What do you think really changed in Andrew's handling of the band/brand?

[sultan2075]

I've kind of made this comment before I think. I'm in academia, and I'm extremely lucky to be in a position where I can pursue whatever interests tickle my fancy, and I have absolutely zero pressure to publish. Really the only time I bother is when a friend comes to me and says 'hey, could you write something about X for my journal.' I still write. I still teach new thinkers and texts in my classes, and I've even co-edited a couple of books. But none of that is out of professional ambition; it's stuff I do with my friends. It's nice to be able to do what I want and ignore the prestige-economy of my discipline and industry. I think Von is actually in a similar position - he can pursue his own interests as and when he wants, and he doesn't depend on the industry for his ability to do so. That's a good thing. I write lots of stuff that gets stuck in a metaphorical drawer and never sees the light of day because I write it for me, as a means of working through some ideas. Von probably writes a lot of music that gets stuck in a metaphorical drawer ('Maximum Jack,' anyone?) and never sees the light of day because he does it for himself. I'd bet he's even got bespoke soundtracks of his own work that he listens to sometimes (as an amateur musician, so do I).

My poorly-articulated point is that Von is actually in an envious position, and I bet many of his contemporaries would like to be in a similar position: he's not beholden to the recording industry in any way, and if he wants to write a bunch of new songs and play them live without releasing them, he can do so. He doesn't owe the industry anything. Not many of his contemporaries, I think, could get away with that, as much as they might want to do so. And if he wants to take a year off to hang out with his cats and avocados, he can do that too. He's free to follow his mind wherever it wants to go, and he's not fettered in by industry considerations because he doesn't wholly rely on the band for his income. He's got minimal industry pressure on him, and that's good. As much as I want another few albums (and I do!), he doesn't owe me or anyone else anything, and that's good too. Having made a few records myself in my younger days, I understand how time consuming and stressful it can be, and I don't blame him for not wanting to do it, especially given what it takes to do it right. Life's too short.

[GC]

Like any conspiracy theory, you can explain away any discrepancy by another conspiracy theory. You have to explain why both Von and Warners would have kept this a secret; how they would have kept this secret over 27 years, without anyone spilling the beans; why Warners wouldn't have sued Von for non-performance; why it isn't disproved by the release of "We Are The Same, Suzanne"; etc.

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the one given. Von gave them SSV and ceased to pursue a bunch of money they still owed him, and that was that.

But, like any conspiracy theory, the psychological motivation is to feel like the smart guy who "worked it out" and outsmarted Von in his quest to "look cool" (to randos on the internet)

Occams razor: They were a band relasing records. Conflict with record label. He went on strike. Couldnt relaease anything. SSV was not accepted. Conflict remains. Not possible to release anything (Suzanne Mp3 was removed very quickly from website) I believe its just as reasonable. But Occam's Razor is not a tool to support your own argument.... thats the whole point of it.


If he s still under contract and still on strike then that is still pretty cool. If he just doesnt want to release music then its also fine. I love seeing them live and happy that they are still going. To be honest I have no idea whether he is still under contract or not. Im not even that bothered TBH. Having a chat about the why's and wherefores is just fun. Thats a discussion forum. Reducing a discussion to a conspiracy theory is rather derogatory.

I'm literally a contract lawyer who worked for 27 years for a major record label. I promise you: you are extraordinarily incorrect in your assessment of how likely it is that he's still under contract.

A contract isn't an eternal binding force field. They expire if you don't exercise your option to extend. Nobody benefits financially from a contract that doesn't deliver on its deliverables.

At some point, there's a fairly simple assessment that anyone engaging a contractor has to make: if a contract isn't delivering, do I wait, do I sue, do I ask them to buy me out, or do I just agree to abandon it? And record companies? They'll pick the one that's the most cost-effective.

SSV was the fulfilment of the contract, Warners didn't exercise the option.

Your theory is highly unrealistic. I promise.

Ok thanks for the info. I have no idea how it works so this does shine some light.

Now did Patricia play bass on Floodland or not?

