 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought it was strange that a small label like Perservance was able to snag such a big sought after title like Slipstream when the other bigger labels didn't. Now I know why.
And I think it's fair to suggest that is why everyone feels deceived; they gave "props" to Robin and his label for working honestly and hard for such a huge release, and all the while, he was working in the shade. I don't buy he didn't know the rules--if in fact that is his excuse. Perseverance Records needs to go away. Enough is enough with this under-handed bullshit, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus it seems a good portion of you seemed to forget that Roger tried to obtain the rights for this and he said to was next to impossible. So both Roger and MV essentially warned everyone but most of you basically refused to listen to them and heed their advice.
In fairness to the buyers, there was no way of knowing for sure that it was a bootleg release. What were people to do? Miss out on something that could have been legit because they were skeptical? Things change all the time, and I think that's what everyone submitted their faith to--that perhaps a guy like Robin was finally given a break, or even a patch of luck. However, it hasn't been the case. Plain and simple, Robin deceived his customers in a big way, and I think it's a punch in the face to come on here--in light of the truth--and try to bark at Lukas or to defend his silly actions. He should have spent that time apologizing to everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! I just bought my first and last Perseverance record. It wasn't Slipstream, but still...that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 27, 2011 - 8:38 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TheSeeker
(Member)
|
Good Lord...that's some well-spent money, then. Why don't you pout and stomp your feet while you're at it, Lukas?
Melodramatics 101, this thread is...
I don't think that anyone who purchased this release had their money well spent now that this revelation has arisen, nor do I think of it as "melodramatics". The response to this news is more than reasonable.
By the way, my name is spelled with a C, not a K.
Changed your name...
...and my comment is on your reaction (one that I *do* understand where you're coming from with) is as if the CD had done you a great personal injustice. You, like 98% of the others, bought this CD in good faith and enjoyed the music, right? And because of this new situation, you're going back on the latter? By throwing the CD away...what ACTUAL purpose apart from the moral/conscientious one are you serving by that? Is ANYone going to think of you any less because you bought a CD that turned out to be a bad product? Or the reverse: is ANYone going to think more highly of you because you're shredding it?
*That* is what simply doesn't make any sense to me...but then again, I'm just a geologist, so what do I know?!
Christian
PS: And just in case: I'm half-joking, half-serious on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deleted in the interest of fairness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 27, 2011 - 8:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TheSeeker
(Member)
|
I don't think that anyone who purchased this release had their money well spent now that this revelation has arisen, nor do I think of it as "melodramatics". The response to this news is more than reasonable.
Hear, hear, Luc.
And why in the Sam Hill shouldn't I (or anyone, for that matter) be pissed that our money went into someones' pocket who was NOT selling a legit item?
Damn right I'm mad.
No contest, Holly. One could spin this even further and either send the CD back to SAE/Intrada and ask for a refund. But they're in the same situation, right? They had no prior knowledge of this.
So do you want to send the CD straight back to Robin Esterhammer, with a letter asking for your money back? In my mind, that would be the only way to "solve" this problem, but you can probably imagine what the chances of this succeeding would be like.
The life of a film music enthusiast is complicated indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deleted in the interests of fairness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
