i know obviously the economics of it is a whole 'nother story, but i have to say it really bugs the hell out of me when i see stuff such as older sonic youth records like sister or bad moon rising with 'geffen records' listed as the label, even with the original release date.
i mean, you bought the record in 199x, so why should the 198x date include yr name and not the original label?
i think it bugs me b/c there are younger fans who may not know of labels like blast first or sst [i know, maybe unlikely with this but it could happen] and might miss out on a whole bunch of really great music b/c they never see the label given any credit & dont dig through their catalogue...
...not to mention the whole corporate aspect of buying up culture you either werent around to support or wouldve been too chicken shit to support in the first place.

also, on a side note, sonic youth, i'd really appreciate it if you stopped playing clear channel sponsored events. it makes all the anti-corporate rants and 'corporate rock is appropriating youth culture as marketing ploy' speeches seem a bit pointless.

i love rereleases with no additional content. or greatest hits cds after only a couple albums. bah

On a related note: When Hollywood Records re-released all of the Queen albums (I've been going through them lately) did they really need to include Rick Rubin's version of "We Will Rock You"?

My guess is that the more we see majors pick up on the groundwork of the indies and buy out artist contracts, the more attention will be brought to the indies, be it in the artwork or other.

It's like Universal buying the first 11 Elvis Costello albums for re-release. What the FUCK could the possibly put on these reissues that Rhino didn't already include?