Question about Giving Ground
The song has been performed live by The Sisters many times, but I was wondering if there exists a circa-1986 demo recording with Andrew Eldritch vocals? And if such a recording does exist, whether or not it's currently in circulation?
My friends call me Jack.
-
Skip Intro
- Road Kill
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 15 Jan 2010, 11:59
John R is in Midtown Detroit...
If you go across Cass Avenue in the 'Cass Corridor' section of Midtown Detroit, then go across Woodward Avenue (where that photo of the Sisters was shot in Detroit on the inner cover of FALAA), you get to the Detroit suburb of Brush Park.
On the far side of Brush Park is John R Boulevard, near the DMC Hospital.
There you will find your answer...[/img]
If you go across Cass Avenue in the 'Cass Corridor' section of Midtown Detroit, then go across Woodward Avenue (where that photo of the Sisters was shot in Detroit on the inner cover of FALAA), you get to the Detroit suburb of Brush Park.
On the far side of Brush Park is John R Boulevard, near the DMC Hospital.
There you will find your answer...[/img]
Huh??Skip Intro wrote:John R is in Midtown Detroit...
If you go across Cass Avenue in the 'Cass Corridor' section of Midtown Detroit, then go across Woodward Avenue (where that photo of the Sisters was shot in Detroit on the inner cover of FALAA), you get to the Detroit suburb of Brush Park.
On the far side of Brush Park is John R Boulevard, near the DMC Hospital.
There you will find your answer...[/img]
To go back to the original question, I'm not aware of any demo versions of the song. Even the people who have the very rare stuff have never mentioned a demo of Giving Ground, so *if* it exists it's locked in Eldritch's vault.
Wasn't he legally not permitted to actually perform on the Sisterhood stuff anyway?
+1 i think so too, there must be something written about this somewhere from first hand witnessesPista wrote:Wasn't he legally not permitted to actually perform on the Sisterhood stuff anyway?
'Are we the Baddies?'...
"Someday! Someday, everything you need, is just gonna fall out of the sky..." -A.E. Reading 1991
"Don't forget that most of the judges in witches trials had harvard degrees."
"Someday! Someday, everything you need, is just gonna fall out of the sky..." -A.E. Reading 1991
"Don't forget that most of the judges in witches trials had harvard degrees."
Just had a look at the amazing Sisters wiki & read thisiesus wrote:+1 i think so too, there must be something written about this somewhere from first hand witnessesPista wrote:Wasn't he legally not permitted to actually perform on the Sisterhood stuff anyway?
-
Being645
- Wiki Wizard
- Posts: 15286
- Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 12:54
- Location: reconstruction status: whatever the f**k
Oh yes, another SistersWiki page that is work in progress ... 
...
Anyway, there some first-hand info at http://www.the-sisters-of-mercy.com/gen/regift.htm ...
...
...Anyway, there some first-hand info at http://www.the-sisters-of-mercy.com/gen/regift.htm ...
...
I've always suspected the claimed release date (ie the same day as Hussey's band's first performance) is Von's traditional rewriting of history to suit his preferred way of telling the story, as the band performed under that name for another month supporting The Cult (the last Sisterhood gig was 20th February); and also because it's often been reported that Von went to some early gigs and said the songs (which he'd previously rejected for SOM) were good. The implication has always been (from every quarter other than Von) that things were still fairly amicable at this point and only soured when some venues and promoters started advertising Hussey's band (despite Wayne and co asking them to stop) as "the new Sisters of Mercy".Pista wrote:Just had a look at the amazing Sisters wiki & read thisiesus wrote:+1 i think so too, there must be something written about this somewhere from first hand witnessesPista wrote:Wasn't he legally not permitted to actually perform on the Sisterhood stuff anyway?
So if Giving Ground was released on the day Wayne's band debuted, it didn't do a very good job of preventing them from using the name and didn't stop Von from going to see them and paying them compliments!
