Dubstepforum.com

lol @ the moaning on here.

I wait pt 2 is a sick tune.
7"s are fine, stop being so precious. that's what the gain knob is for.

I assume it's only the younger people that don't own stacks of reggae/dub 45s moaning anyway... so whatever.

you two care to explain why I should drop £7 on a single-sided seven inch record though? I imagine mastering was already paid by the people who released the book, so this was just a repress with very little material costs on top of it. charging £7 seems to me like a major pisstake.

jrkhnds wrote:you two care to explain why I should drop £7 on a single-sided seven inch record though? I imagine mastering was already paid by the people who released the book, so this was just a repress with very little material costs on top of it. charging £7 seems to me like a major pisstake.

for the same reasons you would pay 7 quid for a single sided 12" for. a tune is a tune after all. and plastic is so damn cheap it doesn't really make a difference if you have 100 grams more or less.

and btw: 45s refer to every record that's played at 45 rpm, no matter the size.

baddis98 wrote:and btw: 45s refer to every record that's played at 45 rpm, no matter the size.

Lolwut? When people say 45s they are specifically referring to 7" records... even my parents call them 45s lol

Can you find me evidence of someone ever calling a 12" single a 45? I bet you can't

Personally I always talk in terms of inches

rorz9992 wrote:

baddis98 wrote:and btw: 45s refer to every record that's played at 45 rpm, no matter the size.

Lolwut? When people say 45s they are specifically referring to 7" records... even my parents call them 45s lol

Can you find me evidence of someone ever calling a 12" single a 45? I bet you can't

i know that most people mean 7" when they say 45, but i'm not sure if there's a strict definition. 45 refers to the playing speed, so i don't see why 12 or 10 inch singles cut at that speed shouldn't be included, especially when there are even 7"s that play at 33 rpm. for example 45 clashes mostly allowed every type of regular tune on vinyl, even though the waste majority was on 7 inch.

jrkhnds wrote:you two care to explain why I should drop £7 on a single-sided seven inch record though? I imagine mastering was already paid by the people who released the book, so this was just a repress with very little material costs on top of it. charging £7 seems to me like a major pisstake.

especially when the tune was already released.

baddis: the "strict definition" came when RCA launched the 7" 45rpm single in 1949, replacing the 78rpm record format. someone's speaking of "45s", it's 7" records. think of it more as a name than a description. "45s" refers to 45rpm 7" single records. not every record that plays at 45rpm.


and nah, 7" should still be cheaper than 12". charging 7quid for a single tune is jokes to begin with though. anyone remember the amount of slack 4ad got when they released natalia's song on a single sided 10" record and charged 8 pounds for it? and if memory serves correctly, a lot of people in here were quite pissed when the Noches Sueños alternative mix dropped - with a hefty price tag sticked to it.

Unless you're on an extremely tight budget, 1 or 2 extra pounds or euros compared to what you consider a "normal" pricetag shouldn't influence your buying decision. Or, to put it differently, if you REALLY like the tune, but don't buy the record for that reason, you'll regret it eventually, esp. if it becomes rare and hard to find. I've learnt that the hard way.

My two cents anyway.

I will still most likely buy it (if I can actually find it in stock) but it's really annoying when labels put out single sided records when the artist has plenty of tunes they could easily put out unless it's some sort of limited white label bootleg.

jrkhnds wrote:baddis: the "strict definition" came when RCA launched the 7" 45rpm single in 1949, replacing the 78rpm record format. someone's speaking of "45s", it's 7" records. think of it more as a name than a description. "45s" refers to 45rpm 7" single records. not every record that plays at 45rpm.

well if the book of wisdom aka wikipedia says so....

i get your point about single sided records and i agree with you. but that's a different argument and then we could also talk about artwork vs whitelabels. i just think that technically a difference of 5 cents in plastic shouldn't result in a difference of 2 pounds for the finished product.

Marcus wrote:I will still most likely buy it (if I can actually find it in stock) but it's really annoying when labels put out single sided records when the artist has plenty of tunes they could easily put out unless it's some sort of limited white label bootleg.

Its probably cause its already released, if it got released with an unreleased track people would moan about one side already being released and want 2 unreleased tunes. I've got the one with the book and as this is single sided it means I don't need to buy it, if it had another tune on I'd buy it for that and feel like I'm spending money on stuff I've already got.

This should definitely have been the first release imo:

Ooh shit ain't heard that tune before

Muncey wrote:

Marcus wrote:I will still most likely buy it (if I can actually find it in stock) but it's really annoying when labels put out single sided records when the artist has plenty of tunes they could easily put out unless it's some sort of limited white label bootleg.

Its probably cause its already released, if it got released with an unreleased track people would moan about one side already being released and want 2 unreleased tunes. I've got the one with the book and as this is single sided it means I don't need to buy it, if it had another tune on I'd buy it for that and feel like I'm spending money on stuff I've already got.

This should definitely have been the first release imo:

i feel like it would be soooo right to follow up alicia and in luv with the babyfather remix... holy trinity of rnb/soul remixes

Not sure I can be arsed with £8 on a 7inch white (?) label. I mean its just lazy as shit at this point when you look at what a tiny label like zamzam is doing. I mean one tune as well ffs

I'm not really up on deep medi

is Free Focus Commodo remix forthcoming?

I think RKM was saying that Commodo said that his unsure about the remix but that the tune with Jme is forthcoming

@harkat i don't think it's confirmed but there have been rumors iirc. been a dub for a while tbh, although there are plenty that have been dubs for longer....

i feel fairly sure free focus will be medi, but yeah he was like i don't know, could have just been unwilling to spray all the secrets at once, but he indicated mala keeps everything under wraps