NoiseWiki

I've had a couple of things removed years ago under an old, closed account. I don't know if I can retrieve the info any more, but I should still have some sort of low-res images. I still have one of them I can take newer, better photos of sometime maybe.

FWIW, that anti-tape looks like a magazine photo scan... I am all for anti-releases being cataloged, but having the release in-hand has been the rule forever!

https://www.discogs.com/release/6944503 ... ing-Clinic

That thread on discogs makes me want to ruin collectable records and other stuff.

The ignorance of dismissively calling anti records 'art' and totally missing the point that music is also art makes me very angry and I hope that particular person goes deaf.

RUBBISH wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:37 pm That thread on discogs makes me want to ruin collectable records and other stuff.

The ignorance of dismissively calling anti records 'art' and totally missing the point that music is also art makes me very angry and I hope that particular person goes deaf.

I edited yours with Rrron so that it does not say anti record and maybe will not get removed.

What I find stupid about this is that physical anti records are very few. There was alot of hand wringing over allowing digital releases and there's a mountain of that and a smaller mountain or low quality entries that dwarf anti entries by any measure. The worst of the zealot editors don't even think tape with recorded audio on it that is say missing the tape shell should not be included.

The other irony being that they are Gung ho to get rid of a few anti releases but it's nearly impossible to remove an entry for other reasons .. perhaps it's because of this that they delight in deleting anti releases because its a rare privilege