|
Post by Dale Cooper on Apr 14, 2015 8:26:37 GMT
i'm just glad I got to meet ben, he's a lovely chap. Yes and yes. I could have spent hours talking and listening to him. Was also so cool to meet Andrea Parker even though we did not really talk.
|
|
|
Post by Mo'Matt on Apr 14, 2015 8:27:38 GMT
True, Ben was such a nice bloke. In fact, a walk-through with him would have been much more interesting and meaningful.
I suppose as an evening it was incredible, met so many heros in a short period of time I almost exploded. So definitely can't complain about that.
|
|
mrsirrus
Junior Member Level 1
Posts: 88
|
Post by mrsirrus on Apr 14, 2015 11:22:19 GMT
I think Ben and 3D would be the only people I'd be interested in.
The longer time passes, the more I have absolutely no time for James at all.
All that cash from Kickstarter, and one of the first things I noticed was sleeve pic of Cut Chemist's rework of Number song was one of those absolutely terrible bootlegs from around 2002-2003.
I started off being a nerd for Mo'Wax, and it still shaped the fact that I listen to every genre of music these days...but every new nugget of info I discovered along the way just made me see how bloody awful that man is.
Nicking credit for those Pabs and Paul mixes Luke Vibert saying how much he regretted his MoWax album Sam Sever not being paid a single dollar Swifty being mysteriously cut off (I noticed his sarcastic remark about "What are friends for" was snipped in the book)
In hindsight, I should have followed Giles Peterson's career closer at the time. Giles doesn't play out exceptionally dull house records badly mixed.
|
|
|
Post by Mo'Matt on Apr 14, 2015 13:29:31 GMT
I think Ben and 3D would be the only people All that cash from Kickstarter, and one of the first things I noticed was sleeve pic of Cut Chemist's rework of Number song was one of those absolutely terrible bootlegs from around 2002-2003. Their research has been a bit crap in places, but where exactly did you see this? Was it in the book? Can't disagree with any of your points about James either. Amazing that he got away with not paying artists, although Luke and Sam are the only people I know who have spoken about this.
|
|
mrsirrus
Junior Member Level 1
Posts: 88
|
Post by mrsirrus on Apr 14, 2015 16:01:06 GMT
It was in the book, yes. MW086DJ - the original Blueprint for the series of poor bootlegs. I was certain at first glance that it was MWO86DJ, hence a photo of a bootlegged copy. I may be wrong though, and it might be the 0 not O.
I find James's lack of basic beatmatching ability to be a constant, constant irritation (as I realise it'll be the same for everyone on this board I guess). Granted in the early days of Mo'Wax Please and Dingwalls nights, an eclectic set is hard to match - but straight up 4/4 beats of house and tech-house? Come on. EVERYONE around him has this skill. Rich File can do it, Pabs is obviously a wizard, Will Bankhead can do it, even Deadly Avenger could get away with his stop-start pastiche of cut up hiphop records. But when it's 2015 and you STILL only have two tricks - custom video projection by famous artists and using a Hi-cut filter every two bloody minutes, you should do something about it.
Add the Kickstarter backer treatment to list of irritations as well.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Cooper on Apr 14, 2015 17:15:17 GMT
It was in the book, yes. MW086DJ - the original Blueprint for the series of poor bootlegs. I was certain at first glance that it was MWO86DJ, hence a photo of a bootlegged copy. I may be wrong though, and it might be the 0 not O. The legit has the O and not the 0, and that's why the bootlegs are all wrong! Everything is here if you have not seen it yet : www.mowaxplease.com/complete-buyers-guide-mo-wax-bootlegs/
|
|
mrsirrus
Junior Member Level 1
Posts: 88
|
Post by mrsirrus on Apr 14, 2015 17:19:14 GMT
Ah, well...that's made me look stupid hah!
|
|
|
Post by Mo'Matt on Apr 14, 2015 18:47:01 GMT
The legit has the O and not the 0, and that's why the bootlegs are all wrong! What? Are you sure? Good news if so. I've got two of these 12s. Both with an O on the label. On the vinyl one has a handwritten "MN086DJ", the other has a stamped "DFI-97-11 MWO 086 E1" or "DFI-97-11 MWO 86F1". The DFI one has a better printed sleeve so I assume that's the real one?
|
|
|
Post by Mo'Matt on Apr 14, 2015 18:54:28 GMT
Ok I've read your site properly now. I've got a legit press, hooray. I always thought it might be a boot because of the error.
As for the book, there are blank on white labels. Which I assume are the original designs.
|
|
|
Post by the fuhz on Apr 16, 2015 15:10:27 GMT
It was in the book, yes. MW086DJ - the original Blueprint for the series of poor bootlegs. I was certain at first glance that it was MWO86DJ, hence a photo of a bootlegged copy. I may be wrong though, and it might be the 0 not O. The legit has the O and not the 0, and that's why the bootlegs are all wrong! Everything is here if you have not seen it yet : www.mowaxplease.com/complete-buyers-guide-mo-wax-bootlegs/For whatever its worth... I strongly believe that original use of the 'O' was not a mistake, but rather a conscious design decision from Ben. The design of the sleeve is replicating the low budget (ie; ad hoc) design sensibilities of Jamaican and US soul records from the 60s/70s. Because the original designers did not have access to proper/modern technology, they would often cut and paste (literally) from other print sources (magazines, newspapers, etc) and then xerox it together to get the desired result, similar to an old school punk flyer. They weren't that concerned with everything being perfect, as long as the message was made. If you look closely to the label of MWO86DJ, you will see that words are also cut from pieces of paper and positioned in a 'crude' manner.
|
|
|
Post by Mo'Matt on Apr 16, 2015 15:59:10 GMT
Fuuuuuuuuuu... If that is true, it's completely bad-ass. I always thought the labels designs looked a bit fuzzy and crap. That's why I thought my proper pressing was a bootleg for so long.
Do you know if the big blue rock-like 'DJ Shadow' text is replicating the style of anything in particular? I know Ben has used similar typefaces in other projects, but I've not seen it anywhere else.
Also interesting that the sides are E and F. This was rumoured to be part of a series that never happened, but maybe it was intentional. Unless anyone know the other intended tracks?
|
|
|
Post by the fuhz on Apr 16, 2015 19:59:35 GMT
Fuuuuuuuuuu... If that is true, it's completely bad-ass. I always thought the labels designs looked a bit fuzzy and crap. That's why I thought my proper pressing was a bootleg for so long. Do you know if the big blue rock-like 'DJ Shadow' text is replicating the style of anything in particular? I know Ben has used similar typefaces in other projects, but I've not seen it anywhere else. Also interesting that the sides are E and F. This was rumoured to be part of a series that never happened, but maybe it was intentional. Unless anyone know the other intended tracks? I cannot recall the exact artist, but I believe the 'rock' typeface is a nod to a previous record. As for the etching noting sides E and F, I did not know that! It makes sense as MW086 (no DJ) was never released.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Cooper on Apr 16, 2015 20:38:23 GMT
I'm also quite sure that the O was intentionally put there by Ben, and as The Fuhz I've always thought that the bad quality was also a nice attempt to mimic some old school techniques.
And I'm happy that are discussing this because I was asking about a potential original ripped-off design in my article.
Let's find the answer!
I've also always knew about the E/F sides (in the runout grooves only, the labels are A/B) but never thought of an abandoned series...
|
|