered to remember which, but if i want, i may do either when it comes to crackpot history. but it was selfish of me to have said that since it was not entirely my decision since Futurisk was 3 other musicians besides me, and the importance of whether to re-release or not mattered to them also.

Obscure you appear to be a walking contradiction, on one hand berating an artist for re-releasing /remixing they’re own music, and on the other you yourself re-releasing almost the same genre of artists on your label. then you post on a site insulting a release as you try promote your pre-gouged prices of your own releases on ebay because they have a lower hand numbered edition. this makes me as sick as our remixes appear to make you.

i should be flattered i guess that you appear to hold Futurisk to a higher standard than you hold yourself or the artists you are releasing. you should ask the artists you are releasing how they would feel about having their work remixed by one of their idols if they had the tracks available. Or have you already made that decision for them?

Oh yeh F.O.S. ‘Telecommunication’ was great, MWH had maybe 2 good songs but their one-hit over-popularity did more unintentional damage to serious electronic music at the time than good.
I remember.

jeremy

solvent - 01 March 2011 09:42 PM

I don’t recall V ever committing to some kind of manifesto for what her label will and will not release.

Not that I am very interested but this looks like a manifesto and slightly in conflict with contemporary products.
From the facebook group:
“The Minimal Wave label was launched in 2005 to create a network for synth wave enthusiasts and promote 80s electronic music via an online archive and vinyl releases. The label specializes in high quality vinyl pressings of minimal electronic and new wave artists from all over the world.”
It surely sugests only to publish music from the 80’s.
I never understood what the online archive would be all about.
For the rest I don’t care.

After reading that Facebook explanation/story, I’m quite excited for this release!

Now I finally have time to respond.

Sovlent said:

even if it were a techno remix record (like let’s say it was a Carl Craig remix rather than a Chris Carter remix), I don’t recall V ever committing to some kind of manifesto for what her label will and will not release.

It doesn’t matter if it is Carl Craig whoever or Chris Carter to me. It is the same in that it is not minimal synth.  Yes, she can release whatever she wants, but if you start a record label to release minimal synth records this record should obviously not be on it.  She might want to start an MWremiX division for the techno djs which is what this record is obviously made for.

besides there are people who are passionate techno and minimal synth, for example the two people who introduced me to most of these bands in the first place, both key figures of “the scene”—Roger of TV Set/Bakterielle Infektion (minimal synth), Skanfrom (electro/IDM), and Sleeparchive (hugely successful minimal techno), and Rhona of Genetic Music… both of whom also work at Hardwax, which is like techno’s ground zero in Germany.

Jason, You are going to tell me Roger of TV Set/Bakterielle Infektion, and Rhona of Genetic Music are key figures of the minimal synth scene. Those are two people I have never dealt with or ever learned about a minimal synth band from. To me the most important people relative to minimal synth are the collectors (herve, nils, joerg, jens(sweden), jens(germany), ulf, oystein, dimitris, nick, and all the other collectors). They are the ones that collect the records, and uncover unknown bands.  They are the reason any of these bands are currently being played or released at all.  Anyway, I’m obviously not a fan of techno music, and I know a lot of techno/electroclash people such as yourself are hip to minimal synth because of all the reissues. Seeing as that is the case it does make sense if your goal is to cater your releases to the techno crowd to put out a remix record. However, I wouldn’t consider V a techno fan at all by any stretch of the imagination so it strikes me as minimal synth expoitation and blasphemy to remix minimal synth bands to sell to an audience that you are not a part of.

i’m not suggesting that you have no right to loathe the idea of this record, or to loathe techno in general. but the record has a right to exist whether you like it or not - early ‘80s synth music reissues don’t need to follow early 80s synth music rules. or your rules. i’m not personally interested in this record myself either, but i can tell you that if there was a 12” with Sleeparchive and Mika Vanio remixes of Das Ding (just an example) i’d be all over that.

Yes, a person can release whatever record they want, but when a person ruins a great minimal synth song to sell to techno/electro club djs it does nothing to promote the genre of minimal synth.  All it does is turn minimal synth into techno to provide sales.  Anyway, to me it seems that this record is catered for people like you solvent so that makes me curious as to why you are not interested in it. 

i’m quite the purist in my own way, but my purist ideals don’t adhere to yours at all, and i wouldn’t think to push them on people like they’re the law

Isn’t that exactly what you did when you started a thread in an attempt to condemn my record label. You tried to tell me that minimal synth releases can only be sold one way like it is the law.

  obscure - 27 February 2011 10:49 PM

  Flatsharp’s comments, and their minimal synth intelligence and credibility went down to zero

hi, i guess it wasn’t as obvious as i thought, but this IS Jeremy from Futurisk
(“flatsharp” was the production co named on the Futurisk 1st single)

Yes, it was pretty obvious. I would not call you a minimal synth aficianado by any means.

  obscure - 03 February 2011 01:13 PM

  I miss the ‘03 Jeremy Kolosine

who are you? my ex-girlfriend?