I could be wrong, but it seems likely that Giving Ground didn't come out till late February or early March.
Any more of that and we'll be round your front door with the quick-setting whitewash and the shaved monkey.
-
Being645
- Wiki Wizard
- Posts: 15286
- Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 12:54
- Location: reconstruction status: whatever the f**k
Check the UK Indie Charts 1986
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... 1980s#1986
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... 1980s#1986
wikipedia wrote: The single was released as planned on 20 January 1986, the same day that Hussey and Adams played their debut concert in London as the Sisterhood. The press hype about the two conflicting parties made the single enter the UK Indie Chart on 8 February, where it got to no. 1 on 15 February 1986.
Hmm, although the wiki quotes are a week out of sync (the link says it was no 1 on 8th February), that would seem to support a January release. But in that case I'll say it again: Wayne and co were calling themselves The Sisterhood for a full month after this, suggesting something about the story doesn't quite add up.
Any more of that and we'll be round your front door with the quick-setting whitewash and the shaved monkey.
Aye, but DNA entertainment had to put a disclaimer on all the publicitystufarq wrote: Wayne and co were calling themselves The Sisterhood for a full month after this, suggesting something about the story doesn't quite add up.
It's a little bit small, but it makes it clear they are nothing to do with the single entitled Giving Ground etc.
Not sure why they retained the name, but perhaps it was just while all the legal issues were tied up.
Ha! That's actually quite funny - and shows how stupid the whole thing was. But it's also interesting because that's the gig where they first unveiled the new name. If memory serves, they didn't announce it before the show but instead unveiled a backdrop/banner and said "this is our new name" or something to that effect. So perhaps this was just milking the last drop of publicity from it all.
Also interestingly, the Mish's old biography, Names are for Tombstones Baby, agrees that the name change was forced by the release of the single, but claims it was a fortnight before this gig. That doesn't quite square with the chart link posted by Being645, but it's only a week out, so it's feasible the single was released at the start of February, around the time the last Sisterhood gigs were played, but sold quickly enough to chart at no 1 within a few days. That would make more sense than the band continuing to use the name for a month.
As for the legal issues being tied up, isn't that all just more exaggeration on Von's part? According to Tony Perrin (the Mish's then manager) it never went to court (and why would it?) and all that ever happened was Von's lawyers would occasionally send him a letter, the Mish's lawyers would reply and then absolutely nothing would happen.
Also interestingly, the Mish's old biography, Names are for Tombstones Baby, agrees that the name change was forced by the release of the single, but claims it was a fortnight before this gig. That doesn't quite square with the chart link posted by Being645, but it's only a week out, so it's feasible the single was released at the start of February, around the time the last Sisterhood gigs were played, but sold quickly enough to chart at no 1 within a few days. That would make more sense than the band continuing to use the name for a month.
As for the legal issues being tied up, isn't that all just more exaggeration on Von's part? According to Tony Perrin (the Mish's then manager) it never went to court (and why would it?) and all that ever happened was Von's lawyers would occasionally send him a letter, the Mish's lawyers would reply and then absolutely nothing would happen.
Any more of that and we'll be round your front door with the quick-setting whitewash and the shaved monkey.
Was just before 1969 & he started talking about "a record" & asking the crowd if they liked it. He then said, "Because of Andrew, we'll no longer be called The Sisterhood. All will be unveiled soon".stufarq wrote:Ha! That's actually quite funny - and shows how stupid the whole thing was. But it's also interesting because that's the gig where they first unveiled the new name. If memory serves, they didn't announce it before the show but instead unveiled a backdrop/banner and said "this is our new name" or something to that effect. So perhaps this was just milking the last drop of publicity from it all.
Bit hazy on the banner though. Was a bit whammo'd TBH.
I might be wrong, but I'm sure I read somewhere they revealed the name by letting the backcloth with the new name on it drop open behind them. Except it got stuck and didn't open properly.
Of course, I could be confusing two separate events.
