Heartland

Posted: **29 Mar 2023, 11:59**

I don't think any of the band members have been on any kind of retainer since Andreas and Tim.

Posted: **30 Mar 2023, 10:43**

Todashi wrote: ↑29 Mar 2023, 10:05 I'd be surprised if there's much to pay for paying 10 or 12 gigs a year or so in performance royalties. None of the new songs are recorded and released, which means no publishing, sales or streaming royalties for anyone involved. I'd guess the main beneficieries are the guys actually on stage performing the songs, and hence getting a cut of the door/merch etc.

Anyone know more about how that kind of thing plays out?

I do.

Performance royalties are all to play for. The fact that they're not recorded doesn't really come into it. Hussey is getting money every time Marian is played live, regardless of the fact that it appears on record.

Indeed I've often wondered over the years if Von's refusal to sing anyone else's lyrics has as much to do with wanting to have a piece of the songwriting as it does to do with Hussey's lyrics being "feeble-minded" (though certainly both can comfortably be true). He's very savvy on the business/legal side of things and I tend to find that a huge number of the decisions he positions as being matters of principle, actually have a pretty strong "cash money" correlation to them

Todashi wrote:I feel a bit 'icky' discussing anyone's specific wages - it's really none of my business - but I'd be surprised if that's the case. It just seems unlikely given that Ben in particular has been around for a long time now, and you'd imagine there'd be some recognition that if either or both Ben and Dylan were unavailable then it'd be hard for the show to go on.

Not that it couldn't, but it'd be a lot of hassle. You'd have to think there's a monetary value attached to avoiding that hassle. But as I said, it's personal stuff for those involved.

I was really wondering more about how things like performance royalties trickle down if, say, you write a song and then other musicians take that song on tour. Like, does Von have to pay Chris if the girls decide to play Still every night on tour?

Yes! Absolutely it does.

One of the reasons Sisters life without a record would have been so frustrating for Chris Catalyst is that he doesn't have many songwriting credits for the band. I know it's nosey but I'd sort of love to know if he was on a salary or a retainer or something, because if he wasn't: full credit to that guy for sticking with the band out of sheer loyalty/optimism. Without a retainer he sure as heck wasn't making any money, and it's possible one reason he left the band so amicably might have been because Eldritch didn't really have a leg to stand on - couldn't reschedule the tour, and CC had a more lucrative offer elsewhere. What could he do but say "fair enough, go earn a living"?

Basically - the more songs written by current members in the setlist, the more financially attractive it is for those members to stay in the band.

How it works is (with allowances for different jurisdictions):

1. Venues hosting gigs pay their regular fees to their country's Performing Rights Organisation (PRO) - some countries have more than one. The amount they pay is usually scaled to venue size, box office, etc. I think it's mostly an annual fee but some jurisdictions may do it quarterly etc. This is the other reason I would argue for why there's a lot more live activity to go with the new songs lately: they need to keep their profile up in order to keep the turnout decent-sized. The monetary 'value' of these songs grows proportionately to the capacity of the venue, and how close to capacity the turnout is. Bands also pay PROs.

2. Songwriters register the songs they've written with one or more PROs on their home country, dividing up songwriting credit according to that organisation's rules on crediting. This is a more organic process than it might sound: rather than going "ah, that song is finished, let's register it", they're more likely to go "which new songs are going to be in the setlist, let's register those". This is a blessing for someone like Eldo who basically never 'finishes' a song.

3. Songs written by the songwriters in point 2, are publicly performed at the venues in point 1. They're either performed by the songwriters who composed them, or by someone else. Doesn't matter if a recording exists or not, what matters is that it has been registered with a PRO. That means even if my band were to cover "I Will Call You" after learning it by ear, and just deciding to mumble my way through the lyrics I hadn't deciphered yet, I'd still be publicly performing a cover and the Sisters would get paid.

4. In some parts of the world (I think EU countries are big on this), the venue has to obtain an endorsed list of all the songs the performer performed at the gig, to report to the PRO so they can figure out who is owed what. In other parts of the world the band themselves has to report which songs they've played directly to the PRO.

