Andrew Eldritch: Why won't you release a new Sisters LP?

[markfiend]

Andrew is not the least interested in the Sisters anymore.

...except as a way to fleece his ever-diminishing band of fans every time he goes on tour.

[Dan]

See, here´s what I´ve never understood; both Von and the other members of the band have stated on numerous occasions that they HAVE recorded a lot of the unreleased stuff, that they are in fact recording continuosly, but can´t be bothered to go through all the industry hassle. But why not make just a song or two available online, perhaps even (dare I say it?!) for free?

Yes, and it wouldn't even cripple the site like the releasing of that Suzanne video did 8 or 9(?) years ago because of all the free filehosts. He could just bung something on megaupload and post it on his site along with a message (something like "Here you are, you lucky people.")
















And after downloading we'd discover it's a recording of his cat meowing for 3 minutes.

[Prescott]

See, here´s what I´ve never understood; both Von and the other members of the band have stated on numerous occasions that they HAVE recorded a lot of the unreleased stuff, that they are in fact recording continuosly, but can´t be bothered to go through all the industry hassle. But why not make just a song or two available online, perhaps even (dare I say it?!) for free?

Yes, and it wouldn't even cripple the site like the releasing of that Suzanne video did 8 or 9(?) years ago because of all the free filehosts. He could just bung something on megaupload and post it on his site along with a message (something like "Here you are, you lucky people.") :

Yeah. That would be awesome at this point. Also seeing how Susanne went up 10 years ago now, it was in 2001 wasn't it?

[damagedone]

I recently watched(again) that interview in 1993 i think it was,where was explaining that he prefers meaning a lot for small audience than meaning less for bigger one.
Of coarse a lot of things chanced ever since but it kind of proves that if he ever releases something new it wouldn't be because of trying to impact new audience or anything like that.
For me the problem is in the Screwed Shareholder Value a.k.a. Person,Varjack and etc.,since there are great unreleased songs partially done by some of the forementioned artists.
It's funny to delve into his brain,trying to find the reasons for not releasing a new material without seeing the bussiness and personal side of it all.
But yet as us,being maniacs it's kind of hard not to believe there will be a next one,even after 20 years of waiting.That's how sick we are

[Ahráyeph]

Yes, now we know. No new album because people will pirate it and download it for free.

But didn't that always happen? A friend would bring round a c90 and tape the new album you'd just bought, or whatever.

Asking that question doesn't really show a deep insight, rather than finding an excuse for illegal downloaders to keep doing what they're doing, even if that wasn't the intention of the question.

Yes, I grew up in the days when 'home taping is killing music' was a label found on vinyl albums. With one important caveat : cassette tapes eventually wear out, degrade in quality over time and hence need to be purchased again, keeping the economy going. Vinyl albums degrade over time as well, dust and scratches will eventually wreck your listening experience. Those that so love the nostalgic snap, crackle and pop of vinyl forget that as time goes on, it becomes such a problem that it interferes with your listening experience. So vinyl albums had a good chance of being purchased - at least - twice in an average life span. With the advent of the CD that latter argument became less valid, but still, CD's break too, so the industry still didn't need to worry too much.

Digital music, on the other hand, doesn't degrade. Perhaps its carrier will start to display some problems eventually, but you can replace that in due time and put your music on a new one. The musical zeros and ones themselves, however, never do. And since literally everything is out there on the Internet, to download as and when you please, instead of trading albums and tapes amongst friends like in the days of yore, which decidedly did have you buy what you tried and found to be to your liking.

Today this is absolutely not the case and downloading is killing music. Ok, I agree that the music industry needed a lesson, but now, for years on end, it has been hurting the artists and the music scene in general, to the point where everybody thought 'oh well, we'll make up for the losses by playing live' and went on to oversaturate the live market, resulting in promoters being able to pick and choose the artists of their choice, leaving other bands to accept a 'pay to play' policy that's even more aggressive and subjective than its predecessor in the days that people still bought music.

So, in closing, I'm siding with Von on this one, because when it comes down to business and sense, he's absolutely right : releasing a new album is anything but a good investment, so if you don't have to anymore, say, because you have a large enough name, reputation and following to make money by just playing live, why would you be stupid enough to still record and release an album?

