THE place for your Sisters-related comments, questions and snippets of Sisters information. For those who do not know, The Sisters of Mercy are a rock'n'roll band. And a pop band. And an industrial groove machine. Or so they say. They make records. Lots of records, apparently. But not in your galaxy. They play concerts. Lots of concerts, actually. But you still cannot see them. So what's it all about, Alfie? This is one of the few tightly-moderated forums on Heartland, so please keep on-topic. All off-topic posts will either be moved or deleted. Chairman Bux is the editor and the editor's decision is final. Danke.
The problem with that idea is that the Sisters stopped performing live after 1993 as well, only starting back up in '96.
In '94-95, he was willing to do just about anything... aside another studio album for EastWest. He talked about building up Merciful Release and supporting smaller acts. Also, in UTR, he admitted that he gave serious thought to going back to Uni and graduating. All those plans went to waste and what came out were support dates for the Sex Pistols. Those dates seemed to jolt him a bit, to get his arse back on the road on a regular basis. Easier money than the other things he'd tried in the intervening years.
Exactly, your memory seems to work much better than mine ... ...
Though, I sometimes think there was some problem with Adam's hand so they had to get over the time until he was ready to perform again. But this is only some idea induced by Andrew saying something like "a right hand is a terrible thing to lose", which might be completely disconnected ... ...
GC wrote: ↑16 Nov 2022, 20:07
Furthermore I dont really believe all the stories that AE saw no money in releasing. Everybody else was doing it and making money....
I still believe that the Sisters just are nt allowed to release due to record obligations i.e. he is stlll contractually obligated and still on strike.
I'm ashamed to say, given how much time I've spent thinking about the Sisters over the years, I never actually considered this possibility.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
In reality the SSV thing could have been met with "That's great Andrew you still owe us a proper album we're not complete idiots, we suggest you read your contract a little closer", so it's plausible he's still in hock for an album.
Dr. Moody wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 15:09
In reality the SSV thing could have been met with "That's great Andrew you still owe us a proper album we're not complete idiots, we suggest you read your contract a little closer", so it's plausible he's still in hock for an album.
Yes! The whole SSV story never really made a lot of sense. But this does beg the question: why didn't they sue him for breach of contract?
GC wrote: ↑16 Nov 2022, 20:07
Furthermore I dont really believe all the stories that AE saw no money in releasing. Everybody else was doing it and making money....
I still believe that the Sisters just are nt allowed to release due to record obligations i.e. he is stlll contractually obligated and still on strike.
I'm ashamed to say, given how much time I've spent thinking about the Sisters over the years, I never actually considered this possibility.
Me neither. But that does sound alarmingly plausible
FinnMacCool wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 15:14
But this does beg the question: why didn't they sue him for breach of contract?
What would they have got out of him?
Also I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't suing for breach of contract be seen as admission that the contract is already broken?
The record company could very well be "waiting for the next one to arrive" with as much frustration as the rest of us.
Yes, I admit I've never read a recording contract, but my guess would be that it specifies the number of records, rather than specific dates. Otherwise artists would be sued all the time, right?
Chris
---------------------------------------------
Again and again and again...
Todashi wrote: ↑13 Nov 2022, 13:30
What does 'due to come out' mean?
My theory is that "Temple of Love (1992)" was supposed to come out in the UK on Mute. I don't understand why you guys above are making it more complicated than that
That seems plausible; that or Under The Gun, with Under The Gun being possibly more likely; the Mute deal falls through, UTG then comes out on Warners as standard, and Von goes on strike after that.
Might this be the remix album, of which More '93 was the lead single? Or possibly the Live in Hamburg album?
FinnMacCool wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 15:14
But this does beg the question: why didn't they sue him for breach of contract?
What would they have got out of him?
Also I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't suing for breach of contract be seen as admission that the contract is already broken?
The record company could very well be "waiting for the next one to arrive" with as much frustration as the rest of us.
Yes, I admit I've never read a recording contract, but my guess would be that it specifies the number of records, rather than specific dates. Otherwise artists would be sued all the time, right?
I'm not a lawyer and I've also never read a recording contract. I can only imagine they're essentially financial transactions, in which artists receive an advance in return for delivering a certain number of albums
If I had to guess, I"d say that The Sisters probably do still owe an album. Like, we only know about the SSV thing because the Sisters Camp let the story be known. I don't think I've ever heard anything about it from the other side of the equation - did Warners ever issue a statement? I'd be surprised.