5. The PROs all figure out how many times a song was performed based on how many setlists it appears on. They are all networked and share information with each other, allowing them all to calculate what proportion of those fees collected at point 1 need to go to each of their members. Everyone is paid by the PRO in their own jurisdiction, according to local rules and rates, etc.

The royalty rate varies around the world too, but is generally scaled in similar ways to the venues' fees at point 1 (eg if Taylor Swift decided to knock out "Black Sail" - which by the way I wouldn't hate - in front of thousands of Swifties, the amount Eldritch/Christo/Smith stand to make ought to be larger, proportionally, than if it was me and my drunk mates playing it to 20 people at a pub gig).

Posted: **30 Mar 2023, 10:54**

Another thing to consider:

Eldritch has made noises in the recent past that the Sisters are a band that's bigger than any one member, and it's all collaborative and everyone has a voice etc etc: now that's obviously true at this point, but I think it came from necessity rather than some fundamental change in his outlook. I think he's surrendered total creative control for financial security - Spotify has knackered everyone's' income streams and he may not have as much money coming in from record royalties as he used to (they've also all made noises about how lockdown got them writing songs again: d'you suppose it might also be because Von noticed his cashflow was drying up without gigging?).

So Eldritch is probably offering equal songwriting credit to incentivise some longevity, because that's what keeps it profitable at this point. Basically: "if you stick with the Sisters you can have equal share of the songwriting credit on new material, and we will play as many of those new songs as we can get away with, and we'll make decent performance royalties because of the venue sizes".

Now I'm not complaining because I think the new songs are brill, but this is notable because: if Dylan and Ben are getting royalties and rights, rather than fees-for-service or a retainer (both of which would typically preclude ownership of the songs), then there's nothing stopping them from going away and recording these songs themselves, with someone else singing them. If Ben Christo re-records Marian, Eldritch and Hussey get a big share of sales (which to be fair is a big share of f*ck all). If Ben Christo and Dylan Smith re-record There's A Door with, I dunno, James Ray singing, then they keep a share of sales. There'd be no litigation for it, no right to object from Eldo: "these are our songs as much as yours and we'll do what we like with them".

So from their perspective it's worth sticking around because these songs are worth more as Sisters Of Mercy songs...for the time being. But let's be honest if Dylan and Ben walk, then "Former Sisters Of Mercy members record songs they wrote for that band" would attract some attention, even if it's just "That's the closest we're going to get to a new Sisters album" attention. And at that point, Eldritch would have to start again: find new players, find a way to make it financially attractive to them while also being sustainable. He doesn't want to do that because he probably can't afford it.

Now from what I can tell everyone's very happy in the band at the moment, and I wouldn't want to presume that it's all as mercenary or ruthless as all this, but what I'm coming to is... I reckon one of these days, Ben and Dylan might convince Eldritch to record some of this stuff, on the basis that they'll record it with someone else if he's not interested in doing so. Since records only generate a tiny amount of money at this point anyway, we are rapidly approaching the point at which the financial difference between "New Sisters Of Mercy record" and "New ex-Sisters Of Mercy record" is negligible.

They could even call it "Twenty Twenty-Three And Nowhere".

Posted: **30 Mar 2023, 11:44**

Very interesting and thought-provoking, Fallon, thank you. It does explain the preponderance of new songs in the set, and the fact that they are co-written, very neatly. Basically, that seems to be the business model for a harmonious TSOM now. I hope you’re right about the record

Posted: **30 Mar 2023, 12:07**

Personally I'm not convinced that "ex Sisters of mercy band members record ex sisters of mercy record" would mean much beyond the initial interest, as compared to a new Sisters of mercy record in the catalogue, but its an interesting topic, thanks.

Posted: **30 Mar 2023, 14:40**

Ocean Moves wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 12:07 Personally I'm not convinced that "ex Sisters of mercy band members record ex sisters of mercy record" would mean much beyond the initial interest, as compared to a new Sisters of mercy record in the catalogue, but its an interesting topic, thanks.

