Talk:Magazine (Heart album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Record Company Negotiations

After reading everything I could possibly find about this story since 1977 the conclusion I have come to is that Mushroom really screwed Heart on the business side. They label was really acting in bad faith by first saying they didn't want to release Magazine and then reversing the decision. I think they deliberately pushed the group as far as possible into breaking the contract. In the end the label got exactly what they wanted. They got 2 hit albums, and kept a large share of the profits because of the low royalty rate. The controversy certainly didn't hurt sales and actually may have helped. I imagine that the Wilson sisters were not always that easy to work with. After forcing them to complete Magazine the label was probably glad to not have to deal with them any more. Also, I think that the label knew the band was so upset that they would never have re-negotiated to record a third or fourth album with Mushroom. So the label had very little to lose on the negotiations for Magazine. Of course, it is also interesting that the label was never again able to find a really successful act and fell apart soon after the death of Shelly Siegel. So in the end, Heart really came out on top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.96.193 (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No disrespect taken. The record you have was probably given to the station by a record distributor or independent promoter 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. A real promo would have probably come directly from 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 officially 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)

Thank you for explaining how our radio station must have received our copy. I'm sure you are right. I'll make an educated guess that your career (or past career) is involved in this kind of thing. As a layperson, the differences are subtle between receiving an album from a record company versus a record distributor. But in this specific instance, it is an important difference. So you are definitely right on this issue...and I agree with your revisions to the article. And I have learned more about this album, which is always a good thing, I think. Asc85 (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC

I was reading this and had to comment. In no way does what I am about to say reflect on the Heart album being discussed, only the "Since your copy is really a "cut out" and not marked as a promo..." comment. I have gotten numerous "promo" copies of albums, tapes, cds, dvds and videos given to me over the years. Not all of them are the same. To be even more specific when I would send out promo/publicity material part of my job was to take pre-distribution copies and do one of several things - remove the shrink warp and cut the corner (for an album or for a cassette), Keep the shrink wrap on and use a hot soldering iron tip to burn a hole through the case (for a cassette or CD) or through the top right corner (for an album), remove the shrink warp and stick a sticker on the case/sleeve saying "For promotional use only", remove the shrink wrap and pull out the album and use a rubber stamp inked with red ink to put "Promotional use only" on the record label.

Now if you want to talk about "pre-release" or "advance" copies then we get more into no sleeves, no labels and such. And if you want to get really into things such as albums given out to band members, management or high profile press you are talking either a plain album with nothing on it at all or a cassette with either no sleeve or a basic slip from the duplicator or even handwritten.

I decided to take a quick look - I am looking at a release from Warner/Reprise that is a cassette and it does not say "promo" anywhere on it. If I showed this to someone they would have no idea it was anythign except a "released" copy. However the sleeve is a light, one sided blue insert that has the song listing, artist name, album name and says "non dolby from DAT" and the date of release. It is for sure not th e"release" but it does not say "Promo" either. I have another one here in reach from A&M and the cassette does say "Pre-Release Cassette" on it, as does the sleeve. The sleeve is just a basic insert with text on white. Now I also have the exact same album except it is a pre "Pre-Release Cassette" and came direct form the A&M's recording studio. It has an A&M label stuck on it the name of the group and the name of the album and "Play in Cr02 Non Dolby position". The insert is typed and of a "tear off" type that says "A&M Studios" with their address and phone number on it. Another one in reach is from Elektra Records and came direct from 52nd Street, which used to be a fairly well used duplication facility.(And this last album I mention never came out because the artist was dropped from the label just before release. However, aside from the cassettes, there were test pressings of the actual vinyl album done for certain people, such as Rodney Bingenheimer from KROQ. These were sent out in plain white sleeves and nothing that said "Promo" on the sleeve or record.) So overall I would not rule out a raido station possibly having a "promo" copy of a record that might not say "Promo". Simply having a cut sleeve or a hole in it does not mean it is a promo, however it does not mean it is not a promo either. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have collected rare records for a long time and have learned a lot about how the music business actually works. I have also followed the story of this album since 1977. Your story is interesting and raises some new questions. Assuming your copy came from a distributor, when and why was it given to the station? It is not unusual for a radio station to get "cut-out" copies, but it seems VERY strange that anyone would turn regular stock copies of the 1977 version into cut outs. These records were supposed to be sent back to the label and destroyed. My best guess is that someone was just trying to get rid of the record. They may have given it away in 1977, knowing it was the un-authorized version. Or they might also have given it away in 1978 NOT knowing it was the un-authorized version. We will probably never know.