[flowers_to_burn]

I've kind of made this comment before I think. I'm in academia, and I'm extremely lucky to be in a position where I can pursue whatever interests tickle my fancy, and I have absolutely zero pressure to publish. Really the only time I bother is when a friend comes to me and says 'hey, could you write something about X for my journal.' I still write. I still teach new thinkers and texts in my classes, and I've even co-edited a couple of books. But none of that is out of professional ambition; it's stuff I do with my friends. It's nice to be able to do what I want and ignore the prestige-economy of my discipline and industry. I think Von is actually in a similar position - he can pursue his own interests as and when he wants, and he doesn't depend on the industry for his ability to do so. That's a good thing. I write lots of stuff that gets stuck in a metaphorical drawer and never sees the light of day because I write it for me, as a means of working through some ideas. Von probably writes a lot of music that gets stuck in a metaphorical drawer ('Maximum Jack,' anyone?) and never sees the light of day because he does it for himself. I'd bet he's even got bespoke soundtracks of his own work that he listens to sometimes (as an amateur musician, so do I).

My poorly-articulated point is that Von is actually in an envious position, and I bet many of his contemporaries would like to be in a similar position: he's not beholden to the recording industry in any way, and if he wants to write a bunch of new songs and play them live without releasing them, he can do so. He doesn't owe the industry anything. Not many of his contemporaries, I think, could get away with that, as much as they might want to do so. And if he wants to take a year off to hang out with his cats and avocados, he can do that too. He's free to follow his mind wherever it wants to go, and he's not fettered in by industry considerations because he doesn't wholly rely on the band for his income. He's got minimal industry pressure on him, and that's good. As much as I want another few albums (and I do!), he doesn't owe me or anyone else anything, and that's good too. Having made a few records myself in my younger days, I understand how time consuming and stressful it can be, and I don't blame him for not wanting to do it, especially given what it takes to do it right. Life's too short.

All of this. Except that I don't have your job, but I want it.

[Moderate Mick]

Unfortunately the band/Andrew is going out with a whimper rather than a bang.
A shame as lots of the new songs are good.
A couple of decent albums worth.

[GC]

quote="Moderate Mick" post_id=719958 time=1721845350 user_id=7645]
Unfortunately the band/Andrew is going out with a whimper rather than a bang.
A shame as lots of the new songs are good.
A couple of decent albums worth.
[/quote]

I dont think its a whimper. The last two shows I saw were great (Groningen). AE was happy. Lots of young people in the public so not just a legacy band. They also seem to sell out reasonably large venues.

Of course a CD (or five) would be great but then again better this than nothing.

[H. Blackrose]

The "Pearson said no " argument has been around for decades, but is it actually true? If Von wants to release them surely he can, he doesn't need anyone's permission, he just needs to credit them. If he wants to release a new version of "Jolene" as a single he doesn't ask Dolly if he can, as long as she gets her royalties everything is fine. I can release a version of "Summer" with me singing over my brother playing the Bongos and no one can stop me. ( with the caveat that my brother doesn't actually own a set of Bongos)

Even if this were legally true (why isn't "Gimme Shelter" on Wake?), if Pearson said "no, you're not allowed to release my songs", Von just might respect his wishes because he's not a jerk. And I would believe Pearson might say that because he's a freakin' weirdo.

Also, as I explained to the other guy, for this to work you have to assume that people are lying, but not give an explanation for why people are lying.

[H. Blackrose]

I'm literally a contract lawyer who worked for 27 years for a major record label. I promise you: you are extraordinarily incorrect in your assessment of how likely it is that he's still under contract.

A contract isn't an eternal binding force field. They expire if you don't exercise your option to extend. Nobody benefits financially from a contract that doesn't deliver on its deliverables.

At some point, there's a fairly simple assessment that anyone engaging a contractor has to make: if a contract isn't delivering, do I wait, do I sue, do I ask them to buy me out, or do I just agree to abandon it? And record companies? They'll pick the one that's the most cost-effective.

SSV was the fulfilment of the contract, Warners didn't exercise the option.

Your theory is highly unrealistic. I promise.

Thank you so much for killing that stupid theory dead.