No, but I’m sure you can understand my reasoning for criticizing the release of a Futurisk remix record.  I have been very clear about it.  If someone in a band told you they are against rereleasing any of their music and they said it with serious conviction what would you think when you hear that not only are they re-releasing their music, they are blatantly trying to exploit their music in a way that is detrimental to the music itself.  Especially If you are a fan of that band. 

  obscure - 27 February 2011 10:49 PM

  I definitely sense that both you and Jeremy are feeling very guilty about this release.

what are you? my fucking psychoanalyst?

No, but I can understand your need for one.  First you say you are not going to re-release anything.  Then you put out an LP reissue of your 7”s, and you are about to release a remix record.  Then you say you never said you wouldn’t re-release your music.  Now you admit that you did say that.  First you say Flock of Seagulls and Men Without Hats are gimmickry marketing.  Now you say both bands have some good songs.  Anyway, Everyone has a right to change their mind, but when you do it frequently, and then lie and say you never thought differently it comes across as wishy washy so then no one knows what to believe when you say it. 

  obscure - 27 February 2011 10:49 PM

  I clearly remember him telling me in 2003 that
  he would let the past be the past,and would never release any more futurisk records reissues or
  otherwise.

who ever you are out of the possible 2 people i might have said that to in an email at the time, i either
1. i changed my mind   2. i lied

i can’t be bothered to remember which, but if i want, i may do either when it comes to crackpot history. but it was selfish of me to have said that since it was not entirely my decision since Futurisk was 3 other musicians besides me, and the importance of whether to re-release or not mattered to them also.

Well I’m glad you admitted to saying it. It was pretty awful in your facebook lecture when you said you never said you would never re-release your music.  At least now you are telling the truth.

Obscure you appear to be a walking contradiction, on one hand berating an artist for re-releasing /remixing they’re own music, and on the other you yourself re-releasing almost the same genre of artists on your label.

Jeremy, if you knew anything about my label then you would know that I have never re-released anything.

I’m not berating you for re-releasing your original music.  I am exposing you to the fact that to remix minimal synth music is not something that is of interest to me as a serious minimal synth collector and futurisk fan.  I never said anything about the Futurisk LP, because you do have the right to change your mind, but to put out a remix record is over the top exploitation of your music in my opinion. 

then you post on a site insulting a release as you try promote your pre-gouged prices of your own releases on ebay because they have a lower hand numbered edition. this makes me as sick as our remixes appear to make you.

Regarding my releases the buyers determine the price, and the minimum price of $39.99 is a fraction of what they are worth.  And correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Futurisk LP put out in a hand numbered edition.  So does that mean the Futurisk LP makes you sick?

i should be flattered i guess that you appear to hold Futurisk to a higher standard than you hold yourself or the artists you are releasing.

I don’t hold Futurisk to a higher standard than the artist I am releasing.  As I said before I have never put out a re-release. I think Futurisk was a great band, and I own both Futurisk 7”s. However, I would never want to hear a Futurisk remix record.  Would you pay $500 for a Futurisk 7” Jeremy?, because that’s how much I paid for the Army Now 7”.  Anyway, it should mean something when someone that will pay $500 for a record by your band is criticizing you for releasing your bands music in a way that has no appeal to fans of the band.

you should ask the artists you are releasing how they would feel about having their work remixed by one of their idols if they had the tracks available. Or have you already made that decision for them?

The artists I am releasing can do whatever they want with their music, but I will never release a remix record of their music that is done by other people that are not even them.

Oh yeh F.O.S. ‘Telecommunication’ was great, MWH had maybe 2 good songs but their one-hit over-popularity did more unintentional damage to serious electronic music at the time than good.
I remember.

jeremy

Well here are 4 Men Without Hats tracks for you.

http://www.divshare.com/download/14290348-619

http://www.divshare.com/download/14290353-c0e

http://www.divshare.com/download/14290354-3eb

http://www.divshare.com/download/14290357-60a

It is almost uncanny how similar to Futurisk these tracks sound.

And I also just went through the first two Flock of Seagulls records, and I could not find a bad song on either one.

Stephen

obscure this is my last word on this.

1st thanks for being a fan.

The only other things i need to address here is that my comment about you gouging hand-numbered editions was obviously not criticizing the fact they were hand-numbered, it was the fact that you sell the lower numbered editions for a higher price up front. The Player Piano LP was hand-numbered but as far as I know I don’t believe Veronica auctioned the lower numbered edition off to the highest bidders. The 1st 100 copies of the Futurisk “Army Now”  singles were hand numbered back in 1980 and we sold them for $1 just like the rest.

Again, I have never said publicly I would not re-release Futurisk, if I said it to you in a personal email then I have addressed that already.You are one of 2 possible people in 30 years i may have said that to privately. You call me out on a forum regarding a personal email and talk as if I had publicly stated said policy, so this is the only reason i responded to any of this.

The original releases still exist and they are there for your enjoyment or not. As far as the remixes of these formerly unreleased tracks I assess that you do not like them so don’t listen to them.