[Sita]

Come to think about it, Ahrayeph is right, it is an issue and you can't compare it to tape copies. As far as I know, this was the reason that Madonna didn't put much money or effort into her last album and into videos, why she chose to go on massive tours instead, and got a divorce from her record company.

But still, saying playing concerts is robbing your fans is a bit wild! I don't see the connection there. Playing a gig is playing a gig, and when I buy a ticket to one, I do not feel like the sponsor of a higher agenda. The money goes to the venue and the musicians so they can do this thing and that's it.

And how cool was Leeds, with the fire-girls and the cupcakes and the interesting vintage posters? It was definitely a night (two nights ) to remember.

[Prescott]

Yes, now we know. No new album because people will pirate it and download it for free.

But didn't that always happen? A friend would bring round a c90 and tape the new album you'd just bought, or whatever.

Asking that question doesn't really show a deep insight, rather than finding an excuse for illegal downloaders to keep doing what they're doing, even if that wasn't the intention of the question.

Yes, I grew up in the days when 'home taping is killing music' was a label found on vinyl albums. With one important caveat : cassette tapes eventually wear out, degrade in quality over time and hence need to be purchased again, keeping the economy going. Vinyl albums degrade over time as well, dust and scratches will eventually wreck your listening experience. Those that so love the nostalgic snap, crackle and pop of vinyl forget that as time goes on, it becomes such a problem that it interferes with your listening experience. So vinyl albums had a good chance of being purchased - at least - twice in an average life span. With the advent of the CD that latter argument became less valid, but still, CD's break too, so the industry still didn't need to worry too much.

Digital music, on the other hand, doesn't degrade. Perhaps its carrier will start to display some problems eventually, but you can replace that in due time and put your music on a new one. The musical zeros and ones themselves, however, never do. And since literally everything is out there on the Internet, to download as and when you please, instead of trading albums and tapes amongst friends like in the days of yore, which decidedly did have you buy what you tried and found to be to your liking.

Today this is absolutely not the case and downloading is killing music. Ok, I agree that the music industry needed a lesson, but now, for years on end, it has been hurting the artists and the music scene in general, to the point where everybody thought 'oh well, we'll make up for the losses by playing live' and went on to oversaturate the live market, resulting in promoters being able to pick and choose the artists of their choice, leaving other bands to accept a 'pay to play' policy that's even more aggressive and subjective than its predecessor in the days that people still bought music.

So, in closing, I'm siding with Von on this one, because when it comes down to business and sense, he's absolutely right : releasing a new album is anything but a good investment, so if you don't have to anymore, say, because you have a large enough name, reputation and following to make money by just playing live, why would you be stupid enough to still record and release an album?

I think that there are plenty of people here over the years and in this thread in particular, that have laid out the reasons to "be stupid enough". If you don't agree with those reasons, that's fine. Perhaps the answer truly is, that as long as he is making enough money touring he won't "be stupid enough", or when he has decided he can no longer go on touring for whatever physical or psychological reasons. If not, then surely out of some malice and spite alone would he not be "stupid enough".

It's really not about making money off of the recordings at this point, surely. Many in the industry would agree, making a single or album is more about promoting your LIVE act than making money. Production costs have diminished, unless one still insists on utilizing archaic means they used 25+ years ago to record. In which case it's still a case of complete stubbornness and short-sightedness.

Besides, who wouldn't buy an autographed copy (at no extra charge for the autograph) at the merch table after seeing them live? If someone is already willing to go to the gig, of course they would. Many artists with a strong following have no problem doing just that, even in this age of zeros and ones.

[Prescott]

Come to think about it, Ahrayeph is right, it is an issue and you can't compare it to tape copies. As far as I know, this was the reason that Madonna didn't put much money or effort into her last album and into videos, why she chose to go on massive tours instead, and got a divorce from her record company.

But still, saying playing concerts is robbing your fans is a bit wild! I don't see the connection there. Playing a gig is playing a gig, and when I buy a ticket to one, I do not feel like the sponsor of a higher agenda. The money goes to the venue and the musicians so they can do this thing and that's it.

And how cool was Leeds, with the fire-girls and the cupcakes and the interesting vintage posters? It was definitely a night (two nights ) to remember.