This may well be unthinkable round these parts but I reckon a new Sisters record would largely go forgotten in the scheme of things at this point. Of course we party faithful would pore over it, and I'm quite certain a new record would be wonderful but I think that it would be positioned in most peoples' minds as an afterthought or a curiosity rather than a new entry in the canon. In short I don't think a new Sisters record would mean much beyond the initial interest either. Don't kill me.

Posted: **30 Mar 2023, 16:03**

Fallon wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 14:40 ... but I reckon a new Sisters record would largely go forgotten in the scheme of things at this point. Of course we party faithful would pore over it, and I'm quite certain a new record would be wonderful but I think that it would be positioned in most peoples' minds as an afterthought or a curiosity rather than a new entry in the canon. In short I don't think a new Sisters record would mean much beyond the initial interest either. Don't kill me.

Love your further above detailled explanations ... many thanks for the great job ...

...

Beyond that I think no-one can predict the impact of any new Sisters release as this would depend on a) how crushingly it hits current audiences all over this world and b) how widely it is spread ... yeah, exactly because of say, the scheme of things as we're seeing it these days...

...

Posted: **30 Mar 2023, 16:46**

Fallon wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 10:43
Todashi wrote: ↑29 Mar 2023, 10:05 I'd be surprised if there's much to pay for paying 10 or 12 gigs a year or so in performance royalties. None of the new songs are recorded and released, which means no publishing, sales or streaming royalties for anyone involved. I'd guess the main beneficieries are the guys actually on stage performing the songs, and hence getting a cut of the door/merch etc.

Anyone know more about how that kind of thing plays out?
I do.

Performance royalties are all to play for. The fact that they're not recorded doesn't really come into it. Hussey is getting money every time Marian is played live, regardless of the fact that it appears on record.

Indeed I've often wondered over the years if Von's refusal to sing anyone else's lyrics has as much to do with wanting to have a piece of the songwriting as it does to do with Hussey's lyrics being "feeble-minded" (though certainly both can comfortably be true). He's very savvy on the business/legal side of things and I tend to find that a huge number of the decisions he positions as being matters of principle, actually have a pretty strong "cash money" correlation to them

Todashi wrote:I feel a bit 'icky' discussing anyone's specific wages - it's really none of my business - but I'd be surprised if that's the case. It just seems unlikely given that Ben in particular has been around for a long time now, and you'd imagine there'd be some recognition that if either or both Ben and Dylan were unavailable then it'd be hard for the show to go on.

Not that it couldn't, but it'd be a lot of hassle. You'd have to think there's a monetary value attached to avoiding that hassle. But as I said, it's personal stuff for those involved.

I was really wondering more about how things like performance royalties trickle down if, say, you write a song and then other musicians take that song on tour. Like, does Von have to pay Chris if the girls decide to play Still every night on tour?
Yes! Absolutely it does.

One of the reasons Sisters life without a record would have been so frustrating for Chris Catalyst is that he doesn't have many songwriting credits for the band. I know it's nosey but I'd sort of love to know if he was on a salary or a retainer or something, because if he wasn't: full credit to that guy for sticking with the band out of sheer loyalty/optimism. Without a retainer he sure as heck wasn't making any money, and it's possible one reason he left the band so amicably might have been because Eldritch didn't really have a leg to stand on - couldn't reschedule the tour, and CC had a more lucrative offer elsewhere. What could he do but say "fair enough, go earn a living"?

Basically - the more songs written by current members in the setlist, the more financially attractive it is for those members to stay in the band.

How it works is (with allowances for different jurisdictions):

1. Venues hosting gigs pay their regular fees to their country's Performing Rights Organisation (PRO) - some countries have more than one. The amount they pay is usually scaled to venue size, box office, etc. I think it's mostly an annual fee but some jurisdictions may do it quarterly etc. This is the other reason I would argue for why there's a lot more live activity to go with the new songs lately: they need to keep their profile up in order to keep the turnout decent-sized. The monetary 'value' of these songs grows proportionately to the capacity of the venue, and how close to capacity the turnout is. Bands also pay PROs.