[longtimelurker]

Even if this were legally true (why isn't "Gimme Shelter" on Wake?), if Pearson said "no, you're not allowed to release my songs", Von just might respect his wishes because he's not a jerk. And I would believe Pearson might say that because he's a freakin' weirdo.

Was there ever any reason given why Pearson didn't want his songs published or what his demands were?

I remember reading that synchronization rights, if that's the right term, were required for video releases, and that the Rolling Stones refused for Gimme Shelter.

[sultan2075]

I remember reading that synchronization rights, if that's the right term, were required for video releases, and that the Rolling Stones refused for Gimme Shelter.

I’ve always wondered why they denied it. Maybe because the TSOM version is so unarguably superior?

[H. Blackrose]

Was there ever any reason given why Pearson didn't want his songs published or what his demands were?

I've never seen any reason. My best guess would be that - considering that any post-97 Sisters records would have come out on Merciful Release - Pearson, who had an independent career doing music for TV, had doubts about the idea of Von being his record company as well as his band leader. As far as I can tell, Von's story is that it wasn't a straight "no" but he went back and forth on it.

[Pista]

I remember reading that synchronization rights, if that's the right term, were required for video releases, and that the Rolling Stones refused for Gimme Shelter.

The Stones were okay with it but The Sisters were denied the video rights for some reason

[Chief Cohiba]

I'm literally a contract lawyer who worked for 27 years for a major record label.
Your theory is highly unrealistic. I promise.

Well, that's better than guessing.

But nevertheless you killed our favourite conspiracy theory! What should we argue about now? The secret recipe for eternal power supply, locked away in some evil oil con's tresor? The cure against aids and the common cold, found in some south american jungle and the pharma industry doesn't want to know you about? Nessy?

[Chief Cohiba]

The Stones were okay with it but The Sisters were denied the video rights for some reason

I think usually picture rights are negotiated separately and sometimes hold by different entities.

[deirfiur]

Don't underestimate the mental and physical toll creating a recording takes on Andy.... He's referenced it a few times in songs...his personality (OCD, ADHD, perfectionism etc) means that he is never satisfied with final recordings...mixes upon mixes finding faults that don't exist... at least live, you play it and it's done... with a recording, it's there in perpetuity to haunt you for the (supposed) failings

His stage fright is extreme enough without wanting to go through the dreaded recording process

[sultan2075]

he is never satisfied with final recordings...mixes upon mixes finding faults that don't exist... at least live, you play it and it's done... with a recording, it's there in perpetuity to haunt you for the (supposed) failings

I get that. Sometimes when I listen back to stuff I've played on, I wince at the production. I wince more when I'm the one who produced it, and even more when I realize that at the time I thought it sounded great!

[Fallon]

The "Pearson said no " argument has been around for decades, but is it actually true? If Von wants to release them surely he can, he doesn't need anyone's permission, he just needs to credit them. If he wants to release a new version of "Jolene" as a single he doesn't ask Dolly if he can, as long as she gets her royalties everything is fine. I can release a version of "Summer" with me singing over my brother playing the Bongos and no one can stop me. ( with the caveat that my brother doesn't actually own a set of Bongos)

Even if this were legally true (why isn't "Gimme Shelter" on Wake?), if Pearson said "no, you're not allowed to release my songs", Von just might respect his wishes because he's not a jerk. And I would believe Pearson might say that because he's a freakin' weirdo.

Also, as I explained to the other guy, for this to work you have to assume that people are lying, but not give an explanation for why people are lying.

Another take from "the industry": if Pearson didn't want to cooperate in putting out music, that means, in all likelihood, that no commercial-quality recordings were made. If the band had independently funded some studio time (which I doubt), and those tracks existed, then they would have been released, to recoup the cost of recording or to pay the players - for the time period, record sales were still important, The Sisters werent netting huge profits from touring alone. They weren't signed at the time, so the band would only have been able to properly record things when they had the funds on-hand to pay for it, or they anticipated an income stream at the end of it. And Eldritch isn't funding the band out of his own royalties from previous records (that gets legally difficult, and is unwise). That's the real reason Suzanne is the only "official" independent release, in my estimation: live recordings are cheaper because (simplifying slightly here for comic effect): all you have to do is plug a tape recorder into the tech that's already been set up, to capture a performance that was going to happen anyway.

