Talk:Magazine (Heart album)

Albums Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Who Demanded that Magazine be Remixed?

I remember this controversy at the time, and I believe it was always disputed as to whether Heart or Mushroom Records insisted that the album be pulled and re-mixed. I assumed it was Mushroom Records, which to me was more logical. However, I noticed another contributor re-wrote it saying it was Heart who wanted the album pulled. Accordingly, I have tried to make it more "neutral," by saying it is disputed as to who asked for it being pulled. Clearly, this is not a huge controversy to the rest of the world, but among Heart fans, I hope this neutrality will suffice. Asc85 12:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to at least one source, Heart wanted it destroyed; they took it to court to get an injunction. They got the injunction, but unexpected for them they got it under the condition that they remix it and re-release it; their contract was for two albums, and if they didn't like the one that had been released, they were required to provide a replacement. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Asc85, your "neutrality" is mis-informed. My memory of the events is that the group always claimed the original album was unfinished demo recordings. There was never any dispute about this. It was the band who demanded the album be pulled from the market. They only reluctantly agreed to finish the album as a compromise. The label wanted to make extra money off a recording that the band considered a substandard release. I can see no reason why the label would have pulled the album unless they had been forced into this by court action by the band. 71.35.161.45 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Release

By the way, in case anyone's curious: the original release was a VERY poor effort. The re-mixed version is considerably better and more polished. Asc85 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm afraid that's POV - there are others who don't agree; I found it interesting to Google some reviews and read the opposing views. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...of course it's POV...that's why it's in the Discussion section, not in the main entry. Listen, I don't think there's 100% agreement on anything out there...but anyone who thinks the original is better than the re-mixed version is just trying to be different...it absolutely sucks. And if it was so good, why did they go back and re-mix it? Asc85 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some fans do indeed prefer the 1977 edition over the more polished 1978 version. The original version has more emphasis on the electric guitars. The somewhat rougher sound also better reflects the group's live sound of the period, though I don't think this was intentional. The original version offers some interesting insight into what was essentially a work in progress. And so for that reason alone, some fans find it fascinating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.222.51 (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Magazinealbum.jpg

Image:Magazinealbum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. BetacommandBot (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FUR was added 01:40, 5 January 2008 by User:Weatherman90 - Thanks Weatherman, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do 1977 promo copies actually exist?

I still highly doubt that the album was ever sent to radio stations. Another contributor insists that he got his copy this way, but unless he can show evidence that his is an original promo copy of the 1977 release, this claim can't be verified. Personally, I have never seen a 1977 promo of the album, and if they exist they are EXTREMELY rare. I know that the Seattle radio station had to go to great lengths to get a copy sent to them. The album was never widely available in 1977. The controversy erupted almost as soon as the record hit the shelves, which prevented it from getting broad distribution. The reason most of the surviving copies were sold in Los Angeles and Florida, is because that is were the factories and primary distributors were located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.222.51 (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm the person who got his copy from a radio station...it was actually the college radio station where I worked, but I don't think that really matters, as college radio stations were on the list to receive all promotional albums as were commercial stations. I'm not sure how I can show "evidence" that I have the album without mailing it to you, which of course I'm not going to do. I assumed it was an extremely rare album when I discovered it in my college radio station as a Freshman in late 1979. It had been played for about two years without anyone noticing it. I guess there weren't a lot of Heart fans at the station! I was initially perplexed as to why there was a different version of this album in the radio station, but then I remembered reading about an earlier version of the album. For some reason, our station had it, and nobody realized it...it was put in the "general population" of the albums! As I said earlier, I'm sorry you "highly doubt" the veracity of my claim...what would be my motivation to lie about something like this? Unless you want to argue that it was purchased by someone for the station, and not a promotional copy. But my college was not located in Florida or California. Asc85 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that there would be no difference between a promo sent to college radio and a promo sent to commercial radio. How many promo albums have you seen? If your copy is a REAL promo it should be quite obvious. Artists are not paid for copies that are given away, so promos should be clearly marked as such to prevent legal problems. Many promo copies have a gold stamp on the front cover, reading "Promotional Copy, Not For Sale", "DJ Copy" or something similar. Some promos have special stickers on the cover identifying songs suggested for airplay. Some promos use plain white labels instead of full color designs.

There are also other copies given away that usually have a cut mark, hole or corner cut off the cover. These are not real promos. These look the same as "cut out" copies that are also sold for heavily discounted prices. The only way to know if you have a REAL promo is to share pictures of it with us. It really comes down to this: Just because you found a record at a radio station it does not mean it was a REAL promo. And just because you found it at the station does not mean it was actually sent to radio by the record company. I would really like to see the pictures of your copy! Please share if you can! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.222.51 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess (and I mean no disrespect) that I am less concerned with whether or not it is a promo, versus whether or not I have the actual album in question. However, based on your definition, it appears that I do NOT have a promo version of this album. And upon your suggestion, I do see a hole that goes through the album in the upper right hand corner. So you are probably correct. But my question is why would my radio station have an album like that? Why would someone buy it for our station, and then leave it in the general population of records? Again, I'm not arguing about your definition of a "promo" copy, but I don't see why our station would have had it. Asc85 (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect taken. I think I have already answered your question about how the radio station received the record, but here is some more detail. This was probably given to the station as a free copy, even though it is not marked as a promo. I have seen this happen many times before, and I don't think it is unusual. It was probably given away by a record distributor or independent promoter rather than the record company. Since your copy is really a "cut out" and not marked as a promo, my earlier remarks still stand. I contend that the album was NEVER sent to radio by the record company as no marked promos have surfaced. I have changed the article to reflect this. As far as we know there are no REAL promo copies of the 1977 edition of the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.222.51 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]