Heartland

digdug wrote: ↑21 Jul 2024, 19:55 Which manager was this? Boyd? I‘m not sure that is totally correct.

Boyd was definitely let go as manager in 1994 and Von wrote some uncomplimentary things about him in UTR

longtimelurker wrote: ↑21 Jul 2024, 14:44

Fallon wrote: ↑21 Jul 2024, 02:37 Which brings us to now - for one thing, he's probably missed the boat in terms of pushing the Sisters to new heights. The Gen Z kids aren't exactly clamoring for a Billie Eilish/Eldritch crossover...

Do you think he'd even respond to Billie Eilish, or just ignore her like he did with Moby?

Ignoring Moby was almost certainly the right call. He's obnoxious.

[/quote]

Boyd was definitely let go as manager in 1994 and Von wrote some uncomplimentary things about him in UTR
[/quote]

I haven’t read the UTR article but Boyd was transitioning away from the Sisters - in his view they were likely to be on another hiatus for a few years. He was working with XC-NN at the time but was still working out of the Merciful Release office and still looking after James Ray. He was also involved with another band but the name escapes me.

It was possible in the 90's to get a decent record deal, make good money and have artistic independence. It is even easier now. I posted in some other thread about Swans, how Gira resurrected the band 12 years ago simply because he needed the money and how It has worked beautifully for him, both financially and artistically. He's making a lot of money, Swans are bigger than ever and all the albums he's done in the past decade have received universal acclaim, because they're great. And furthermore he's working with Mute, one of the labels that Eldritch allegedly could have signed with back in the day.

Obviously when you're partnering with somebody else into a commercial venture band/label you have to compromise to a certain point. I don't think Eldritch wants that, no matter the conditions. He could do It himself, with a small team of people he'd trust, everything you need nowadays to run your own label is available to anyone, you only need some money. You can record yourself, pay for the pressing, do your promo, sell the albums... all you have to do is put the money and the work. Obviously he's not going to sell into the hundreds of thousands he did back in the day, 10% of that if he does It right, but he would get the lion's share of whatever they sell. He doesn't want that either.

And it's fine, is his band and he can do as he pleases, but the reasons he produces when asked are far from absolute. Sometimes It sounds like he's the only one who reached Illumination about the music business and the rest of the world are full idiots by keep on releasing albums, and they're not. This is by far the best moment ever to be an independent artist, you have all the tools you need to do whatever you want with your music and still reach your potential audience. Thirty years ago It was almost imposible to do that without a record deal, nowadays reasonable big bands are running away from bigger labels to do their own thing.

As we know, Andrew is The Sisters of Mercy.

Andrew is not young anyone, the energy, priorities definitely changed, that's natural, anyhow the way he managed the brand and the band is impressive, he's not a multimillionaire, but he's seems to be more than OK with his situation, he had chose the path, the position not be outside the music biz, but to be above it. Actually he is probably still in the position to have the f**k off money by doing what he is doing (and probably still the fruits of his works from the past), and that's is impressive, at least to me. He has absolute freedom, and as it was mentioned he is the master of move on sport.

And for a long, long time I've read so many great, both informationally and intellectually great, replays here. Kudos to you.

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

He got older, the world changed, he changed, if he's anything like me he started feeling it a bit........ time.............. doesn't have to be anything more than that does it?

z666 wrote: ↑22 Jul 2024, 09:18 Sometimes It sounds like he's the only one who reached Illumination about the music business and the rest of the world are full idiots by keep on releasing albums, and they're not. This is by far the best moment ever to be an independent artist, you have all the tools you need to do whatever you want with your music and still reach your potential audience. Thirty years ago It was almost imposible to do that without a record deal, nowadays reasonable big bands are running away from bigger labels to do their own thing.

Now this I agree with. AE's opinion of the record industry is possibly very wrong....I recently saw Christian Death play live... in front of 20 people. They played new material mostly and release CD's every few years..... they musy be getting something out of the sales to keep going.

My opinion (again unpopular) is that AE cannot release records (contract obligations etc) and his views are a way to camoflage this and still appear cool to all his fans (including me).

As explained by someone else earlier on this thread, I think he endeavoured to propel himself out of the niech market into mainstream audiences around 1993, but it didn't eventuate. Part of that aim in my view was to make alot of money out of a record deal, and become a kind of goth REM. It didn't happen. I think perhaps he views releasing records himself to a smaller audience in a boutique fashion, as consolidating that failure. He'd rather leave the mistique intact and let the new material propel the gigs.