The reasons he hasn't released anything haven't actually changed much, but the balance of influence between each reason has shifted with the industry: it used to be a gambit to record something independently and shop it around to major distributors in order to have them turn it into a profit for you, particularly if you wanted to keep your creative independence ("these recordings are great, but we don't want to licence them on their own. We'll licence them as part of a bigger record deal, but we'll tell you what to do on the next record"). Nowadays, it's cheap and simple to record and distribute something on your own, but theres less money at the end of it than there is if you're a touring-only outfit.

So, in order for Eldritch to go against Adam's wishes and release the songs they wrote together, he has to either record them first, or use demos/test material. In order to record them, first he has to pay someone else to play them. If he asks Ben to do that, he's effectively saying "I'll give you some money for the labour, but you won't get a royalty off the back". And if the aim was to do an album, he'd have to ask Ben "can we do an album where we take up some of the time/space with songs for which you won't see a penny?". If he uses old material Adam recorded, he has to put the rest of the band in the position of "There's a new Sisters recording... but you're not on it".

I'm not saying the rest of the band would automatically refuse any of this (who knows?) but it would be churlish to ask, and foolish to expect. Especially when they make enough money to keep going, without bothering to think about records.

Again, I'd say that the most likely way a Sisters record would happen, is if the rest of the band did it all and just had him plug his vox in at the end. Someone else needs to do all the effort and it could happen. It's not worth the effort to Eldritch, financially or relationship wise... and even if that were a possibility, it's an outside one. There's the whole question of artistry too, which the occasional punter might argue is actually more important than the financials. It's always been clear, since the earliest live recordings, that he likes the songs to evolve and change over time, he likes re-arranging, improv-ing, and allowing the tunes to be organic, living things. I don't think he's that fussed about providing a "definitive" document of any given song - getting a single on Peel, and making Floodland were really the only times that making a record was an inherent part of the creative process.

[longtimelurker]

Another take from "the industry": if Pearson didn't want to cooperate in putting out music, that means, in all likelihood, that no commercial-quality recordings were made. If the band had independently funded some studio time (which I doubt), and those tracks existed, then they would have been released, to recoup the cost of recording or to pay the players - for the time period, record sales were still important, The Sisters werent netting huge profits from touring alone. They weren't signed at the time, so the band would only have been able to properly record things when they had the funds on-hand to pay for it, or they anticipated an income stream at the end of it. And Eldritch isn't funding the band out of his own royalties from previous records (that gets legally difficult, and is unwise). That's the real reason Suzanne is the only "official" independent release, in my estimation: live recordings are cheaper because (simplifying slightly here for comic effect): all you have to do is plug a tape recorder into the tech that's already been set up, to capture a performance that was going to happen anyway.

As a lay person I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. How viable/expensive was home recording during that era? Eldritch presumably already had decent equipment, plus was fairly computer savvy. Could he have created something approaching "commercial-quality" without studio time in your estimation? (say something on the level of Alice 93?) It would be nice if at least some high quality vocal stems from the Pearson era existed.

[z666]

That idea Eldritch has been floating about "not definitive versions of the new songs", "evolving the music" and all that is b*llocks. You can go listen to the first time any of the unreleased tracks were performed live 20+ years ago, then go listen to whatever tour you want inbetween and then listen again whenever they were performed in the last couple of years, and hear the diference. None. There may be a slight change of a lyric, a couple of notes in a lick or something like that, but the songs are the same. As a matter of fact they have experimented way more with any of the released tracks over the years than they have with the non released ones. We've had significant changes in tempo, melodies and vocal lines with FALAA, Burn, Anaconda, NTTC... almost every song they've been playing from before Floodland has seen three or four different versions over the years. Floodland and VT tracks are a bit more fixed, but all the older stuff isn't, except Alice I'd say. None of the unreleased tracks has seen evolution of any kind: Summer, Suzanne, Crash & Burn, Arms... they have stayed the same. Another silly excuse. He doesn't want to release a studio version of those tracks, but not because of "evolving" them or with them.