Apparently Von was there that night.
Of course, I could be confusing two separate events.
Apparently Von was there that night.
Any more of that and we'll be round your front door with the quick-setting whitewash and the shaved monkey.
In deference to an awesome post in another thread by Nikolas Vitus Lagartija
An oak-panelled office, possibly in England, possibly in Hamburg, an unspecified date in early 1986. A distinguished elderly gentleman sits behind a desk, quill in one hand, ear trumpet in the other. Opposite him sits a figure so black that no matter can escape from his vicinity. Except his face, which is so white and gaunt it’s hard to tell whether it’s skin or just skull.
Mr Entwhistle (of Entwhistle, Entwhistle, Satan and Entwhistle): You wished to discuss a matter of trademark infringement, I believe.
Von: Yes. My old bandmate Wayne, may his name be cursed forever, and my other old bandmate Craig, can’t be bothered cursing his name too, have started themselves a new band.
Mr E: They are perfectly within their rights to do so. They have, I am reliably informed, parted company with your own musical endeavour and there is nothing to stop them beginning one of their own.
Von: Yes, but you see, they’re calling themselves The Sisterhood.
Mr E: So I believe. Rather clever of them, if I may say so.
Von: No you may not! And we agreed that none of us would use the name.
Mr E: The name “The Sisterhood�?
Von: No, The Sisters of Mercy. None of us can call ourselves The Sisters of Mercy. We agreed.
Mr E: But they are not calling themselves The Sisters of Mercy. They are calling themselves The Sisterhood.
Von: Same diff.
Mr E: I’m afraid not. While they both contain an obvious similarity, they are clearly not the same name. Which is why I thought it was rather clever.
Von: Stop saying that! Whose side are you on anyway?
Mr E: I am on the side of the law. And legally they have done nothing wrong.
Von: Well sue them!
Mr E: You can’t sue them. They’ve committed no crime.
Von: But they’re trading off the Sisters’ name.
Mr E: That’s as maybe, but in they eyes of the law they have done nothing wrong and, if I may use the vernacular for a moment, they have given it to you up the rear passage in quite spectacular fashion.
Von: I demand that you sue them. And while you’re at it, sue Swing Out Sister, Twisted Sister and Sister Sledge too. And Percy Sledge.
Mr E: I’m afraid you can’t sue everyone who uses the word “sister�. You don’t own it. Your former colleagues are fully entitled to continue using their chosen name. For the moment.
Von: (leaning forward) What do you mean “for the moment�?
Mr E: (a devious smile playing over his wizened features) I believe they have yet to release any phonographical recordings to the public under that moniker.
Von: You mean ... ?
Mr E: Were someone else to do so first, they would have a prior legal claim to registering the name as a trademark.
Von: So all I need to do is get a record out under that name and then I’ll be up their rear passage instead?
Mr E: That’s the spirit. However, you are currently under contract. There are various legal complications –
Von: Stuff that. I’ll just get some mates to do it for me. Just need a few songs. I can toss them off in a few days. They don’t have to be good, they just have to be out. Hey – I could get the record out the same day as they play their first gig. That’d really show them.
Mr E: That might be difficult as they have already performed several concerts under that name.
Von: Well, we’ll say we got it out the same day. It’s not as if the fans’ll ever be able to check up. Send Wayne one of those cease and desist notices.
Mr E: I cannot do that until he has done something illegal.
Von: But we’re gonna be saying the record’s been out for weeks, so just send it. We can keep sending him letters, threatening court action etc. We’ll call it (pauses for dramatic effect) The Corporate Wars.
Mr E: But it’s not really corporate, is it? It’s just yourself and Mr Hussey with, frankly, handbags at dawn.
Von: (drawing himself up to his full height and spreading his not-at-all becloaked wings menacingly) CORPORATE. WARS.
Mr E: (tactfully trying to sink further into his chair so Von’s full height is at least a little bit taller than Mr E seated) Very well, if you insist. But you realise it will never actually go to court. I’ll send them letters, they’ll send me letters, it'll all be a lot of very expensive letter writing and nothing more.
