Heartland

^ I find this to be extremely plausible, copper.

Agree, seems rational.
OK folks, disperse.

copper wrote: A checkmate he never hoped to have - at the price of never releasing another song again.

Maybe.

It seems a good theory BUT I wonder how the fact that there seems to have been material prepared at times, and a genuine intent to release it, fits. At least, the live DVD comes to mind which was shot during the 2001 tour and was being edited by Sheehan if I remember correctly. Von would've had to be aware of his legal status by this point, right? (What actually became of the DVD?)

They could have filmed it to convince another label that it's worth paying EW for the Sisters, maybe - but then would a rough do-it-yourself tour recording, edited by the band's members, be the way to sell the idea to a label?

Also, they actually did release that live version Susanne. I guess whether being signed to EW would prevent this depends on the particulars of their contract but you hear of artists chained to their labels without the ability to legally release their stuff even for free.

Susanne's a mystery. I (vaguely) recall some commentary that the main impetus to release the video was to convince promoters to book the band, without an actual DVD in sight, let alone a studio album.

To further muddy the waters, see the lyrics page of the song. The sole songwriter credited is Mike Varjak, the composer. "Lyrics reproduced by kind permission", while e.g. War on Drugs and Will I Dream cap that sentence with "of EMI Music Publishing Ltd.", with credited for the words on both songs.

Makes you think whether the lack of formal lyrics/publishing credit on Susanne is related to the live video, and 's bashfulness in the matter is simply to establish some deniability.



Here's some interesting bits on 's escapades with record labels.

12 November 1999. Press reports suggest that Eldritch is psyching himself up for a tilt at record companies. In an interview with “Allstar�:

"We're in no particular rush about it, but we're putting songs down now," says Eldritch. "It will take us another six months to finish it, and then shop it around. I would hope to be putting out singles somewhere at the end of the spring."

Later in the interview it is suggested that The Sisters will entertain offers in the region of $3,000,000. On the face of it, this appears an astonishing demand for a band that hasn’t released any significant new material for 10 years. However, there are a number of unspecified parameters that would affect the size of the advance...

29 August 2001. ... Eldritch had some time ago spoken to all major record labels and received interest until the financial arrangements were discussed: "they say they love you until you tell them how much it will cost them to love you".

Just to start a rumour, let's say that they've actually recorded the songs but never released them. Just because their waiting out any contractual obligations.

Zacharias wrote:Just to start a rumour, let's say that they've actually recorded the songs but never released them. Just because their waiting out any contractual obligations.

Your "rumour" might not be far from the truth there.

copper wrote: Makes you think whether the lack of formal lyrics/publishing credit on Susanne is related to the live video, and 's bashfulness in the matter is simply to establish some deniability.

Ooh. Avoiding legal responsibility could also explain the mystery of the "Moor" credited instead of Eldritch as lyricist in the Susanne video and mp3 files' metadata. It's interesting!

I was talking to a record company rep a few weeks ago and he used to work for the Sisters' record company. He pretty much told me that Eldritch can't release anything because he is still under contract.

He also said a friend of his worked on the DVD but Eldritch was a nightmare and kept fiddling with it then just gave up on it and stuck it on the shelf.

True? Can't say 100%... but he seemed genuine enough.

Plus he liked my band's new album so either way, he's alright in my book.

So, assuming that this ^^ story is true, mystery was solved in first post.
In the other word, still assuming correction of hits and guesses, we were so wrong for so many years.
Anyway, i'm still looking to gigs then 'new" and new-new songs fill 75% of setlist.

And just to say...

The main problem with a new album is that I don’t want to blackmail my band into doing it for free... Add to that the fact that I haven’t spoken to the label in years and vice versa.

Thee label exists, apparently, as a legally binding entity in 's world. Suggests they "don't have a label" like the US prez once said he didn't have an attorney general; very sad.

theyoungbrain wrote:I was talking to a record company rep a few weeks ago and he used to work for the Sisters' record company. He pretty much told me that Eldritch can't release anything because he is still under contract.

He also said a friend of his worked on the DVD but Eldritch was a nightmare and kept fiddling with it then just gave up on it and stuck it on the shelf.

True? Can't say 100%... but he seemed genuine enough.

Plus he liked my band's new album so either way, he's alright in my book.

The DVD part is more or less an accurate description of how Eldritch work, he did the same with Vision Thing in Puk studios in Denmark. Record company had to tell him enough is enough or you pay the rest of the studio time. He told Paul King that he don't mind MTV filming one of his shows as long HE remixes the sound, which MTV did mind.

copper wrote:I understood learned the hard way that he can extricate the band from Elektra, while remaining bound to their worldwide Warner contract.

Here's a nice list of excuses over the years.

It's plausible that another label would have to buy them out of their Warner deal. But who knows.

Would it be very tricky to find out from Warner whether they still have a contract in force with the SoM?

So if all these rumours that they are still under contract are true then the SSV "thingy" dit not release them from any obligations?

GC wrote:So if all these rumours that they are still under contract are true then the SSV "thingy" dit not release them from any obligations?

east-west released them by ending the contract surely? they can no longer be bound to a contract if it was terminated - thats what terminated means.

"... the moribund relationship with East West Records is officially over," fom the official site isn't going to be a false statement. von is no slouch when it comes to legal matters.

"In late 1997, the contract with EastWest was terminated" is the way a non-sisters source put it. i dont get what the confusion is here.

there are so many ways around it regardless. off the top of my still in 2nd gear head for example if the old Reptile House were to announce a new mailing sub of say a tenner, with all subscribers being sent a free "demo" cd/download code/whatever the fukk...

EDIT: and it is possible to be signed to a label without being under contractual obligation, a fact i know from when we were signed to earache on open terms.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:
EDIT: and it is possible to be signed to a label without being under contractual obligation, a fact i know from when we were signed to earache on open terms.

Which band were you in? I own/have owned a ton of Earache releases - might have one of yours in my collection. Digby has managed to wring every last drop out of some of the classic bands. He knows how to word a contract