I am going to ignore most of what "Soundvisions" says here. Though he is correct and I am familiar with the situations he describes it is really not relevant in this situation. I was not talking about pre-release cassettes or on-off unmarked test pressings sent to DJs. By "promo" I meant an actual marked promo, as that is the only type of release that is without a doubt given away for promo purposes. The conversation was to try to determine whether we have ever seen a MARKED 1977 promo of Magazine and the answer is still a definite "No!" --216.160.96.193 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

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)

Update to my last post above: I am still kicking myself for passing up a chance to buy a brand new vinyl copy of the 1977 version! I saw a guy at a record swap meet in Seattle selling a crate of them for $15 each in 1983 but I was almost out of cash and decided not to pick it up. Heart was sort at their low point of popularity at the time, so that also figured into my poor decision.

Anyway, late in 2009 I finally found a very high quality flac file download of the 1977 vinyl version. This was the first time I had heard the original recordings since the were broadcast on the radio when first released. Just as I remembered, the recordings appear to be close to finished versions, but are not quite complete. Several of the lead vocals are indeed quite rough and were clearly intended to be used as "guide vocals" only. But leaving aside the two live tracks and the already completed b-side, most of the rest of the instrumentation sounds very close to the 1978 finished studio recordings. Also, the 1977 album was professionally mixed by Mushroom Studios staff engineer Rolf Henneman, who also worked with the group on Dreamboat Annie. So, while these were probably not mixes approved by the group, its not at all as if they were butchered by the studio or the label. If I remember correctly, it was actually Rolf who first saw the group at a Vancouver club and brought them to the attention of the producer Flicker and the investment group and Shelly Siegel who put together Mushroom Records. I think that Rolf did a great job and was definitely trying his best to make the 1977 Magazine album sound as good as possible even in its unfinished state.

The band were really perfectionists with their studio recordings and that is why the first album still sounds so good. They had a whole year to write, arrange and record the first album. So they were obviously upset that they lost control of the original Magazine tapes after working on the album for only a few weeks. I can't agree at all with the earlier post that says the 1977 version as a "very poor effort." It is really quite good, it just doesn't quite have all of the polish of the 1978 version. I could only call it really disappointing if trying to compare it to what I imagine the band originally wanted as their second album. Ideally, if the band had been able to take some of the best tracks from "Magazine" and "Little Queen" and have a year to really polish them up they would have really and an AMAZING album. But this was not to be, and my "imaginary version" is pure fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.96.193 (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, here is some more great info about Heart, Mushroom, and how Henneman "discovered" the band. http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_classic_tracks_hearts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.96.193 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I own a vinyl copy of the original release. I was astounded to find it in a retail store in 1979, only to later discover that it was a rare collector's item. In my opinion the instrumentation is nearly the same as the later release. Most of what I consider different is the vocals; they're much more "musical" and less "ad lib" (in my opinion) than the later, official release. In that sense I think they're closer to the Dreamboat Annie vocal style, which I like very much. I have a number of Heart concert photos from that era which I'm hoping to release here once I figure out the process for doing so. Rdb112 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Third album

Magazine is the third studio album

 : I'm not sure we should consider it as the third album as the first release was one month before the release of the "second" album (Little Queen). Elfast (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)