The Other Mirage (Outtakes and Alternates) req. by Betsy - Page 3

PenguinHead · #31 03-01-2012, 02:56 AM

I probably have all of these outtakes/rehearsals, but I was still disappointed to see that all those old download links are dead.

I love Mirage for what it is.Though it took me a long time to fully appreciate some of Lindsey's contributions, the album is a very enjoyable listen.

It really needs to be given a rehab and re-release. It could include bonus material such as Goodbye Angel, Blue Monday, If You Were My Love etc...

HomerMcvie · #32 03-01-2012, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

It really needs to be given a rehab and re-release. It could include bonus material such as Goodbye Angel, Blue Monday, If You Were My Love etc...

And it's needed rehab for 30 years(OMFG, somebody kill me

).

Obviously, the remasters of Rumours, White, and Tusk, didn't provide the numbers necessary, to remaster Mirage.
Unless somebody like Rhino does it, I seriously doubt it will ever happen.

**mylittledemon** · #33 03-01-2012, 04:18 AM

If you guys want my "redux" of Mirage, I cleaned up the tracks as best I could. Send me a PM.

PenguinHead · #34 03-01-2012, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Obviously, the remasters of Rumours, White, and Tusk, didn't provide the numbers necessary, to remaster Mirage.
Unless somebody like Rhino does it, I seriously doubt it will ever happen.

No! That is the oft-sited reason for not remastering Mirage. But that is a bunch of bullsh*t. And it drives me crazy that people justify it. No one expects a 30 year old album to sell an unreasonable amount of units. Your are right - the long shot is that Rhino (a great label) or some company like that obtains the rights. It's really sad that some outside entity would care more and take better care of their musical history than they themselves and their own record company would! It pisses me off. Fleetwood Mac is not chopped liver! Fans deserve and should expect better. They remain a hugely popular band, with a very long, outstanding legacy. There are bands of their ilk who have had every album in their catalog remastered, often with dozens of bonus tracks.

Just as a random example, The Byrds are one of those bands. Every single album they recorded (many many more than Fleetwood Mac) were re-released. Sales figures were not the main objective. The objective was to honor a seminal, historic band by making their catalog of music available in the best manner possible.

Then again, there are many lesser known bands and artists, with significantly smaller fan bases, whose albums are deemed worthy of re-release, even if their market base is severely limited.

But Fleetwood Mac is not that kind of band!!! They have a f*cking world-wide fan base. And even if a fraction of that fan base purchases a 30-year old re-release of a previously recorded album, there is going to be an acceptable profit margin. Certainly remastering, manufacturing, distribution and marketing factor in. But that's nothing compared to the costs inccurred in recording the original work.

There is absolutely no practical reason or justification for Mirage not being re-released. I think, for a band of their stature, Fleetwood Mac's catalog has been poorly mismanaged. The blame falls mainly on their management and their record company, but the band member are also somewhat culpable. They remain insultingly ambivalent.

HomerMcvie · #35 03-01-2012, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

There is absolutely no practical reason or justification for Mirage not being re-released. I think, for a band of their stature, Fleetwood Mac's catalog has been poorly mismanaged. The blame falls mainly on their management and their record company, but the band member are also somewhat culpable. They remain insultingly ambivalent.

FM has never been good at making BUSINESS decisions, nor honoring the wishes of their fanbase.

With the exception of milking Tumours, on every tour. Oh wait....

MattS76 · #36 03-02-2012, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

No! That is the oft-sited reason for not remastering Mirage. But that is a bunch of bullsh*t. And it drives me crazy that people justify it. No one expects a 30 year old album to sell an unreasonable amount of units. Your are right - the long shot is that Rhino (a great label) or some company like that obtains the rights. It's really sad that some outside entity would care more and take better care of their musical history than they themselves and their own record company would! It pisses me off. Fleetwood Mac is not chopped liver! Fans deserve and should expect better. They remain a hugely popular band, with a very long, outstanding legacy. There are bands of their ilk who have had every album in their catalog remastered, often with dozens of bonus tracks.

Just as a random example, The Byrds are one of those bands. Every single album they recorded (many many more than Fleetwood Mac) were re-released. Sales figures were not the main objective. The objective was to honor a seminal, historic band by making their catalog of music available in the best manner possible.

