Talk:The Cartel (record distributor)

Minor Point: Suggested Tweek to Andy Dingley's fine work
I'm moving a discussion we started on Articles for deletion/The Cartel (record distributor) to here so as not to fill up that page:


 * Keep since Andy Dingley rewrote virtually the entire article it is now well researched, has good sources, and for the most part is written from a neutral point of view. On this last point, the sentence: "Not only were they an effective distributor, but they were having an influence on the music itself, and the rise of "indie"." to me seems to be a conclusion rather than a statement of fact.  I'd probably modify it to make it more neutral, or find a Reference directly supporting it.  But I'm new to this, so maybe it's fine as is.  And, in any event, that's a very minor point in a terrific contribution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludasaphire (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two refs that support that, although they're at the end of the para rather than the sentence. Maybe I should move the Geoff Travis quote (which really is the crux of why the Cartel mattered to the UK music scene) into the main body? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I do think it would be a good idea to move the Geoff Travis quote into the main body.  Also, I still think describing the Cartel as an "effective distributor" that had "an influence on the music itself, and the rise of 'indie'" is a conclusion, although not an unreasonable conclusion.  You might change the sentence to something like "As a result of their increasing success as a distributor in the early to mid 1980's, they had an influence on the music itself by facilitating the rise of "indie" recordings becoming available through mainstream retailers."  As I said, it's a minor point.  You can leave it as it is since, now that I think it through, your conclusion is well founded.--Ludasaphire (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony K and Richard Scott
I'm just about to undo a large deletion of a referenced section. The section claimed (with refs) that the Cartel was primarily the work of Tony K & Geoff Travis, there has been some recent editing to the effect that it was actually Richard Scott's idea.

I've no wish to start an edit war here, but before we go further:


 * Who knows the real story?


 * What was Richard Scott's involvement? Can you support this with references?


 * Why is Tony K out of the picture? Can you support this with references?

I wrote pretty much all of this originally and I have to admit I'm no expert on the detailed history. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe everything I've been told is wrong (that's certainly what Richard Scott tells me!) however block deletes aren't how we're supposed to do this. Tell us the facts, back it up, then we can change the article and get it right. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I may be of some help on both factual and philosophical matters regarding the cartel since I was part of it almost from its inception. Couple of points initially, Native was never a regional distributor, Fast Forward was formed after the original Fast Product exited. The cartel went on to become 'the chain with no name', fondly(or not) also known as "The Chain With No Brain." The demise of the cartel came after a crunch meeting with Factory & 4AD at a motorway service station where a Rough Trade-led 'management team' tried to force the labels into exclusivity with the cartel. The labels refused point blank and chose to use Pinnacle. If you'd like any more info I'd be glad to help. 82.132.136.200 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)nick Haines (inchaines@yahoo.co.uk82.132.136.200 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)