Is he legally unable to release any records ? I dunno, the evidence does fit.
If he's not legally able to release records, maybe he could just put it on the internet for free. I recall he mentioned that in an interview once, in a throw away comment.

I too am abit suspicious that the story of not being able to make money from the record business is / was being used to fit the circumstances of being unable to release anything legally.

GC wrote: ↑22 Jul 2024, 19:59 My opinion (again unpopular) is that AE cannot release records (contract obligations etc) and his views are a way to camoflage this and still appear cool to all his fans (including me).

H. Blackrose wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 00:18

GC wrote: ↑22 Jul 2024, 19:59 My opinion (again unpopular) is that AE cannot release records (contract obligations etc) and his views are a way to camoflage this and still appear cool to all his fans (including me).

This is fantastic, it encapsulates every conspiracy theory abut the band, some people just cannot get past the fact that maybe, just maybe, Andrew doesn't release records because he doesn't want to release records.

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)

One of the things that really earned my respect was the fact that Andrew was always really honest about things that concerned the band. Even things that put a dent in the shiny surface of the ever in control mastermind.
That made him likeable and human.
So there is absolutely no reason why he would lie about his contract in my opinion.

I agree. with the last poster. I think it's exactly what it looks like.

It didn't work out the way he would have liked, and when it came to it, he decided he didn't want to do the things he would have had to do to make it happen. So he stepped away, took his ball and went home.

He doesnt' release records because he doesn't want to and doesn't have to. How do we know? Because he keeps saying so. More importantly, the thing works at the level he wants it to without him needing to do so.

The big surprise was the burst of creativity that resulted in the new songs. That's a pleasant surprise and a gift. He doesn't owe anyone anything, and doesn't have to do any of this. I like the new songs and yes, I'd like nice clean recorded versions, with sonic layers, multi tracking, layered vocals, atmospherics and so on. But that's not on the menu so it's pointless to grieve for it.

Burst of creativity came from Dylan's input.

Ocean Moves wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 12:37 Burst of creativity came from Dylan's input.

Did it though? Do we know for sure what actually happened, and in what sequence?

To be clear, I'm not saying Dylan didn't trigger this and I'm not denigrating him or his contribution. I'm just making the point that correlation isn't the same as causation. Dylan was obviously heavily involved and contributed, perhaps even a lot, and the change of dynamic was obviously good for everyone.

But I haven't heard anyone say in interviews etc that Dylan wrote a load of new songs for the Sisters of Mercy. I haven't heard anyone ask Ben (or Dylan for that matter) how that burst of creativity EXACTLY came about. How did it start? Who started it? Did one person get the ball rolling, and the others became interested and more happened? Did Dylan get hired to play rhythm and then one day turn up at rehearsals and say 'I have eight finished songs that need vocals, take a look.'

See what I'm saying, as always with the Sisters, things aren't clear.

I think I can’t throw in some facts as well, I’m afraid, nor on Dylan leaving and about new songs.

Also, I'm not that much into esoteric conspiracy theories, and yes, it’s all a lot of guessing, but my guess is also that if Von would want to make a new record, he could and would. A pity about the Pearson-penned songs, but I think there is enough material to put together a record of respectable quality.

We do know that writing songs isn’t always an easy task for some, but that’s done. And, as stated already; creating a record is easier than it ever was. Even promoting it. And I think he could even make money out of it; I mean, the fourth Sisters records is a like a tenth symphony. Everyone would want it. Even some labels would be willing to throw in serious cash.

So, I guess is he simply likes it the way it is. It’s his band, he’ll do whatever he wants.

Personally there’s just one concern; having seen the Vienna gig last year I think the shows have become a more and more unstable thing for consuming the new materials, given health issues and consequently performance quality. A think a studio would be a good chance to preserve the „new“ Sisters – music and concept - for existing and new audience in a stable quality.

But that’s just me.

Todashi wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 12:43

Ocean Moves wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 12:37 Burst of creativity came from Dylan's input.

Did it though? Do we know for sure what actually happened, and in what sequence?

To be clear, I'm not saying Dylan didn't trigger this and I'm not denigrating him or his contribution. I'm just making the point that correlation isn't the same as causation. Dylan was obviously heavily involved and contributed, perhaps even a lot, and the change of dynamic was obviously good for everyone.