[deirfiur]

If Andy wanted to release music, he would release music.. Andy does not want to release music ... all other discussion re contracts, personalities etc are mute

[Fallon]

That idea Eldritch has been floating about "not definitive versions of the new songs", "evolving the music" and all that is b*llocks. You can go listen to the first time any of the unreleased tracks were performed live 20+ years ago, then go listen to whatever tour you want inbetween and then listen again whenever they were performed in the last couple of years, and hear the diference. None. There may be a slight change of a lyric, a couple of notes in a lick or something like that, but the songs are the same. As a matter of fact they have experimented way more with any of the released tracks over the years than they have with the non released ones. We've had significant changes in tempo, melodies and vocal lines with FALAA, Burn, Anaconda, NTTC... almost every song they've been playing from before Floodland has seen three or four different versions over the years. Floodland and VT tracks are a bit more fixed, but all the older stuff isn't, except Alice I'd say. None of the unreleased tracks has seen evolution of any kind: Summer, Suzanne, Crash & Burn, Arms... they have stayed the same. Another silly excuse. He doesn't want to release a studio version of those tracks, but not because of "evolving" them or with them.

I think you've misunderstood my point, though I grant I didn't phrase it very well. I was simply saying that, if you're not someone who is a particularly strong believer in the idea of an endorsed, recorded, documented "final" version of a song - which, as you rightly identify, Andy was not, when the band was recording - that's one more reason not to feel any great compulsion to record when you're not under contract to do so. I didn't word it very well but I was referring more to the idea that I think he's comfortable with things existing and leaving and breathing totally live, and surviving entirely on the relationship between the performer and the audience. I was referring to the evolution/re-arrangement of earlier songs in a more illustrative way: given that he's not even beholden to the recorded versions of the songs he has made, it's not inconceivable that he'd be even less beholden to records he hasn't made.

[sultan2075]

That idea Eldritch has been floating about "not definitive versions of the new songs", "evolving the music" and all that is b*llocks. You can go listen to the first time any of the unreleased tracks were performed live 20+ years ago, then go listen to whatever tour you want inbetween and then listen again whenever they were performed in the last couple of years, and hear the diference. None. There may be a slight change of a lyric, a couple of notes in a lick or something like that, but the songs are the same. As a matter of fact they have experimented way more with any of the released tracks over the years than they have with the non released ones. We've had significant changes in tempo, melodies and vocal lines with FALAA, Burn, Anaconda, NTTC... almost every song they've been playing from before Floodland has seen three or four different versions over the years. Floodland and VT tracks are a bit more fixed, but all the older stuff isn't, except Alice I'd say. None of the unreleased tracks has seen evolution of any kind: Summer, Suzanne, Crash & Burn, Arms... they have stayed the same. Another silly excuse. He doesn't want to release a studio version of those tracks, but not because of "evolving" them or with them.

I think you've misunderstood my point, though I grant I didn't phrase it very well. I was simply saying that, if you're not someone who is a particularly strong believer in the idea of an endorsed, recorded, documented "final" version of a song - which, as you rightly identify, Andy was not, when the band was recording - that's one more reason not to feel any great compulsion to record when you're not under contract to do so. I didn't word it very well but I was referring more to the idea that I think he's comfortable with things existing and leaving and breathing totally live, and surviving entirely on the relationship between the performer and the audience. I was referring to the evolution/re-arrangement of earlier songs in a more illustrative way: given that he's not even beholden to the recorded versions of the songs he has made, it's not inconceivable that he'd be even less beholden to records he hasn't made.

To this we might add that today many view records as advertisements for the live show rather than artistic products in their own right, and the Sisters clearly do alright in the live arena without needing those particular advertisements. Even more mainstream acts recognize this reality - the guitarist for Exodus recently commented that they are, in essence, a t-shirt company that makes music sometimes. The industry has changed in significant ways, and in light of those changes, I can see the calculation on recording changing as well.