I never used the term "fleecing", that was another poster, so I can't comment on what makes them feel that way. Nor did I say touring was robbing fans. I already laid bare my reasons for believing that making the recordings of the unreleased songs available to the public is necessary and the right thing to do. You don't have to agree. Besides, I also already made clear that this thread was directed at Andrew personally. So once again, while our conversation may have been instrumental in hashing out the details of my position, it truly is of little consequence to me. The only person's opinion, thinking, feelings, beliefs and stance that concerns me is Andrew's. Time will tell how he handles his own legacy, and legacy ain't about no stinking money.

[Sita]

Production costs have diminished, unless one still insists on utilizing archaic means they used 25+ years ago to record. In which case it's still a case of complete stubbornness and short-sightedness

I don't quite agree about the no costs. Finding a good producer costs, for example. I could be wrong but I assume Bat For Lashes only got this massive airplay with "Daniel" because they hired a different producer than the rest of the album for that one song, for the "radio edit" to be precise, just like Steinman (co-)produced a handful of songs for Eldritch.

And doing any sort of promotion, so that at least the indie radios can play your album, and so that some magazines at least get the chance to review it, costs, too.

[Prescott]

Production costs have diminished, unless one still insists on utilizing archaic means they used 25+ years ago to record. In which case it's still a case of complete stubbornness and short-sightedness

I don't quite agree about the no costs. Finding a good producer costs, for example. I could be wrong but I assume Bat For Lashes only got this massive airplay with "Daniel" because they hired a different producer than the rest of the album for that one song, for the "radio edit" to be precise, just like Steinman (co-)produced a handful of songs for Eldritch.

And doing any sort of promotion, so that at least the indie radios can play your album, and so that some magazines at least get the chance to review it, costs, too.

Really? Does it matter? How much money is he just pouring into promoting the gigs? Hardly any I would reckon. People still show up. That old model of promotion through radio is dead as a door nail and irrelevant.

Tour > sell the album at the gigs > the album promotes the next tour > sell the album at the gigs

Rinse and repeat.

[Bartek]

Ahráyeph made a great point and he's absolutely right. Internet with torrents, rapidshare, megaupload and youtube changed music industry as anything before.
Now artist that can spent gazillions of $ are fake gangsta rapers. Plus, reason why Madonna and other artists don't made expensive music clips is that MTV is no longer music TV and don't have that impact to public. They don;t bother with creating artist, supporting them and destroying them; nowadays they like Jersey shore and the kind of entertainment.
Tours are for very long, if not from the begging, main income source for bands. Now it's just 98 % not 95%, not including those who can sell their face/tunes for ad.
But in the other hand still plenty bands can live with that and they makes records just to, as someone wrote it before here, be in touch with followers. But in face of this interview for 13th floor radio we got, again, clear signal: no new album.

[Dan]

Today this is absolutely not the case and downloading is killing music.

Well to be fair it isn't. Music has never been more abundant, more than any other time in history. The problem is that the phrase "Home taping is killing music"* was wrong in the first place. It should have been "Home taping is killing record industry profits" but that's a less snappier title.

I think if a band wants to release a new album that they don't want people copying they could include something exclusive with the album. A t-shirt perhaps, or some other nice artifact that you can't copy. Sure, people will still copy the music, that's inevitable, but it'll sell more than a bogstandard album.



*Not just taping either. It's been going on since the advent of recording. I've got a recording of Harry Roy - She Had To Go And Lose It At The Astor (1939), copied by someone playing the 78 on a gramophone and recording it with a disc cutter via a microphone held next to it in about 1950. There's even recordings where someone's copied a wax cylinder off another wax cylinder by putting 2 machines together.

[James Blast]

@ARF!, I don't necessarily agree and, this -

[Izzy HaveMercy]

I do agree with ARF, for a big part, and I do agree with Dan for a smaller part (the one about 'put some stuff up for free but include exclusive goods when you buy a physical product' for example).

It's a musician's thaang

IZ.

[James Blast]

aye but gettin' hee-haw 'new' that you can hold in your hand and treasure, listen to and show to yer mates has pished this TSOM fanboi richt aff!

Nice t-shirts and bunnets, I believe the postkairds ur cool too. Live they are a fair to middling band that I wouldn't bust a nut to see. And I don't.

It ended at Wake.