2. Songwriters register the songs they've written with one or more PROs on their home country, dividing up songwriting credit according to that organisation's rules on crediting. This is a more organic process than it might sound: rather than going "ah, that song is finished, let's register it", they're more likely to go "which new songs are going to be in the setlist, let's register those". This is a blessing for someone like Eldo who basically never 'finishes' a song.

3. Songs written by the songwriters in point 2, are publicly performed at the venues in point 1. They're either performed by the songwriters who composed them, or by someone else. Doesn't matter if a recording exists or not, what matters is that it has been registered with a PRO. That means even if my band were to cover "I Will Call You" after learning it by ear, and just deciding to mumble my way through the lyrics I hadn't deciphered yet, I'd still be publicly performing a cover and the Sisters would get paid.

4. In some parts of the world (I think EU countries are big on this), the venue has to obtain an endorsed list of all the songs the performer performed at the gig, to report to the PRO so they can figure out who is owed what. In other parts of the world the band themselves has to report which songs they've played directly to the PRO.

5. The PROs all figure out how many times a song was performed based on how many setlists it appears on. They are all networked and share information with each other, allowing them all to calculate what proportion of those fees collected at point 1 need to go to each of their members. Everyone is paid by the PRO in their own jurisdiction, according to local rules and rates, etc.
The royalty rate varies around the world too, but is generally scaled in similar ways to the venues' fees at point 1 (eg if Taylor Swift decided to knock out "Black Sail" - which by the way I wouldn't hate - in front of thousands of Swifties, the amount Eldritch/Christo/Smith stand to make ought to be larger, proportionally, than if it was me and my drunk mates playing it to 20 people at a pub gig).

Thank you. Smashing explanation.

Posted: **31 Mar 2023, 22:41**

Fallon wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 14:40
Ocean Moves wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 12:07 Personally I'm not convinced that "ex Sisters of mercy band members record ex sisters of mercy record" would mean much beyond the initial interest, as compared to a new Sisters of mercy record in the catalogue, but its an interesting topic, thanks.
This may well be unthinkable round these parts but I reckon a new Sisters record would largely go forgotten in the scheme of things at this point. Of course we party faithful would pore over it, and I'm quite certain a new record would be wonderful but I think that it would be positioned in most peoples' minds as an afterthought or a curiosity rather than a new entry in the canon. In short I don't think a new Sisters record would mean much beyond the initial interest either. Don't kill me.

its hard to tell. think you're right that a new TSOM record would be a much more "niche" record interest than Andrew would want it to be - personally I don't think they'll ever release another record in the conventional sense....perhaps put songs online as a final parting shot maybe - but I dont believe they'll be a "major release"

Posted: **01 Apr 2023, 00:20**

Ocean Moves wrote: ↑31 Mar 2023, 22:41
Fallon wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 14:40
Ocean Moves wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 12:07 Personally I'm not convinced that "ex Sisters of mercy band members record ex sisters of mercy record" would mean much beyond the initial interest, as compared to a new Sisters of mercy record in the catalogue, but its an interesting topic, thanks.
This may well be unthinkable round these parts but I reckon a new Sisters record would largely go forgotten in the scheme of things at this point. Of course we party faithful would pore over it, and I'm quite certain a new record would be wonderful but I think that it would be positioned in most peoples' minds as an afterthought or a curiosity rather than a new entry in the canon. In short I don't think a new Sisters record would mean much beyond the initial interest either. Don't kill me.
its hard to tell. think you're right that a new TSOM record would be a much more "niche" record interest than Andrew would want it to be - personally I don't think they'll ever release another record in the conventional sense....perhaps put songs online as a final parting shot maybe - but I dont believe they'll be a "major release"

Well here's the other thing.