Von: Worth every penny to make sure they don’t get into the charts before I do. By the way, just how expensive?
Mr E: My usual fee.
(He writes on a sheet of paper and pushes it across the table. Von picks it up, reads it and smiles. It says “Two five zero zero zero. Been had.�)
An oak-panelled office, possibly in England, possibly in Hamburg, an unspecified date in early 1986. A distinguished elderly gentleman sits behind a desk, quill in one hand, ear trumpet in the other. Opposite him sits a figure so black that no matter can escape from his vicinity. Except his face, which is so white and gaunt it’s hard to tell whether it’s skin or just skull.
Mr Entwhistle (of Entwhistle, Entwhistle, Satan and Entwhistle): You wished to discuss a matter of trademark infringement, I believe.
Von: Yes. My old bandmate Wayne, may his name be cursed forever, and my other old bandmate Craig, can’t be bothered cursing his name too, have started themselves a new band.
Mr E: They are perfectly within their rights to do so. They have, I am reliably informed, parted company with your own musical endeavour and there is nothing to stop them beginning one of their own.
Von: Yes, but you see, they’re calling themselves The Sisterhood.
Mr E: So I believe. Rather clever of them, if I may say so.
Von: No you may not! And we agreed that none of us would use the name.
Mr E: The name “The Sisterhood�?
Von: No, The Sisters of Mercy. None of us can call ourselves The Sisters of Mercy. We agreed.
Mr E: But they are not calling themselves The Sisters of Mercy. They are calling themselves The Sisterhood.
Von: Same diff.
Mr E: I’m afraid not. While they both contain an obvious similarity, they are clearly not the same name. Which is why I thought it was rather clever.
Von: Stop saying that! Whose side are you on anyway?
Mr E: I am on the side of the law. And legally they have done nothing wrong.
Von: Well sue them!
Mr E: You can’t sue them. They’ve committed no crime.
Von: But they’re trading off the Sisters’ name.
Mr E: That’s as maybe, but in they eyes of the law they have done nothing wrong and, if I may use the vernacular for a moment, they have given it to you up the rear passage in quite spectacular fashion.
Von: I demand that you sue them. And while you’re at it, sue Swing Out Sister, Twisted Sister and Sister Sledge too. And Percy Sledge.
Mr E: I’m afraid you can’t sue everyone who uses the word “sister�. You don’t own it. Your former colleagues are fully entitled to continue using their chosen name. For the moment.
Von: (leaning forward) What do you mean “for the moment�?
Mr E: (a devious smile playing over his wizened features) I believe they have yet to release any phonographical recordings to the public under that moniker.
Von: You mean ... ?
Mr E: Were someone else to do so first, they would have a prior legal claim to registering the name as a trademark.
Von: So all I need to do is get a record out under that name and then I’ll be up their rear passage instead?
Mr E: That’s the spirit. However, you are currently under contract. There are various legal complications –
Von: Stuff that. I’ll just get some mates to do it for me. Just need a few songs. I can toss them off in a few days. They don’t have to be good, they just have to be out. Hey – I could get the record out the same day as they play their first gig. That’d really show them.
Mr E: That might be difficult as they have already performed several concerts under that name.
Von: Well, we’ll say we got it out the same day. It’s not as if the fans’ll ever be able to check up. Send Wayne one of those cease and desist notices.
Mr E: I cannot do that until he has done something illegal.
Von: But we’re gonna be saying the record’s been out for weeks, so just send it. We can keep sending him letters, threatening court action etc. We’ll call it (pauses for dramatic effect) The Corporate Wars.
Mr E: But it’s not really corporate, is it? It’s just yourself and Mr Hussey with, frankly, handbags at dawn.
Von: (drawing himself up to his full height and spreading his not-at-all becloaked wings menacingly) CORPORATE. WARS.