[z666]

Oh, but he was. I mean, all bands tinker with their songs live, that's part of the appeal of concerts. And yet they record albums, just as writers publish books, filmmakers make films and so on. Releasing stuff is part of the process of being an artist, a document of the time, effort and inspiration you have dedicated to a particular project during a period of time, and in music's case you do that by releasing a collection of songs. But the fact that you release a track doesn't make It the final version. You can remix It as much as you want, re-record It and perform it in a thousand different ways live over the years. That's true for every musician that have had a career and was true for Eldritch for more than a decade, when they played songs live before and after they were recorded. And that was never a problem for him. Well, It was, he always had a love/hate relationship with studios, but thankfully he did It anyway.

So, again, it's not that I mean that he's wrong by not recording and album or whatever. There's no right or wrong with that, is his career and he does what he wants with It. But he can't be serious about the non-definitive versions of the songs as a reason for not recording while playing them exactly the same for over twenty years, because that makes them even more definitive than the already released stuff. If they were reworking the songs in any way we would have listen to different versions live, just as we did with the older stuff. We haven't, so is relatively safe to assume those are pretty much final versions of the songs. Or as final as they get given they exist only in their live versions.

Read that stuff from Exodus bassist, and he's right on point: he doesn't understand the music industry anymore. He went with the band through the 80 and 90's, when labels paid for everything and yet sales were big enough to make money anyway. That's gone, obviously. Probably they're selling 5-10% of what they used to sell back in the day, but that's not a reason for not making music. You only need to do It differently, that's It. And assume you're gonna sell just a fraction of what you did in the past. Some years ago I had a long and very interesting chat with Joe Elliott about the music industry and they had gone through exactly the same mental process, not wanting to release new stuff because that was a waste of money and because nobody cares about the new music anyway, so why bother? Well, in the end they did because they're musicians, they liked what they had written and recorded and they needed to get those tracks out for good. They simply worked It out to make the process more... efficient, I guess. It's a matter of how much value you put into releasing an album: for most bands, luckily, it's worth the time, the effort and the inspiration even if they make much less money, or no money at all from doing It, they simply find a way. For Eldritch isn't. And that's ok for both sides of the argument.

[sultan2075]

As a lay person I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. How viable/expensive was home recording during that era? Eldritch presumably already had decent equipment, plus was fairly computer savvy. Could he have created something approaching "commercial-quality" without studio time in your estimation? (say something on the level of Alice 93?) It would be nice if at least some high quality vocal stems from the Pearson era existed.

I'm inclined to say 'no,' honestly. A pretty decent sheen was possible, of course, but not to the professional and polished degree that I think would be expected from a TSOM record. FALAA is a relatively straightforward affair (thus Von's crack about 'iffy production' on it or something), but Floodland, Vision Thing, and Temple 92/UTG/Alice 93 sound, to my ears, much more nuanced and complex in terms of production - even as the sound gets more directly 'rock'.

Personally, whenever I listen to Alice 93 I just think about what might have been - Summer, etc., with that style of production, would have been phenomenal.

[Phil]

I guess it wouldn't be so bad if the new songs were bad, or unimaginative and boring. Personally I think they're as good as any of the recorded stuff and in some cases better.

If you're reading this Andrew, can we just have a live gig posted online in mp3s? Just one, it's even easier than t-shirts.

[Ocean Moves]

For me, there's something significant about a studio recording and how it makes a statement about the
bands sound - the atmosphere, the sound staging of the music, in the case of the Sisters, the way
the drums sound, the way Andrews vocals are miccd etc- i.e. the technology, the decisions made in that moment
and the people involved. These are all immortalised in the recording.

A Sisters live show has a much more uniform consistency due to the parameters of the kit used for the show.
The sound increments slowly with each passing musician or piece of kit.

I agree with the comment that the new songs have hardly changed in their live structure over the years.

The most noticeable change for me is that their rendering changes with the musician - for example,
(We are the same) Suzanne for me always sounds "right" with the guitar licks performed in 1998
when it was written by those involved. (1998 Roskilde version is superb) the later versions all sound derivative - especially Ben's guitarwork
I find somewhat clumsy and mechanical, whereas the 1998 version has a fluid subtlety about it.

Personally I'd be a bit disappointed to wait 25 years to get a live show released by the band;
there's a ton of recordings, many of good quality, floating around already.