As a band who doesn't release studio albums but who has a fanbase that is increasingly comfortable with the idea of there being no 'definitive' versions of the new songs (eg recorded versions), they actually stand to be one of the few bands for whom releasing live material on Spotify would be vaguely profitable.

Eldritch said recently that they'd been recording their gigs, and given their setup, the cost of recording would be pretty manageable. That means that against all odds, it would likely generate a small profit for the band if they were to put that material out on a streaming platform.

For most bands, Spotify disincentivizes album sales, and it has accelerated the already-rapid decline of radio stations that play music rather than drive-time talkshow content. As a result most artists have had their traditional royalties traded in for the pittance-per-stream that Spotify pays. The Sisters records are not immune to this.

But the current Sisters? They're unsigned, and they've already made money from the gig whether they've recorded it or not, and they share all rights exclusively between the credited band members. So if they were to release a recording of that gig on Spotify later, they'd still only get paid a pittance-per-stream, but 100% of the pittance would be going to the band directly. It would be a tiny profit margin, but it would be a bigger profit margin than most, which says something about Spotify.

I said earlier that oftentimes, the things which Eldritch positions as matters of taste or ideology are often quite easy to actually attribute to money, and that line he was relying on for a few years there "All the label interest we've had, has come from people who have failed to grasp that we're not a small niche band" etc etc etc... I suspect the truth behind those statements was more aligned to your point Ocean Moves: that he was not optimistic that a new record would rise above niche status. Publicly he blames the labels, privately he's just savvy to how the market works, I reckon.

Which means he may very well be eyeing off the possibility of non-album releases after all. Like you, I doubt we'll ever see them in a studio assembling a 'proper album' from end-to-end. But the most likely outcome from a business sense as far as I can tell is to get live copies of the new, wholly band-owned material onto a streaming service, just to bolster the revenue in these uncertain times.

Which I would love because I bloody hate walking to work with the Youtube app playing in my ears instead of Spotify, which i'm forced to do all because I enjoyed the 2023 setlists so much.

Posted: **02 Apr 2023, 08:42**

Fallon wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 10:43 ... a huge number of the decisions he positions as being matters of principle, actually have a pretty strong "cash money" correlation to them

I hear what you're saying, but i think it comes with a big caveat: they're rational economic decisions assuming that the TSOM project represents a minority of his total income. Someone with all their eggs in that basket would likely make other choices.

Posted: **02 Apr 2023, 16:46**

Todashi wrote: ↑29 Mar 2023, 10:40 I feel a bit 'icky' discussing anyone's specific wages - it's really none of my business - but I'd be surprised if that's the case. It just seems unlikely given that Ben in particular has been around for a long time now, and you'd imagine there'd be some recognition that if either or both Ben and Dylan were unavailable then it'd be hard for the show to go on.

Not that it couldn't, but it'd be a lot of hassle. You'd have to think there's a monetary value attached to avoiding that hassle. But as I said, it's personal stuff for those involved.

I was really wondering more about how things like performance royalties trickle down if, say, you write a song and then other musicians take that song on tour. Like, does Von have to pay Chris if the girls decide to play Still every night on tour?

I can't imagine that there is any payment of royalties for any songs performed live. Who would keep track of it? Does Dolly get a cut if they trot out "Jolene" ? What would Wayne get per gig?

Posted: **02 Apr 2023, 23:56**

ribbons69 wrote: ↑02 Apr 2023, 16:46 I can't imagine that there is any payment of royalties for any songs performed live. Who would keep track of it? Does Dolly get a cut if they trot out "Jolene" ? What would Wayne get per gig?

It's all been explained above, but I'll explain more how it works in my country.

- Each venue pays a yearly fee to the Performer's Rights Organisation.
- Each artist who is a member of the PRO submits a list of which songs they performed at each gig to the PRO.
- The PRO then divides up the fee they receive from each venue and gives a proportion to the rights-holders for the songs that were played there.