Mr E: (tactfully trying to sink further into his chair so Von’s full height is at least a little bit taller than Mr E seated) Very well, if you insist. But you realise it will never actually go to court. I’ll send them letters, they’ll send me letters, it'll all be a lot of very expensive letter writing and nothing more.
Von: Worth every penny to make sure they don’t get into the charts before I do. By the way, just how expensive?
Mr E: My usual fee.
(He writes on a sheet of paper and pushes it across the table. Von picks it up, reads it and smiles. It says “Two five zero zero zero. Been had.�)
Any more of that and we'll be round your front door with the quick-setting whitewash and the shaved monkey.
You & Nik should collaborate. I'd pay to see that.
Yeah, but then there'd be the inevitable acrimonious split, he'd say my posts were good but refuse to read them, I'd refuse to put him on the guest list and this forum would be full of threads debating who posted first and whether the change of avatar was a deliberate provocation. Then I'd say I'm never going to post any more but I'd keep coming back with new posts every few years, while he'd keep posting but the font would get smaller and smaller until it was completely unreadable.
Any more of that and we'll be round your front door with the quick-setting whitewash and the shaved monkey.
-
million voices
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: 10 May 2006, 22:31
- Location: The Ballrooms Of Mars
Excellent stuff
It looks like the film script for the first 40 years of the band is slowly coming together
It looks like the film script for the first 40 years of the band is slowly coming together
Well you must know something
'Cos we're dying of admiration here
Mastering obscure alternatives
'Cos we're dying of admiration here
Mastering obscure alternatives
-
centurionofprix
- Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 538
- Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 18:44
- Location: Finland
I'm not sure about that. Wayne had an interview recently (or maybe a few years ago; my sense of time doesn't work with Sisters) where he said he was in the wrong w.r.t. using the Sisters' name. Given that, I'd assume there was more to the dispute than a promotor's slight overstepping.stufarq wrote:I've always suspected the claimed release date (ie the same day as Hussey's band's first performance) is Von's traditional rewriting of history to suit his preferred way of telling the story, as the band performed under that name for another month supporting The Cult (the last Sisterhood gig was 20th February); and also because it's often been reported that Von went to some early gigs and said the songs (which he'd previously rejected for SOM) were good. The implication has always been (from every quarter other than Von) that things were still fairly amicable at this point and only soured when some venues and promoters started advertising Hussey's band (despite Wayne and co asking them to stop) as "the new Sisters of Mercy".Pista wrote:Just had a look at the amazing Sisters wiki & read thisiesus wrote: +1 i think so too, there must be something written about this somewhere from first hand witnesses
I thought the initial split was also amicable according to Eldritch. Only the release dates don't seem to match.
Yes, Wayne has said that he now thinks he was wrong to use the name The Sisterhood, which was always calculated to annoy Von. But he never sanctioned the use of Sisters of Mercy in promotion. In fact, when I was rereading that bit in Names are for Tombstones the other day, I came across a paragraph where it said a (unnamed) fan had started a rumour the first gig was to be a Sisters reunion, which riled pretty much everyone, so that's where it began. Then European promoters started billing them as "ex-SOM" or "the new SOM" when they were supporting The Cult.centurionofprix wrote:I'm not sure about that. Wayne had an interview recently (or maybe a few years ago; my sense of time doesn't work with Sisters) where he said he was in the wrong w.r.t. using the Sisters' name. Given that, I'd assume there was more to the dispute than a promotor's slight overstepping.stufarq wrote:I've always suspected the claimed release date (ie the same day as Hussey's band's first performance) is Von's traditional rewriting of history to suit his preferred way of telling the story, as the band performed under that name for another month supporting The Cult (the last Sisterhood gig was 20th February); and also because it's often been reported that Von went to some early gigs and said the songs (which he'd previously rejected for SOM) were good. The implication has always been (from every quarter other than Von) that things were still fairly amicable at this point and only soured when some venues and promoters started advertising Hussey's band (despite Wayne and co asking them to stop) as "the new Sisters of Mercy".Pista wrote: Just had a look at the amazing Sisters wiki & read this
I thought the initial split was also amicable according to Eldritch. Only the release dates don't seem to match.