But I haven't heard anyone say in interviews etc that Dylan wrote a load of new songs for the Sisters of Mercy. I haven't heard anyone ask Ben (or Dylan for that matter) how that burst of creativity EXACTLY came about. How did it start? Who started it? Did one person get the ball rolling, and the others became interested and more happened? Did Dylan get hired to play rhythm and then one day turn up at rehearsals and say 'I have eight finished songs that need vocals, take a look.'

See what I'm saying, as always with the Sisters, things aren't clear.

Is my memory perhaps incorrect on this? I thought Ben and Dylan showed up with a whole bunch of songs that were just about finished and in need of vocals, and ran through them in the rehearsal room with Von. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd swear Ben (and maybe even Von?) said something along these lines in an interview.

Todashi wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 12:43

Ocean Moves wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 12:37 Burst of creativity came from Dylan's input.

Did it though? Do we know for sure what actually happened, and in what sequence?

To be clear, I'm not saying Dylan didn't trigger this and I'm not denigrating him or his contribution. I'm just making the point that correlation isn't the same as causation. Dylan was obviously heavily involved and contributed, perhaps even a lot, and the change of dynamic was obviously good for everyone.

But I haven't heard anyone say in interviews etc that Dylan wrote a load of new songs for the Sisters of Mercy. I haven't heard anyone ask Ben (or Dylan for that matter) how that burst of creativity EXACTLY came about. How did it start? Who started it? Did one person get the ball rolling, and the others became interested and more happened? Did Dylan get hired to play rhythm and then one day turn up at rehearsals and say 'I have eight finished songs that need vocals, take a look.'

See what I'm saying, as always with the Sisters, things aren't clear.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Icon wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 16:04

Todashi wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 12:43

Ocean Moves wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 12:37 Burst of creativity came from Dylan's input.

Did it though? Do we know for sure what actually happened, and in what sequence?

To be clear, I'm not saying Dylan didn't trigger this and I'm not denigrating him or his contribution. I'm just making the point that correlation isn't the same as causation. Dylan was obviously heavily involved and contributed, perhaps even a lot, and the change of dynamic was obviously good for everyone.

But I haven't heard anyone say in interviews etc that Dylan wrote a load of new songs for the Sisters of Mercy. I haven't heard anyone ask Ben (or Dylan for that matter) how that burst of creativity EXACTLY came about. How did it start? Who started it? Did one person get the ball rolling, and the others became interested and more happened? Did Dylan get hired to play rhythm and then one day turn up at rehearsals and say 'I have eight finished songs that need vocals, take a look.'

See what I'm saying, as always with the Sisters, things aren't clear.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Officially, the new songs are all credited to (Christo/Smith/Eldritch) ... ... so they all had their part in them ...

I'm sure it's not a factor in Andrews calculations but can you imagine how depressing some of the responses would be if he released a new set of songs? I guess most of us would genuinely enjoy them all, it'd be pure joy.

But you know damn well, thanks to the frigging Internet there'd be bucket loads of wankers, some of which will have been part of this forum, complaining about different aspects; the arrangements, the vocals, the track list, the artwork, too much like the old stuff, not enough like the old stuff, too Goth, not Goth enough, etc etc. Chuck in a few references to Thon Mish too for good measure.

H. Blackrose wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 02:30 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.

GC wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 21:42 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.

No it's not, because it requires everyone involved to be lying. Eldritch *and* Warners keeping it quiet - instead of Warners issuing a public takedown notice and Von screaming at them. Incredible that no-one has spilled the beans over 27 years, almost as amazing as all those NASA staff lying about the fake moon landings.

And SSV was accepted, Warners tried to release it (issuing promo copies) before everyone told them it was complete trash and not to bother.

Chief Cohiba wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 13:36 . A pity about the Pearson-penned songs, but I think there is enough material to put together a record of respectable quality.

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)

ribbons69 wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 23:11

Chief Cohiba wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 13:36 . A pity about the Pearson-penned songs, but I think there is enough material to put together a record of respectable quality.

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)

Agreed, and I admit I'm no expert on the matter of these conversations. Also I think this was quite some time ago, and maybe also Adam Pearson might have changed his mind.

I just wanted to say this isn't even a mayor blocker for Von even if he would respect AP not wanting to have his songs on a new Sisters record. I guess there are other reasons.

GC wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 21:42

H. Blackrose wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 02:30 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.