1 of 1
The Rarest New Wave Single….Ever…LOCKED?
Posted: 02 May 2009 03:11 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Administrator
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2009-04-10

Just wondering why?

Don’t you think some of the folks here deserve to know if the guy was telling the truth?

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  840
Joined  2006-03-03

Possibly someone decided a) that enough was dam’well enough and b) that that was as good a place as any to end the thread.

I had one more thought to add though, hope you bear with me…

To me, and I dare say to a few of the others, $622 was a huge sum. The afore-mentioned $4000 I could scarcely credit, I didn’t think that would have been serious.

But if our new friend Terry was really serious about bidding $5000 on the single, and someone else really bid $4000 - then the single should have cost just over $4000.

In which case $622 would have been quite a disappointment for the seller.

I just remembered that the seller in this case would not earn any money from the auction, that would perhaps help lessen the disappointment somewhat… then again, if the band lost $3300 on the discussions the most interested buyers had with the seller, maybe that would sour their relationship somewhat.


ok ok ok I know, locked thread is locked thread. I shan’t meander any further into this.
It was fascinating though!

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 02:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  55
Joined  2007-05-15

All I’m going to add to this is that I was willing to go to $1,000.00 for it. I might have even cheated up a few hundred more if I thought I was close.  The sole reason I didn’t bid was because of obscure’s involvement.

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 05:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Administrator
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2009-04-10

I emailed him and was willing to drive to LA and work out something in that ball park myself the first day of the auction. He responded with what was posted at the bottom of the ebay auction. I decided that his response was fair enough and emailed again about picking it up if I won it….and I heard nothing back. So either he already had a buyer in mind I thought or something else was going on. I was put off enough by what I saw to not bid as I think were others. Its sad if it was the band that lost out because of obscure. Just my 2 cents.

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  727
Joined  2005-12-05

it’s even removed. That’s quite a shame, really.

I think there was enough opportunity for obscure to deescalate the whole situation. Removing the thread does him more justice than he deserved with his actions & attitude imho.

 Signature 

Delicious toes are swimming in my soup

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  55
Joined  2007-05-15

Wow…I’m surprised to see the whole Seeing Red thing deleted. What would prompt that? You know, when somebody is caught red handed being disingenuous I think others should know.

I agree record collecting should be fun, but when certain individuals corrupt the process with lies and innuendo others deserve to be made aware of it.

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  122
Joined  2005-12-27

i concur deleting the thread may have been excessive.
at the same time, i think the majority of people who would be concerned with this issue have been informed about the events that transpired.
now is probably an opportune time to let the topic rest.

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 12:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  319
Joined  2005-11-12

The thread has not been deleted, it has been temporarily moved.
And know that nobody has been banned… yet.

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Administrator
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2009-04-10

http://www.minimal-wave.org/site/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1486&highlight;=

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  319
Joined  2005-11-12

Yes, brought back by popular demand.

 
Posted: 03 May 2009 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Administrator
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2009-04-10

I take back my comparison to MikeP…...you are a good man :D

 
Posted: 04 May 2009 01:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  501
Joined  2007-02-21

From the looks of it, I might not have been the only one who engaged in some off-line exchanges of views here.  8)

And it seems there is some need for discussion as to what the nature of a forum is and what is deemed acceptable.

Personally, I hold the view that forums should not be the spot to publish illegal propaganda or to do nothing but engage in dogfights in which gross swear words are being used. Consequently, I agree that there is a need for rules and that the deletion of posts/threads is acceptable on principle.

But what is it people that makes people read/post on forums? There’s reasons aplenty, some are searching for information, some are looking for new friends, some want to buy or sell something, some are in…. for gossip and entertainment. And some are in for all of it at the same time.

And I hold the view that once a forum has been opened, on principle it does not belong to anybody although of course there is a person who has all the labour, who has to carry the cost incurred and who deserves a lot of credit for it.

The forum in question now is directed at people who love music that fell out of favour with large-scale popular interest ages ago and will thus attract people not quite in line with the sign of the times. It will attract strange people and people with big egos. And when those people come in contact, things are bound to happen.

Of course it is hard to say if what you see happening here really is representative of an entire scene, as the number of people actually posting is relatively low compared to the number of members which just hit the 2,000 mark. But negativity is just part of life and MW’s protagonists are out there for real. Now if some reader thinks “hey, they are just records” (as in “old plastic”), well, it simply is a different kind of ball game for some and anyways this still really is nothing compared to the already mentioned story of a person who killed for a virtual sword.

And what I really like here is that you just never know what will happen next.

Somebody might claim that David Bowie played triangle on the Transparent Illusion LP, not loud enough though, so unfortunately you can’t hear it. Another person might claim there was no band called Seeing Red and the 7”s were all made in a shed in India in 1995. The great thing is it’s not a daily soap written by a guy with a commercial mission and a rather bad cocaine habit. It’s a book that’s being written by a number of people.
So, to cut a very long story short, I don’t think I am blowing anything out of proportion when I am voicing my view that the deletion of a post discussing the musical value and business case of a Seeing Red re-release – even if its form was of course provocative - is against the very concept of a forum.

That’s it, err.

Lest if forget: amen.  :wink:

 
Posted: 04 May 2009 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Administrator
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2009-04-29

Is that it, then? I for one was interested in the poll…to date the SR files have been downloaded about 300 times, which would suggest there would be enough interest in a limited run re-issue, by Anna Logue for example. And that’s really without any kind of promotion.

 
Posted: 04 May 2009 11:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  501
Joined  2007-02-21
[quote author=“fiftypercent”]Is that it, then? I for one was interested in the poll…to date the SR files have been downloaded about 300 times, which would suggest there would be enough interest in a limited run re-issue, by Anna Logue for example. And that’s really without any kind of promotion.

I hope I am correct when I understood that you are the owner of the initial copy?

As to speak in favour of a re-release as the owner of one copy out of only three known to exist, this would really give a positive angle to the whole story.

No news item to follow, promised.  :wink:

 
Posted: 05 May 2009 01:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Administrator
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2009-04-29

Yeah, to put this in context….I believe I am the only one here who can claim to have owned a Seeing Red single for 24 years and none of you guys would know about it if I had not stepped up and made an effort, for everyone’s enjoyment. I put an entry for the band on my blog, and anyone who has a comment or thought going forward can either post there or PM or email me directly.

http://mineforlife.blogspot.com/2009/04/seeing-red-in-black-and-white.html

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

 
   
1 of 1