Heartland

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 16:14**

my 2c:
I like cover versions in general, and TSOM covers in particular, but I can understand people who don't.

Forsner's are some of the better covers IMO and I have enjoyed these ones. I can see how moving past YT to paid streaming services strikes an off note even if it's legal (and let's be honest the customer support at Spotify doesn't give a f**k about legality, they just want your content on the platform so that they can sell ads and subscriptions).

On the balance I'm glad they're out there. I no longer need to rely on mp3 rips of Forsner's vids in my playlist

It puts an end to any debate about how hard releasing an album is: one amateur muso with a good home studio can put off an averagely good production in a few months of weekends. The new songs are great but they are not epicly complex rock operas, they're radio friendly pop-rock designed to be playable when the band is pissed and sound good on YouTube later on.

cover versions that have been released before the original version

I thought of Because The Night, released by Patti Smith well before Springsteen did. That was facilitated by a mutual producer I think, after Springsteen had basically given up completing the original.

Also this is the most entertaining HL thread in quite a while

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 16:24**

Yeah, this is an interesting conversation. Some people 'get it' and some don't seem to.

Tobias hasn't done anything legally wrong, to the best of my knowledge. There's nothing wrong with recording covers of unreleased songs if it's just for fun. If it's done as a musical exercise by a talented amateur, then that's totally cool. I've done it - I recorded a cover of Still for fun in the past. I put it on Soundcloud and sent a link to Chris and Ben and had a really nice conversation with them about it. But there are two key factors here that feel different:

1 - uploading someone else's creative work to a commercial platform is not the same as making covers for fun and sharing them around. It just isn't. It might be legal, but it's not ethical. It's unlikely Tobias will make much/any money from doing this, but it's the principle that counts, to me at least.

2 - It's an entire album. It's generally agreed that it's okay to reproduce copyright material for reference purposes etc, as long as you don't reproduce too much. Again, there's nothing legally wrong with what has been done, but it feels wrong - a lot of work went into these songs, and the authors deserve the right to publicise them and exploit them etc first. This is a big chunk of intellectual property, delivered in one go - not a one off song or couple of songs. Does anyone thing Von would be cool with this if you met him at a party, whipped out your phone and showed him that so much of his work was being exploited by someone before he even got a chance to? You're kidding yourself if you think he would be. I just can't imagine it.

I think I'd feel different about this if a few years went past, and it became obvious there is no effort to produce an album. But right now, unlikely as that is, it still seems like the cool thing to do is not to whip the Sisters songs out from underneath them on a legal technicality.

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 16:24**

alanm wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 16:14
cover versions that have been released before the original version
I thought of Because The Night, released by Patti Smith well before Springsteen did. That was facilitated by a mutual producer I think, after Springsteen had basically given up completing the original.

Yeah, that's kind of another one isn't it. Although Patti Smith wrote the verses after Jimmy Iovine played her the Springsteen demo.

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 16:42**

czuczu wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 15:25
markfiend wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 15:18 If the band do have a problem with this, the "very, very simple solution" may very well be a cease-and-desist letter. Or an injunction.
Way back when there was an issue with filesharing and an FTP server, didn't they just ask politely?

As in "ask politely but carry a big stick"?

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 16:49**

I seem to recall that Lulu released Bowie's "The Man Who Sold The World" as a single before he did. But then that single was co-produced by Bowie (and Mick Ronson) and was several years after the song was out on its eponymous LP. So there's no question of it being done without Bowie's knowledge, still less without his permission.

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 17:21**

markfiend wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 16:42
czuczu wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 15:25
markfiend wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 15:18 If the band do have a problem with this, the "very, very simple solution" may very well be a cease-and-desist letter. Or an injunction.
Way back when there was an issue with filesharing and an FTP server, didn't they just ask politely?
As in "ask politely but carry a big stick"?

There was definitely no carrot.

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 17:39**

I don't have a problem with the fact that this exists.