The incentive for artists to do this is that, when they pay their own songs, they get a cut of that fee themselves. I know, for a fact, that when I was a member of my local PRO, they gave some tiny, tiny sum from their venue fees to Eldritch for that one time I played "Under the Gun".

Yes, Dolly gets a few pennies every time someone plays "Jolene" at a venue registered with the PRO and reports it, taken out of that venue's yearly fee to the PRO. Yes, Hussbag gets a few pennies every time TSOM play "Marian" (and Eldritch gets a few pennies every time the Mish play it). And Eldritch, Ben and Dylan get a few pennies for every time they play "Don't Drive On Ice" or "But Genevieve" at a PRO-licenced venue.

Posted: **04 Apr 2023, 23:34**

Fallon wrote: ↑01 Apr 2023, 00:20
Ocean Moves wrote: ↑31 Mar 2023, 22:41
Fallon wrote: ↑30 Mar 2023, 14:40
Which means he may very well be eyeing off the possibility of non-album releases after all. Like you, I doubt we'll ever see them in a studio assembling a 'proper album' from end-to-end. But the most likely outcome from a business sense as far as I can tell is to get live copies of the new, wholly band-owned material onto a streaming service, just to bolster the revenue in these uncertain times.

Interesting. Given the angle of not having a record company taking a slice of the Spotify profits, what's stopping them recording 20 of the new songs in a home based studio and putting them out on Spotify ?
I guess then we'd be back where we started - it wouldn't generate enough attention thus and make enough money to be worth doing - however at some point he'll be too old for gigging so might do it anyway, because the alternative would be no revenue from the new material.

Posted: **05 Apr 2023, 02:23**

How about: Spotify profits are so microscopic as to make it not worth it if you're going to put any kind of care or attention (or money) into recording?

The other issue that everyone is forgetting with studio recordings is Eldritch's massive perfectionism. If he goes into the studio it'll probably take him years to get something he'd be happy with releasing, and he understands he'd have to pay Ben and Dylan for that time frame.

Posted: **11 Apr 2023, 02:15**

Still, with the loyal fanbase that the band has, releasing records would probably be pretty profitable - let's say a string of 12" vinyls, 3 songs each, numbered copies, all preorders (prepaid), with 7" versions as well as digital downloads. They could also be sold in the form of exclusive tour editions at gigs (like e.g. Tindersticks do all the time, for good reasons).

I'd buy it all, in all editions, no matter how silly. And so would most of you. As would thousands of other fans.

e.g.

5 12" x 10,000 copies @ $20 each = $1.000.000 minus manufacturing costs (e.g. $1.50/copy for pressing, $2/copy for sleeves)

= $1.000.000 - $175.000 = net profit $825.000. No middlemen. No record company. No distributors. Just a couple of interns/fans/minions packing them up.

And that's just for the 12"s. Just the first year.

With the amount of unpublished songs the band currently has, you could issue 5 of these per year, for quite a few years.

Unless

's studio time, drug intake and mastering habits would nuke the balance of the project into the red before it could even get off the ground...

Posted: **11 Apr 2023, 23:08**

Loyal fanbase? Half the people here and about 3/4 of the people on the various Facebook groups hate every decision Eldritch has made since 1992, have no interest in the current band, and wouldn't buy anything - and 70% of those who did buy it would be filling the net with bad reviews and "why did he even bother". Bunch of financial geniuses around here convinced that they know the current music business better than Eldritch does and are convinced he could make enough money to cover costs, let alone take time off from the avocado harvest

Posted: **13 Apr 2023, 01:00**

The argument about how much money can be made goes around and around and still misses the salient point.
Von doesn't want to make records and has managed to make a living for the last 30 years without making records.
Personally I don't think he's going to make any more records. Not everyone in the 60's wants to do things the way they did in their 30's.

Posted: **13 Apr 2023, 01:15**

The trouble is, regarding the new songs (some of which are getting very old), his legacy is going to a load of crappy youtube clips.

