Don't think it was Daniel, not in UK,Europe or Japan anyway, which are the usual places I look. Doesn't mean it wasn't tho. Just keep yer eyes open and good luck.
I would have to agree with Mike, I looked at a number of vinyl/record dealers and stores and the only copies available are on CD. You would think that at least one dealer/store would have had it on vinyl if it were available, but for none of them to have a vinyl copy leads me to believe that it is only available on CD If there are any vinyl copies lying about somewhere they have to be as rare as warm weather in Antarctica!
Perhaps the "all-knowing" VJ the vinyl pro and expert can shed some light and provide some further information on this matter.
Frankly, I don't care for Finch at all that much really. They sound a little too mainstream even by today's standards for my flavor. I favor more indie, experimental rock, post-rock and math rock stuff for my tastes in modern underground rock music from the last 20 years or so.
The problem with Finch is if you hear one band like Finch that has a little measure of technical ability to play their instruments, along with the alternation between singing and screamo emo type vocals, you pretty much heard em' all in my book! Finch is no exception, coming off too predictable and bland sounding, with other bands somewhere out there probably doing it much better like Fugazi, although with less technical ability.
Now, as far as if this particular album was pressed on vinyl? Well, I went to Allmusic.com to look up all of the releases and suffice to say, this has NEVER been on vinyl at all, as far as the information I see. The only two issues that are listed on the site are on cd's from 2005 on both Drive Thru records(indie label) and on Universal records, also from 2005. The Universal records release also has a bonus track........
One other thing I would suggest is to go to the original record labels website(Drive Thru records)Finch was on, see if the record label is still in operation, then email the record label and ask them if it was on vinyl. But honestly, I think my information on this is accurate enough!
In the end, I can see why you would want a copy of this though on vinyl. The art work is absolutely stunning! Now if only the music were there to match! Perhaps a vinyl re-issue of this album might be on order to capitalize on the most current revival? For you, I would say that will be nice.......
Originally Posted By Cosmo M: Hey VJ ... Question --
Is it normal or common practice for many/some of the indie or "no name" labels to only release albums on CD and not on vinyl?
Yes, vinyl is a whole lot more expensive to produce than cd. So obviously small labels tend to cut corners.. Plus, it's on the rise, but there is still no where near as many people who listen to vinyl as do cd and mp3.
Originally Posted By Cosmo M: Hey VJ ... Question --
Is it normal or common practice for many/some of the indie or "no name" labels to only release albums on CD and not on vinyl?
No, actually it is quite common for indie bands to release new albums on both vinyl and cd. Most indie bands that are on indie record labels are also fans of indie bands that only released their material on vinyl in the 80's, way before it became common practice to release cd's in the 90's.
In a lot of cases, it is these "no name" record labels that has the potential to make a name for themselves today without the assistance of subsidizing to the majors or from commercial radio, unlike the way it was from the 1950's-early 1970's in rock and roll, where you were pretty much on your own. In the 60's and 70's, if most bands had enough money to finance a recording, they would put out a record themselves, whether it be a single or an album, much like today, except there are a lot more indie record companies since the 70's than there were in the 50's and 60's, so there really isn't any need for bands to put records out themselves if they don't need to. Since the late 70's, it has been the standard for bands to put out full length albums as much as singles. In fact, it wasn't until the late 70's when punk and new wave came out, was when the whole do it yourself(D.I.Y.) aesthetic came into existence.
There were always independent record labels since the beginning of the first record being created. All it took was somebody wanting some kind of artistic creative control with music that at times may have not otherwise been accepted by the masses during the time it was being created. A lot of times like Chess records who was owned by Marshall Chess, would see how record companies took no interest in the music that he heard and liked, so he got the idea to form his own record label to allow a chance to record for anyone who cared to listen. However, there has always been that weird small niche audience who was always looking for something a little more under the radar or off the cuff. So, in order for this music to be ever heard or reach that niche audience, it was the responsibility of the indies to make it known. When it comes to music, if you think about it, the indie record companies were always the trend setters, as opposed to being the followers. It was always the majors that had the money bags in their eyes, and it was them that polished up these artists a little bit more to make it more squeaky clean for mass consumption to market music as the "so called" marketing strategic campaign of the "next best thing", when in effect the music was already an underground sensation that had already been recorded on independent record labels, prior to reaching that mass audience.
A few examples of some real indie labels that had that DIY aesthetic in the 60's & 70's with much success were Sun, Chess and Motown who put out countless artists of credibility, some of which you never have heard on the radio. There are many others from the 50's and 60's that were also renown.
Contrary to popular belief, rock and roll did exist before Sun records and even Elvis. However, it was an underground phenomena that had no name and was played by more rebellious nature African Americans wanting to stray from the sounds of blues more and electrifying it. The fact of the matter is, African American's did create R&R. Elvis did NOT. He only combined it with country music, helped pioneer rockabilly and made it popular. Nothing more.........
Indie record labels are also responsible for launching some of the greatest renown talent. Both Sub Pop records, based in Seattle, SST records in Los Angeles and 4AD records in England, would be both up and coming labels from out of the 80's that would go on to launch the many successes of early 90's mainstream alternative pop/rock with once upon a time underground bands like Nirvana, The Screaming Trees, Soundgarden and countless others from the Seattle Grunge rock music scene. Still, even on those labels there are a few more acts of diversity that only appealed to niche audiences in the 90's and never would receive major label contracts, let alone commercial radio play. The only airplay any of these bands would receive in the 90's, prior to the internet, was on college radio stations. In the 80's, this is how R.E.M. broke out. R.E.M. was on I.R.S. records which was an indie based record label. R.E.M. received extensive amounts of radio play on college radio stations and then after recording a total of 4 albums on I.R.S. they broke out from the indie underground. Today they continue to be one of the leading rock bands in the alternative rock and pop music movement to this day and are constantly attempting to break new ground........
There are still indie record labels going strong to this day, and since the advent of the internet, the exposure of indie/underground music is going stronger than ever! The only difference today is though, whereas major record companies applauded the idea of innovative/pioneering acts to be signed to their record labels in the 60's and 70's, the support today for almost any underground music is almost non existent on major record companies labels. It is for this reason as to why acts like the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, The Stooges or MC5 would be signed to a major record label in the 60's, but would not even be thought of being signed to ANY major company at all today! Back then, it seemed as if a major record company could co-exist with any indie record company and live in harmony.
In the end, if you want to hear better, more interesting music, you have to look beyond the radio and dig a little deeper, but if and when you do, you will find that sometimes some of the most interesting music you may have never heard is in the independent music scene!
A lot of debt is owed to the indie record companies for rock and roll's existence in the first place. Some of the most cutting edge, experimental and pioneering innovative music is still being pout out to this day on indie record labels........
You know, sometimes, I don't known what it is, but man I do have a hard time here trying to see previous posts from a new poster. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that they are a new poster and are being watched? I dunno, but man it sucks. I have to actually post this post just to see what the previous one has to say!
Disclaimer: The words and opinions expressed on this website are those of the author(s) of the postings and do not necessarily state or reflect the views of MusicStack and/or its employees. Publication on this website should not be considered an endorsement. MusicStack and/or its employees do not express or imply any warranty or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information on this website. MusicStack and/or its employees will not be held liable for any direct or indirect loss or damage arising under this disclaimer or in connection with our website. By using our website, you accept this disclaimer in full.