Likewise, I don't see why they'd actually have to accept SSV in lieu of an actual album. It's clearly not, and I think a lawyer would have a hard time arguing it was an album in saleable form. My guess is that Warners didn't accept it. I'd guess that Von made it out of spite and sent it to them in order to be able to say he did. That doesn't mean dick legally. Unless it did, but I'd guess it didn't. And then we have the strike.
So if The Sisters were still under contract to Warners, then it's conceivable that in 1997 everyone just dug in and decided to see who'd blink first. And neither side did. And here we are in 2022.
In which case, there may well be legal issues with Von releasing or publishing anything, even now. The whole thing could still be unresolved. That would actually explain a lot. There's free money on the table for the band right now, we all know there is.
So why not pick it up? Possibly because there is a risk it might be owed to Warners, or they might have a claim on it. So he may have just decided that it's not worth poking the sleeping dragon for, and touring revenue is enough.
Todashi wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 18:03
If I had to guess, I"d say that The Sisters probably do still owe an album. Like, we only know about the SSV thing because the Sisters Camp let the story be known. I don't think I've ever heard anything about it from the other side of the equation - did Warners ever issue a statement? I'd be surprised.
Likewise, I don't see why they'd actually have to accept SSV in lieu of an actual album. It's clearly not, and I think a lawyer would have a hard time arguing it was an album in saleable form. My guess is that Warners didn't accept it. I'd guess that Von made it out of spite and sent it to them in order to be able to say he did. That doesn't mean dick legally. Unless it did, but I'd guess it didn't. And then we have the strike.
So if The Sisters were still under contract to Warners, then it's conceivable that in 1997 everyone just dug in and decided to see who'd blink first. And neither side did. And here we are in 2022.
In which case, there may well be legal issues with Von releasing or publishing anything, even now. The whole thing could still be unresolved. That would actually explain a lot. There's free money on the table for the band right now, we all know there is.
So why not pick it up? Possibly because there is a risk it might be owed to Warners, or they might have a claim on it. So he may have just decided that it's not worth poking the sleeping dragon for, and touring revenue is enough.
I agree more or less 100 per cent. All very plausible. To reiterate a point I made earlier: the SSV story never made a lot of sense
I've heard enough stories, both directly from band members themselves as well as from "sources close to the band", to at least suggest that if the Sisters wanted to release a record, they could. That doesn't deny the possibility of Warners still having some interest in it, but it does suggest that any interest Warners might have is not a blocker.
At least not so far as Warners are concerned.
Eldritch, on the other hand, is a known contrarian and a past master at cutting off his own nose to spite somebody else's face.
If I told them once, I told them a hundred times to put 'Spinal Tap' first and 'Puppet Show' last.
Of course I'm just guessing. I don't have any insight into anything behind the scenes, and it's of course possible that it is exactly how it looks - as you say, he's just a contrarian who gets a kick out of being difficult and not doing what is expected of him.
I wonder though, is there a 'statute of limitations' on record contracts? Do they age out, or do they last to the grave? Hmmm.
Todashi wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 19:34
Of course I'm just guessing. I don't have any insight into anything behind the scenes, and it's of course possible that it is exactly how it looks - as you say, he's just a contrarian who gets a kick out of being difficult and not doing what is expected of him.
I wonder though, is there a 'statute of limitations' on record contracts? Do they age out, or do they last to the grave? Hmmm.
Todashi wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 19:34
Of course I'm just guessing. I don't have any insight into anything behind the scenes, and it's of course possible that it is exactly how it looks - as you say, he's just a contrarian who gets a kick out of being difficult and not doing what is expected of him.
I wonder though, is there a 'statute of limitations' on record contracts? Do they age out, or do they last to the grave? Hmmm.
There should definetely be a "statute of limitations" on the patience of fans
Eldritch has been quoted saying something to the effect of "if people want the new songs they can find them on youtube". This attitude from him is almost completely unbelievable to me. I find it incredibly difficult to reconcile a man who would say this with the Eldritch who nearly killed himself during recording the FALAA album due to his (amphetamine-driven) obsessive attention to detail and quality control.
This idea that he can't contractually release a record would go some way towards explaining this. It also gels with his previous statement that he'd release a record if Trump won the presidency; he obviously expected that to not happen and was his way of saying "no new album ever".
And in the final analysis, if the SSV debacle failed and Eldritch is, after all, still under contract, would his ego allow him to admit that to the fans? Surely it would be far preferable to him to appear to be the contrarian who is still playing a long game of 4-D chess.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
markfiend wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022, 12:26
Eldritch has been quoted saying something to the effect of "if people want the new songs they can find them on youtube". This attitude from him is almost completely unbelievable to me. I find it incredibly difficult to reconcile a man who would say this with the Eldritch who nearly killed himself during recording the FALAA album due to his (amphetamine-driven) obsessive attention to detail and quality control.