If it's done legally, then I'm not sure what the band can do about it, but I'll confess to not being an expert on these things. The evidence is that it was done legally though. I'm more surprised that it hasn't been done before.

Morally, I feel that we on Heartland are actually not representative of the typical Sisters fan, and the typical Sisters fan is most probably completely unaware that this even exists. In that case I don't see it being an issue on those terms.

Personally, there's really two things I want from a Sisters song: I want to be able to listen to it myself, and I want to be able to play it for other people. (I also want it to not suck, but that probably goes without saying.) Gigs and YouTubes meet the first requirement, and like most of us I've heard the songs so much that I can "listen through" the often poor quality. But it's embarrassing to play these songs as they exist via YouTubes to other people, and have to explain that the songs are actually really really good, but just sound like shit. Does this release meet that requirement? With the caveat that it's not actually the Sisters, sure, it probably does.

I don't see it doing any harm to the band. People will still go to the shows and buy the merch. Pretty much everyone on this thread will still buy a new release if one ever emerges. Otherwise, people who aren't aware that this exists won't even be affected by it.

Overall it's not wildly different to those Cleopatra records tribute LPs that crop up from time to time. Von hates those of course, on account of the darkling contingent who he feels are not representative of what he does. But I think the spirit of this one is an affectionate tribute from a genuine fan, rather than a naked cash grab, and that counts for something in my book.

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 17:46**

mh wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 17:39 I'm more surprised that it hasn't been done before.

There was this a long time ago...in a galaxy far far away

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 17:58**

Pista wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 17:46
mh wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 17:39 I'm more surprised that it hasn't been done before.
There was this a long time ago...in a galaxy far far away

Oh yeah! A million years ago! And it seems that me and @FMAMMY actually attempted the same song (Slept)

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 18:32**

this egocentrically distorted incorporation of the band is nevertheless alarming. dangerously loyal. Are the Sisters about such behaviour? No.
anyone can ask Wayne to record and release a cover?

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 18:43**

Pista wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 17:46
mh wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 17:39 I'm more surprised that it hasn't been done before.
There was this a long time ago...in a galaxy far far away

That was lovely ...

... and something completely different.

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 19:18**

jost 7 wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 18:32 anyone can ask Wayne to record and release a cover?

He has https://www.discogs.com/master/1029852- ... rotect-You

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 19:35**

mh wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 19:18
jost 7 wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 18:32 anyone can ask Wayne to record and release a cover?
He has https://www.discogs.com/master/1029852- ... rotect-You

of course thanks, well aware of it. Following this lovely thread it were obviously about a new one ...

Posted: **28 Jun 2022, 19:45**

I enjoy your work greatly and I thank you for doing this.

Posted: **29 Jun 2022, 12:41**

I agree that this is a fascinating thread.

Reflecting on the points raised, I see these covers as only respect for a band that has finally started playing some decent new songs. The band has no intention of releasing anything, (I have a hat here ready to eat, should they do so) which is why they are playing the whole lot live, so I'm sure they don't care. My experience of a band about to release an album is they drip feed singles, incorporate them in the live set and you buy the album for all the added new stuff. Not here, the Sisters are just pumping them all out, because they are a live band. No matter how good a cover is, no one can recreate Eldritch's vocals, so I can't see them cannibalising record sales, can you? I've had some of the 2022 gigs on repeat, so I'm very familiar with these songs even without a Sisters released version, so it's not like without the cover versions that a new Sisters album will be a surprise!!! (Wait a new Sisters album, will be the biggest surprise of all!!!) For me, these simply add to the pleasure of having some great new songs. So thank you to the Sisters for the great new material & thank you to the fans that put the effort in to give us something else to chew on.

Posted: **29 Jun 2022, 13:36**

bananacamel wrote: ↑29 Jun 2022, 12:41 I agree that this is a fascinating thread.