When I listen to bootlegs of the older songs I have the studio version as a reference point. I know what the song is supposed to sound like. So when listening to a crappy live recording my brain is able to fill in the gaps.

All the newer songs of the last couple of years all sound like crap to me*. Give us a studio version so we know what they're supposed to sound like, PLEASE.
(*I thought Black Sail was ok.)

Posted: **13 Apr 2023, 19:09**

H. Blackrose wrote: ↑11 Apr 2023, 23:08 Loyal fanbase?

The thousands of people around the world who go to gigs and buy merch and reissues?

H. Blackrose wrote: ↑11 Apr 2023, 23:08 Half the people here and about 3/4 of the people on the various Facebook groups hate every decision Eldritch has made since 1992, have no interest in the current band, and wouldn't buy anything

Untested theory.

H. Blackrose wrote: ↑11 Apr 2023, 23:08 - and 70% of those who did buy it would be filling the net with bad reviews and "why did he even bother".

Speculation, again.

H. Blackrose wrote: ↑11 Apr 2023, 23:08 Bunch of financial geniuses around here convinced that they know the current music business better than Eldritch does and are convinced he could make enough money to cover costs, let alone take time off from the avocado harvest

I know the current music business very well.

Posted: **13 Apr 2023, 19:13**

ribbons69 wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 01:00 The argument about how much money can be made goes around and around and still misses the salient point.
Von doesn't want to make records and has managed to make a living for the last 30 years without making records.
Personally I don't think he's going to make any more records. Not everyone in the 60's wants to do things the way they did in their 30's.

The two salient points here are the following:

1. It would make a lot of sense for

to release records in terms of cost balance, contrary to what many people (ignorantly) claim.

2. I WANT him to release records.

Posted: **13 Apr 2023, 19:55**

Yggdrasil wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 19:13
ribbons69 wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 01:00 The argument about how much money can be made goes around and around and still misses the salient point.
Von doesn't want to make records and has managed to make a living for the last 30 years without making records.
Personally I don't think he's going to make any more records. Not everyone in the 60's wants to do things the way they did in their 30's.
The two salient points here are the following:

1. It would make a lot of sense for to release records in terms of cost balance, contrary to what many people (ignorantly) claim.

2. I WANT him to release records.

Unfortunately for you he doesn't need the money, and he certainly doesn't care what you want him to do.

Posted: **13 Apr 2023, 23:26**

Yggdrasil wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 19:09 I know the current music business very well.

Posted: **14 Apr 2023, 04:30**

ribbons69 wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 01:00 The argument about how much money can be made goes around and around and still misses the salient point.
Von doesn't want to make records and has managed to make a living for the last 30 years without making records.
Personally I don't think he's going to make any more records. Not everyone in the 60's wants to do things the way they did in their 30's.

The fact that he has no desire to make records can be understood, but it's very unusual that he's still interested in creating new songs without wanting to record them.

Posted: **14 Apr 2023, 08:35**

I think with the Sisters, the enemy has always been inertia. It genuinely does seem to be a case of 'if it's not broke, don't fix it.'

I think the fact that they've been able to tour for 30 years is the reason why there's no new product. If the tours had dried up, then Von would have been forced to either let the whole thing go, or try to jump start it back to life. But he hasn't had to, because it's pootled on somewhere in the middle, and he's happy with the level it's at.

As I get older, I admire him more and more. It takes real character to know who and what you are, and to live an authentic life in alignment with that. I don't think he spends much time worrying about what other people think of him or want him to do. Ironically, that's probably WHY we now have new songs. There was no guarantee that he would ever write again, or be interested in performing anything he'd written again, but when he wanted to do it, he did.

Let's face it, there's a reason we find the whole thing compelling. And it may be the case that it's the very thing we find compelling that means we don't get records. The alternative is what? Perhaps five or six records released from the late 1990s to now. Would they all have been great? Would some of them have been mediocre? Would the Sisters appeal have sustained diminishing recorded product quality? I don't know, but it's interesting to consider.

If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Heartland

Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?

Re: Who wrote the "new" songs?