[MadameButterfly]

i don't if this interview has been posted on HL already, if it has, my apologies..

http://13thfloor.co.nz/2011/07/20/siste ... interview/

from the man himself about the new zealand gigs that won't be happening at said dates.
got to agree with him about a new albumn, in these days. it's about the band and the feeling they give us. some of go some of us don't. one thing is for sure though, if you were a fan in the 80's you'll get most of songs they now play with a bit of the odd new song in between. they still rock us though and that's what it's all about... well for me anyway.

[Sita]

Today this is absolutely not the case and downloading is killing music.

Well to be fair it isn't. Music has never been more abundant, more than any other time in history. The problem is that the phrase "Home taping is killing music"* was wrong in the first place. It should have been "Home taping is killing record industry profits" but that's a less snappier title.

"record industry profits" my arse Where do you think the money came from so that a band don't have to record and mix their album whenever the bass player and the singer are able to get the same day off from work, but so that they can spend 24/7 on it for a few weeks? To put ads in the music magazines, to make interesting videos and what not? Oops, it was that mean old record company! I used to work at a medium sized independent label, and some of our bands made quite some profit. Do you think someone at a record company has a license to put the money into their own pockets? That profit we invested back into small bands, into sending a support act on tour, into having a real director (and not the singer's sister in law) make a video, or into making an extra heavy vinyl with mixes, even if it would please just a few cool people and never sell. That sort of stuff, you know, investments in the artists. And don't forget the horrendous down payment that the artist does not have to pay back, even if his album sells 0 copies. Profits yeah right

[James Blast]

"Ever feel you've been had?"

Oh, I get it now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebSJMdb ... re=related

We're as big and 'important' as The Six Patels... pfff... The Clash were a 'proper band.

[Prescott]

"Ever feel you've been had?"

Oh, I get it now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebSJMdb ... re=related

We're as big and 'important' as The Six Patels... pfff... The Clash were a 'proper band.

Spoiler (P. King):

you've got a blind spot
i've had what you want
i've f**ked the whole
lot
too bad there are the have and have nots
no use chasing it
your
time you're wasting it
time you started facing it
i just came along for
the ride
hide
lies
screwing you and i from
inside
stained
drained of blame i'm sick of taking
on heat like swine
beneath my skin you creep you crawl
you check i'm in
you'd hold your
breath to hear it all
even if it kills me i will bring about your
downfall
you've clearly got something to hide

- Just as relevant as your post James.

[Dan]

Do you think someone at a record company has a license to put the money into their own pockets?

The big record companies seem to take a very large slice of the pie, yes.

EDIT: For example http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/altreport/ ... sales.html

[bearskin]

Awesome. But the best thing about that page is the constant pics of the young lady running down the right hand side lower down the page. That has made my day.

[H. Blackrose]

People who have grown completely tired of this band not RELEASING an album need to speak up more. It really could make all the difference.

Wow. And you call other people on this forum deluded? Von doesn't care what you think and you have no leverage over him. The best you can do is blow off your negative energy on this forum.

[Prescott]

People who have grown completely tired of this band not RELEASING an album need to speak up more. It really could make all the difference.

Wow. And you call other people on this forum deluded? Von doesn't care what you think and you have no leverage over him. The best you can do is blow off your negative energy on this forum.

When did I call other people on this forum deluded? And when did you become his press secretary? How would you know what he does and does not care about?

Why don't you just keep towing the company line?

How abysmal.

[Sita]

Do you think someone at a record company has a license to put the money into their own pockets?

The big record companies seem to take a very large slice of the pie, yes.

EDIT: For example http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/altreport/ ... sales.html

Thank you for reading my lengthy rant
Our chart looked similar in proportion, but what people don't seem to understand is that the company's share is not for anyone personally to spend. It goes into the things I described above: Ads, paying artists to make a new album, recording and mastering, tours (do you know how expensive that is when you do it properly and not kamikaze style for the band), sending out 100s of promo copies, etc. etc. And the manager, lawyer and all went on our bill too and not the band's. In the end you got just enough money to keep the company running (pay the rent, the bills and the people who work there). That's where the record company's part of the share goes to.

Yeah, without a record company more of the money goes to the band, and they can do the kind of work themselves that the record company used to do before. But with less sales because of downloads, there is less money to start with. Which means you can operate on a hobby basis only.

[Prescott]

Sita, so you really think it's undoable for a band or artist on their own?