Reflecting on the points raised, I see these covers as only respect for a band that has finally started playing some decent new songs. The band has no intention of releasing anything, (I have a hat here ready to eat, should they do so) which is why they are playing the whole lot live, so I'm sure they don't care. My experience of a band about to release an album is they drip feed singles, incorporate them in the live set and you buy the album for all the added new stuff. Not here, the Sisters are just pumping them all out, because they are a live band. No matter how good a cover is, no one can recreate Eldritch's vocals, so I can't see them cannibalising record sales, can you? I've had some of the 2022 gigs on repeat, so I'm very familiar with these songs even without a Sisters released version, so it's not like without the cover versions that a new Sisters album will be a surprise!!! (Wait a new Sisters album, will be the biggest surprise of all!!!) For me, these simply add to the pleasure of having some great new songs. So thank you to the Sisters for the great new material & thank you to the fans that put the effort in to give us something else to chew on.

You're raising some good (albeit disappointing) points here about the setlist and the likelihood of a new release. I have enjoyed Tobias' renditions very much, and what he's done is clearly a labor of love for the band. I've sent links to his youtube videos to friends of mine who are, let's say... Sisters-curious. But I admit I have misgivings - not about making them more widely available, but about making them more widely available via Spotify and iTunes specifically , since these large corporations will be profiting (admittedly not much) off the work of Von, et. al., without the band's permission or involvement. It's one thing to make a record and include one of the unreleased songs as a cover, it's another to put out the whole set of them. And we all know Tobias isn't motivated by profit here - it's cost him time and money to do this (and I'm glad he's recorded them and made them available in general).

Posted: **04 Jul 2022, 04:11**

My two cents here: covering songs is part of pop culture. The Sisters covered many songs over their career. They were able to "profit" from these recordings by making them commercially available. I don't see what is the difference here if Tobias wants to make his covers commercially available. The band will still benefit via publishing rights. Actually one could argue that the only way the band will benefit is if Tobias' tracks are made commercially available and not just dumped on YouTube where only YouTube benefits.

As for the fact that these tracks have not been commercially released by the Sisters' themselves, this is clearly their choice which could be remedied very easily at any moment if they choose to. So I don't see why this would make these tracks off-limit to covering artists.

Posted: **04 Jul 2022, 11:30**

Elon wrote: ↑04 Jul 2022, 04:11 The band will still benefit via publishing rights.

...if the songs have been published properly.

And no, I don't think that bunging the lyrics on the official site really counts does it? There's no proper publishing credits for any of these songs anywhere I can find.

Posted: **04 Jul 2022, 12:11**

markfiend wrote: ↑04 Jul 2022, 11:30
Elon wrote: ↑04 Jul 2022, 04:11 The band will still benefit via publishing rights.
...if the songs have been published properly.

And no, I don't think that bunging the lyrics on the official site really counts does it? There's no proper publishing credits for any of these songs anywhere I can find.

highly unlikely to have a publishing deal when they never release anything.

Posted: **04 Jul 2022, 17:00**

I honestly don't really know how it works, but where are Record Union (the music distributors) getting the publishing information from?

It seems accurate as far as I know. (Although I didn't know Chris Catalyst's real name.)

Here's a few examples:

Provided to YouTube by Record Union

But Genevieve

Composer: Andrew Eldritch
Composer: Ben Christo
Composer: Dylan Smith
Lyricist: Andrew Eldritch

I have slept with all the girls in Berlin

Composer: Adam Pearson
Lyricist: Andrew Eldritch

Arms

Composer: Christopher May
Lyricist: Andrew Eldritch

Posted: **05 Jul 2022, 00:28**

I added the composerinformation myself while creating the release and uploading the songs on Record union.

I didnt know Chris's last name either until I found the information about Arms on bmi.com. I got the rest of the information from the official website and sisterswiki.

Posted: **09 Jul 2022, 02:31**

This is such an interesting conversation. I wonder how many other established band fans are in this situation?

So the band we love are writing (pretty f**king sweet) new tunes but refuse to release them, at present (it genuinely is the hope that hurts).
We, a particular part of fanbase, know the score.