Flatsharp said:

The only other things i need to address here is that my comment about you gouging hand-numbered editions was obviously not criticizing the fact they were hand-numbered, it was the fact that you sell the lower numbered editions for a higher price up front. The Player Piano LP was hand-numbered but as far as I know I don’t believe Veronica auctioned the lower numbered edition off to the highest bidders. The 1st 100 copies of the Futurisk “Army Now”  singles were hand numbered back in 1980 and we sold them for $1 just like the rest.

Jeremy, the whole point of a record being released in a numbered edition, and a limited quantity is to create a collectable record with value, and that value will subsequently be based on the numbered copy, and the quantity of the pressing.  Hence, Futurisk Player Piano #1 will be worth much more than Futurisk Player Piano #673. If you are against the idea of collectable records then why would you number your 7” or the LP or do limited quantities of either. That does not make any sense. Also, the prices of the records I am releasing are determined by the buyers. The records are extremely collectable, and they are made for collectors.

If you want to do what I think you purport to believe in then do the following.

Release the Futurisk- Lonely Streets record in an:

unlimited edition
non numbered
and make the price $1 for nostalgia sake

This way the record will not be collectable, and hundreds of thousands of men without hats fans can buy it, and you will never be accused of creating an item that people will be gouging others for on ebay.

Anyway, I’m sure you can understand my criticism. If you don’t then here it is in a nutshell.
Hardly anyone liked the new Star Wars films.  Everyone loved the originals.  A Futurisk remix record
is the equivalent of the new Star Wars films.  You can do it just as Peter Hook can currently sell out Joy Division to death, but what it does is put a blight on the band that didn’t exist before. Anyway, I’ve made my point.  If I see an ROTC commercial with “Army Now” in it you are in such big trouble.

Stephen

The same can be said for any of these bands being hailed and hyped as minimal synth/wave.The more and more they are being exposed and commercialized,the less serious any of it will be taken after the resurgence dies down.Obscure,rather than critiquing or justifying,if you don’t like something,don’t buy it.

Interesting stuff - I’d like to re-raise the spectre of a Flock of Seagulls .This band started life as a Heavy Metal outfit , then had a bash at being a Ska band , eventually hitting Paydirt when they stuck a synth on top of their mediocre soft rock . Why are these jokers revered ? Back in the day they were considered a joke !

MadMan2 - 20 March 2011 10:30 AM

Why are these jokers revered ?

Because some people choose stupidity over pretention?

reactorlgtn - 20 March 2011 12:00 PM

MadMan2 - 20 March 2011 10:30 AM

Why are these jokers revered ?

Because some people choose stupidity over pretention?

What’s the difference ?

Nogah - 20 March 2011 12:15 PM

reactorlgtn - 20 March 2011 12:00 PM

What’s the difference ?

haha, nice one!
perhaps I should have said “naivete”, as they both are different forms of stupidity…

To me though, A flock of Seagulls are simply honest - they’re there to entertain, they do not fear your ridicule, and sure they’re stupid but so is everyone…

I’m not sure, I don’t want to knock any of the ‘dark’ alternative bands, but when people make it out like stupid pop is the enemy, I fail to follow. Flock of S are as singular, as alternative, as brave and as genious as lots of other bands and I think it’s too easy to just write them off as a joke.

reactorlgtn - 20 March 2011 12:52 PM

Nogah - 20 March 2011 12:15 PM

reactorlgtn - 20 March 2011 12:00 PM

What’s the difference ?

haha, nice one!
perhaps I should have said “naivete”, as they both are different forms of stupidity…

To me though, A flock of Seagulls are simply honest - they’re there to entertain, they do not fear your ridicule, and sure they’re stupid but so is everyone…

I’m not sure, I don’t want to knock any of the ‘dark’ alternative bands, but when people make it out like stupid pop is the enemy, I fail to follow. Flock of S are as singular, as alternative, as brave and as genious as lots of other bands and I think it’s too easy to just write them off as a joke.

What I meant is that if you CHOOSE stupidity or pretention it’s both stupid.
For the rest I thing there is nothing wrong with honest stupidity or naivity.
And.. I agree with you

Nogah - 20 March 2011 03:59 PM

reactorlgtn - 20 March 2011 12:52 PM

Nogah - 20 March 2011 12:15 PM

reactorlgtn - 20 March 2011 12:00 PM

What’s the difference ?

haha, nice one!
perhaps I should have said “naivete”, as they both are different forms of stupidity…

To me though, A flock of Seagulls are simply honest - they’re there to entertain, they do not fear your ridicule, and sure they’re stupid but so is everyone…

I’m not sure, I don’t want to knock any of the ‘dark’ alternative bands, but when people make it out like stupid pop is the enemy, I fail to follow. Flock of S are as singular, as alternative, as brave and as genious as lots of other bands and I think it’s too easy to just write them off as a joke.

What I meant is that if you CHOOSE stupidity or pretention it’s both stupid.
For the rest I thing there is nothing wrong with honest stupidity or naivity.
And.. I agree with you

I also agree - but if its OK to discuss A Flock of Seagulls on this forum , Is it OK to discuss , say Spandau Ballet ? or Duran Duran ?? or Van Halen ??? all dodgy Rock bands with a synth on the top ?
Just asking !