And yes, Von has said that the split was initially amicable, but according to his version things soured as soon as Wayne et al started using The Sisterhood name, whereas other versions say it wasn't until a few weeks later, when "Sisters of Mercy" started appearing on posters. Of course, it could just be that they didn't know how badly he was taking it until later, but in that case why would he go to their gigs and tell them the songs sounded good?
Any more of that and we'll be round your front door with the quick-setting whitewash and the shaved monkey.
-
million voices
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: 10 May 2006, 22:31
- Location: The Ballrooms Of Mars
He went to the their gig out of curiosity
He told them the songs sounded good because he really thought they were crap and the new band would soon disappear
Just a guess
He told them the songs sounded good because he really thought they were crap and the new band would soon disappear
Just a guess
Well you must know something
'Cos we're dying of admiration here
Mastering obscure alternatives
'Cos we're dying of admiration here
Mastering obscure alternatives
-
centurionofprix
- Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 538
- Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 18:44
- Location: Finland
Hm. Then, did Wayne and friends actually call themselves The Sisterhood from the beginning? Could Andrew have seen a gig of theirs not called by that name?stufarq wrote:Yes, Wayne has said that he now thinks he was wrong to use the name The Sisterhood, which was always calculated to annoy Von. But he never sanctioned the use of Sisters of Mercy in promotion. In fact, when I was rereading that bit in Names are for Tombstones the other day, I came across a paragraph where it said a (unnamed) fan had started a rumour the first gig was to be a Sisters reunion, which riled pretty much everyone, so that's where it began. Then European promoters started billing them as "ex-SOM" or "the new SOM" when they were supporting The Cult.centurionofprix wrote: I'm not sure about that. Wayne had an interview recently (or maybe a few years ago; my sense of time doesn't work with Sisters) where he said he was in the wrong w.r.t. using the Sisters' name. Given that, I'd assume there was more to the dispute than a promotor's slight overstepping.
I thought the initial split was also amicable according to Eldritch. Only the release dates don't seem to match.
And yes, Von has said that the split was initially amicable, but according to his version things soured as soon as Wayne et al started using The Sisterhood name, whereas other versions say it wasn't until a few weeks later, when "Sisters of Mercy" started appearing on posters. Of course, it could just be that they didn't know how badly he was taking it until later, but in that case why would he go to their gigs and tell them the songs sounded good?
I thought preventing Wayne from using the name was part of The Sisterhood's story since very early on, at least. Maybe Wayne's Sisterhood were still allowed to play concerts, but not to release anything under that name?
I believe they intended to use The Sisterhood & certainly that's the name they unveiled themselves as & toured under with The Cult, but Von basically freaked out & registered a company called The Sisterhood Limited as quick as he could thus forcing them into changing the name (prolly to avoid legal issues).centurionofprix wrote:
Hm. Then, did Wayne and friends actually call themselves The Sisterhood from the beginning? Could Andrew have seen a gig of theirs not called by that name?
I thought preventing Wayne from using the name was part of The Sisterhood's story since very early on, at least. Maybe Wayne's Sisterhood were still allowed to play concerts, but not to release anything under that name?
I'm pretty sure they were The Sisterhood from their first gig at Alice In Wonderland on 20th January 1986.centurionofprix wrote: Hm. Then, did Wayne and friends actually call themselves The Sisterhood from the beginning? Could Andrew have seen a gig of theirs not called by that name?
I thought preventing Wayne from using the name was part of The Sisterhood's story since very early on, at least. Maybe Wayne's Sisterhood were still allowed to play concerts, but not to release anything under that name?
The day before on 19th they recorded a Janice Long radio session that was broadcast on 3rd February.