All we have are good to appalling recordings of the songs and to state the obvious, it is the recordings that are the issue.

The 21st century Sisters see no need to release a record -at present (again the torturous hope!).
Someone likes that and covers it? If you were attempting to pass it off as your own work I.e. composition etc.clearly that is problematic. But I don't think that is the case.
Personally, I don't think it impinges on The Sisters plans(!?) in anyway and if there was a problem, no doubt they would be in contact with a cease and desist. The legal stories are, after all, as much part of the story as dry ice and shades!
I am no industry expert but the longer we skip unhappily down this no merciful release path, the more untenable the argument for not releasing records get.
The unreleased material from Come Together on, stands up. We all disagree to some extent on the already released material so unquestionably, concensus on unreleased is equally variable!
But, these recordings give some people a better quality recording of this material that s**t YouTube vids.
Thus material deserves care and respect and production values - not youtube vids.
And fair play to Fmammy for indulging his passions.
If only Eldritch would indulge ours!

Posted: **11 Jul 2022, 14:27**

I have now added a few of @FMAMMY s cover versions of the new songs to my Sisters Spotify playlist.
I just figured what the hell, it’s the closest we will ever come to the real thing.

Posted: **12 Jul 2022, 10:22**

Despite what I wrote earlier, I've been listening to Tobias' recordings. Some are good and some are excellent. In particular Six Ways to Sunday is beautiful. It stops me each time if comes on, in both versions.

It's haunting and beautiful. I think I prefer it as a piano melody compared to the guitar versions the Sisters actually play. Amazing.

Posted: **12 Jul 2022, 13:34**

FMAMMY wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 06:56 Hi,
thanks for listening to Some kind of demos!

I used the word demos in the title because I know I'm no professional producer, I'm not much of a musician but I try my best until the recording sounds ok at least in my own ears. I called it "Some kind of" just to pay homage to Sisters without using the words Sisters of mercy. I could have named it A slight case of demos/covers or Some coverdemos wander by mistake but I didn't, at least not on this release With hindsight I could have added my name or the word tribute on the cover or in the album title because I never thought of fooling anyone this is a release by the band but I guess most people hear within seconds that it's not the band themselves. I just tried to make an early80s Sisters-inspired albumcover.

I've had some comments on youtube where people were asking me about releasing the songs on Spotify. I thought of it a while and came to the conclusion: why not? If anyone enjoys these recordings then great, otherwise listen to Sisters or whatever you want to listen to.

I haven't asked the band but I asked Record union's customer service this:

Q: "Hello! i know it's ok to upload covers without permission but is it ok to upload covers of songs that the original artist have only played live and haven't released officially?"

A: "Yes, it's alright to upload a cover song of a song that only has been played live and haven't released officially. Just make sure to add the correct information in the contributor section and add the original artist."

So I entered all information in the form. Song title, composer, producer and everything. I agree that the information on especially youtube is ambigous. If I had any control of the informationtext and title on youtube I would have added Artist in the title and not just the title of the song. I would write "Artist: " just like "Producer: " and "Composer: ". I can't edit that information now.

If I'd ever consider releasing some vinyl or CD I know I need an OK from the one who owns the music.

I know I won't make any money on these recordings. I paid 26 USD for the first year and then it's 16 USD per year. If I get 5 USD per year for the streams I would be surprised.

For a band that haven't released an album for over 30 years, get their money from royalties, tours and merch I hope they're ok if a fan release their unreleased material and think "Let the old fart have a little fun". I don't think that I have hurt the brand Sisters of mercy but if Von or anyone contacts me about deleting the material I'm ready to hear any explanation why.

I don't post on here, I'm just an occasional lurker. I have however, been really impressed with your take on the new Sisters songs. In the absence of Mr Eldritch recording them, your versions give me a song worth hearing as opposed to a poor recording from a live show on YouTube. Thank you.

Heartland

Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos

Re: Some Kind Of Demos