Then again, there are many lesser known bands and artists, with significantly smaller fan bases, whose albums are deemed worthy of re-release, even if their market base is severely limited.

But Fleetwood Mac is not that kind of band!!! They have a f*cking world-wide fan base. And even if a fraction of that fan base purchases a 30-year old re-release of a previously recorded album, there is going to be an acceptable profit margin. Certainly remastering, manufacturing, distribution and marketing factor in. But that's nothing compared to the costs inccurred in recording the original work.

There is absolutely no practical reason or justification for Mirage not being re-released. I think, for a band of their stature, Fleetwood Mac's catalog has been poorly mismanaged. The blame falls mainly on their management and their record company, but the band member are also somewhat culpable. They remain insultingly ambivalent.

The record companies only care about the pop kids. Any kind of music worth listening to gets the short end of the stick.

MattS76 · #37 03-02-2012, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivfox

You have good taste. Welcome to The Ledge.
IMO the Gypsy demos are horrid. Other fans enjoy them so you might also. I can't post them but some kind soul will eventually.

I'll risk hearing them :-) Thanks for the compliment. Hope I don't spoil it by saying i'm a huge fan of Lindsey's Go Insane album. So weird it's great

vivfox · #38 03-02-2012, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattS76

I'm a huge fan of Lindsey's Go Insane album.

I love that album.

bangdrum · #39 03-02-2012, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivfox

I love that album.

Me too!

starshine · #40 03-04-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenguinHead

No! That is the oft-sited reason for not remastering Mirage. But that is a bunch of bullsh*t. And it drives me crazy that people justify it. No one expects a 30 year old album to sell an unreasonable amount of units. Your are right - the long shot is that Rhino (a great label) or some company like that obtains the rights. It's really sad that some outside entity would care more and take better care of their musical history than they themselves and their own record company would! It pisses me off. Fleetwood Mac is not chopped liver! Fans deserve and should expect better. They remain a hugely popular band, with a very long, outstanding legacy. There are bands of their ilk who have had every album in their catalog remastered, often with dozens of bonus tracks.

Just as a random example, The Byrds are one of those bands. Every single album they recorded (many many more than Fleetwood Mac) were re-released. Sales figures were not the main objective. The objective was to honor a seminal, historic band by making their catalog of music available in the best manner possible.

Then again, there are many lesser known bands and artists, with significantly smaller fan bases, whose albums are deemed worthy of re-release, even if their market base is severely limited.

But Fleetwood Mac is not that kind of band!!! They have a f*cking world-wide fan base. And even if a fraction of that fan base purchases a 30-year old re-release of a previously recorded album, there is going to be an acceptable profit margin. Certainly remastering, manufacturing, distribution and marketing factor in. But that's nothing compared to the costs inccurred in recording the original work.

There is absolutely no practical reason or justification for Mirage not being re-released. I think, for a band of their stature, Fleetwood Mac's catalog has been poorly mismanaged. The blame falls mainly on their management and their record company, but the band member are also somewhat culpable. They remain insultingly ambivalent.

Greast post & I couldn't agree more. Same with Stevie's solo stuff & heck even Lindsey needs a 'box' set for his solo stuff too. Its sad cause so much 'could' be put out there but for some strange reason 'they' don't want to. Not just outtakes/live stuff/demos /extended versions etc. Rare photos /posters etc. They could have a market for it but they don't want to release it? I'll never understand them. As fans it seems we get the short end of the stick most of the times really-- IMO anyway. Sad but so true.

PenguinHead · #41 03-08-2012, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starshine

Greast post & I couldn't agree more. Same with Stevie's solo stuff & heck even Lindsey needs a 'box' set for his solo stuff too. Its sad cause so much 'could' be put out there but for some strange reason 'they' don't want to. Not just outtakes/live stuff/demos /extended versions etc. Rare photos /posters etc. They could have a market for it but they don't want to release it? I'll never understand them. As fans it seems we get the short end of the stick most of the times really-- IMO anyway. Sad but so true.

Thank you Sarshine Sue! And it's great reading your posts sans all the elipses!