This idea that he can't contractually release a record would go some way towards explaining this. It also gels with his previous statement that he'd release a record if Trump won the presidency; he obviously expected that to not happen and was his way of saying "no new album ever".
And in the final analysis, if the SSV debacle failed and Eldritch is, after all, still under contract, would his ego allow him to admit that to the fans? Surely it would be far preferable to him to appear to be the contrarian who is still playing a long game of 4-D chess.
Todashi wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 19:34
Of course I'm just guessing. I don't have any insight into anything behind the scenes, and it's of course possible that it is exactly how it looks - as you say, he's just a contrarian who gets a kick out of being difficult and not doing what is expected of him.
I wonder though, is there a 'statute of limitations' on record contracts? Do they age out, or do they last to the grave? Hmmm.
Good description of Von. (Gosh, I wish this forum had a like button!)
markfiend wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022, 12:26
Eldritch has been quoted saying something to the effect of "if people want the new songs they can find them on youtube". This attitude from him is almost completely unbelievable to me. I find it incredibly difficult to reconcile a man who would say this with the Eldritch who nearly killed himself during recording the FALAA album due to his (amphetamine-driven) obsessive attention to detail and quality control.
Funny, I was talking about this with a friend just last night, and his comment was along the lines of "the great lesson of Andrew Eldritch is don't stop taking speed. Once you do, your work ethic goes to hell and you start to look like a goblin." (FWIW I hope I look that good at Von's age.)
I do think you might well be right about his still being contractually bound. The SSV escapade was amusing, but might not have been terribly effective. Someone upthread said he's the kind of man who would cut off his own nose to spite someone else's face. That was beautifully said, and in this case, may well be the truth. It's admirable, in its way... but I'd still rather have had a few more records.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
MrChris wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 15:38
Yes, I admit I've never read a recording contract, but my guess would be that it specifies the number of records, rather than specific dates. Otherwise artists would be sued all the time, right?
Going on a guess, yes. The number of albums is set and it's up to the artists to trudge through them. Many up and coming bands have been signed to ridiculous amounts (6-8 albums in total). They either tough it out or hope the label drops them for "reasons". So it's often a one-way street.
"There is apparently no chance of East West dropping me, so there is no chance of me participating in a new Sisters album." - before the SSV episode
And in April 1997, the day the EW/Warner contract was "set to expire" because of the SSV album, the band was hoping to release the first of three independent singles (Summer, followed by Come Together and War on Drugs). Obviously, the singles never showed up. This suggests the spoiler album did not completely cut the mustard.
markfiend wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022, 12:26
Eldritch has been quoted saying something to the effect of "if people want the new songs they can find them on youtube". This attitude from him is almost completely unbelievable to me. I find it incredibly difficult to reconcile a man who would say this with the Eldritch who nearly killed himself during recording the FALAA album due to his (amphetamine-driven) obsessive attention to detail and quality control.
This idea that he can't contractually release a record would go some way towards explaining this. It also gels with his previous statement that he'd release a record if Trump won the presidency; he obviously expected that to not happen and was his way of saying "no new album ever".
And in the final analysis, if the SSV debacle failed and Eldritch is, after all, still under contract, would his ego allow him to admit that to the fans? Surely it would be far preferable to him to appear to be the contrarian who is still playing a long game of 4-D chess.
Yep, totally my thoughts as well. I find this whole situation intriguing because it's clearly not all it seems to be. There's an itch here we're all scratching, a lack of congruence between what Von has said and done in the past, demonstrating what was and is important to him, and what he's done (or not done) in this particular aspect of his professional life. It doesn't make sense, so we keep coming back to it.
copper wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022, 13:58
And in April 1997, the day the EW/Warner contract was "set to expire" because of the SSV album, the band was hoping to release the first of three independent singles (Summer, followed by Come Together and War on Drugs). Obviously, the singles never showed up. This suggests the spoiler album did not completely cut the mustard.
Yes I was thinking about that timing last night, and to me that's as close to a proof of this theory we will get. I think what you write here may very well be the whole explanation condensed.
If this theory is right, my guess is has never told anyone about it, not even band members. It's easier to be that "contrarian" mentioned above, than to admit he made a major mistake to believe that SSV would liberate him.
...
...
...
