The Null Device

The Process (first impression)

3RRR just played the title track from (a sampler of) the upcoming Ninetynine album, The Process. Hmmm... on first impression, it sounds impressive. It has a lot more energy and punch than most of their earlier recorded material (which tended towards the meandering in places, at least in my perception). Of course, the songs sound different in a studio recording than in a live show; it doesn't have quite that reverberating adrenaline rush of seeing them live, but I could hear a finer, more layered quality to it. If the title cut is representative of the album, it's set to be impressive indeed.

There are 7 comments on "The Process (first impression)":

Posted by: Graham http://grudnuk.com/vm/ Mon Sep 2 13:22:34 2002

Having gigged for all that time and fleshed out the songs ought to have stood them in good stead in the studio this time around, since one'd think they've have had a good idea of how to take advantage of the studio to make the songs work on record. And all that.

Posted by: acb http://dev.null.org Tue Sep 3 09:31:13 2002

JB Hi-Fi has The Process slated for the 16th. (Given that they have a P&D deal with Festival Mushroom indie-boutique imprint Trifekta, it should be widely available.)

Posted by: Graham http://grudnuk.com/vm/ Tue Sep 3 09:42:05 2002

Good-o.

Posted by: Ben http://rocknerd.org Wed Sep 4 09:56:41 2002

Just to clarify what Ninetynine's deal is - and this *will* be kinda boring, but whatever - It's not a P&D, and Trifekta isn't a FMR imprint. The record is licensed to Trifekta for Australia and NZ on a profit-share basis. Trifekta? It's wholly owned by Tom Larnach-Jones, whose last name I consistently misspell! Anyone still awake?

Posted by: acb http://dev.null.org Wed Sep 4 10:17:59 2002

I got the impression from Cameron that Trifekta were wholly owned by FMR (and were the one boutique imprint sufficiently profitable to survive their cuts).

He also said something along the lines of the label trying to con them out of their copyrights; when the contract was sent over, the original version (despite being only a licensing deal or something limited as such) would have given Trifekta/FMR/whoever all copyrights to The Process had they not sent it back.

Posted by: Ben http://rocknerd.org Wed Sep 4 23:14:41 2002

1: Nah, Trifekta is Tom. In fact, Trifekta is just a trading name Tom uses - it really is just him. On the other hand, FMR does fund Trifekta. Make of that what you will... As to them being profitable: I'm not so sure of that. I'm also no expert on the internal machinations of FMR, but you might be aware that FMR just lost Spunk! to Inertia. Also, Tom's involvement with Gerling supposedly counts for something... God knows why.

2: The contract was based on the boilerplate FMR themselves use, and wasn't appropriate or acceptable.

Posted by: acb http://dev.null.org Thu Sep 5 05:30:04 2002

re: Spunk/Inertia: I just saw that. Good to know that Rupert won't get a cut the next time I buy a Mogwai or Belle & Sebastian CD. (Except that B&S are now with EMI/Rough Trade, but still.)

Want to say something? Do so here.

Post pseudonymously

Display name:
URL:(optional)
To prove that you are not a bot, please enter the text in the image into the field below it.

Your Comment:

Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.

Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.