Heartland

TragicSerenades wrote:

playboy wrote:

TragicSerenades wrote:A new album by the sisters wouldn`t get a fair chance here..the ones that doesn`t like the fact that
they`re doing live shows now,they will not like the record either..like "if only they were a novelty act with just one album(FALAA) done"
this thread is so entertaining,it cant shut down
how boring wouldn`t it be if we all kissed Waynes butt

I think a lot would like a new record.
There are a handful that think that FALAA is the only record they should do. There are also a handful that think that playing live is ok, a handful of those are fans who has got several live recordings and videos. But most don´t, this only goes for the diehard fans. We know about Susanne, Arms, Summer and so on, but most people don´t, have never heard them before, and they will not remember the tunes a few days after the show. And they cannot listen to them again on record. Which, in reality, makes todays Sisters a novelty act.....

Maybe it would be borind if we all kissed Waynes butt. we don´t hve to, though, s he no longer in in the band...
I find it boring to be stuck with those old records, same show every year.

Out of the 20 songs they did live a week or so, 15 of them is more than 20 years old.
And the other five songs... Crash And Burn is 12 years old. Summer is 15 years old. Arms , only three years old. And one cover, and one intrumental cover......

On the sound issue I got to say that from where I was standing on the stockholm gig last year.That was the best sounding gig by them that I`ve been to(the worst must have been the 2009 gig in stockholm)....

A novelty act...those you say cant go home and listen to the songs on record,after they`ve been to the gig...I dont think they really care though...
This is a little reflection of mine:(It might be wrong) The only time there`s
young people on sisters gigs is when they`re playing festivals, and they`re not there for the sisters mainly.. and they dont give a toss if they cant listen to arms on record after the gig..of course,some of them will become fans,but on the whole....no....when sisters play venues with a support act,I think that the majority is die hard fans..

Lets say that sisters released an album now that was more metal than you can take,and Von decided that the setlist would be the whole new album + 4 old songs...would you go? or wouldn`t you like them to do a similar show like the ones they do now?

I don´t know which concerts you have been to with the Sisters so it´s hard for me comment on the thing you wrote about Stockholm beeing the best for you so far.

At the gigs I have been to the last six years, only a handful have been so called diheard fans.

If Sisters relased a record that was more metal I can take, I am not sure that I would see them live, simply because they were no longer good. Bands and artists usually wrote new materials and in most cases release records. If someone release a record and it is good, of course I would like to hear the songs live. I have heard the "old songs" live a lot before, so it is ok to do a tour without all those. I saw the Sisters after the release of First And Last And Always. Of the ten songs they did eight of them live. And I was happy with that.

If, on the other hand, Sisters would release a record sounding more metal, and some liked it and wanted to see them live, it would be not be fair to noly play a song or two from ot and then concentrate on the songs release over 20 years ago.

And by not release anything at all, playing one new song after a year or two, or three, feels a bit like "hey, we were good at writing songs back then but not so much anymore so we´ll be playing the songs we released 20-30 years ago". That is not daring to me nor a progress. That is pure nostalgia. And that can be very nice sometimes, indeed. Nothing wrong with that. But I personally grew up with the Sisters and the whole thing about them was that they were going their own way, only ahead, very brave. They even refused playing Temple Of Love only a year after its release. And Adrenochrome was far too old for them.

Today they play safe. They rather play Temple Of Love (the annoyning second part of the exteneded version which they now have done for ages) instead of new songs like Far Parade, which according to Chris is a good song.

playboy wrote: And by not release anything at all, playing one new song after a year or two, or three, feels a bit like "hey, we were good at writing songs back then but not so much anymore so we´ll be playing the songs we released 20-30 years ago". That is not daring to me nor a progress. That is pure nostalgia.

It's got nothing to do with nostalgia, IMHO, but with survival, rather, and during decades
of failed attempts to obtain a reasonable basis (including, among other things, a major contract).

playboy wrote: And that can be very nice sometimes, indeed. Nothing wrong with that. But I personally grew up with the Sisters and the whole thing about them was that they were going their own way, only ahead, very brave. They even refused playing Temple Of Love only a year after its release. And Adrenochrome was far too old for them.

Last time they played Adrenochrome was in 1984, after two years of performing that song regularly ...
and given the lyrics of that song, this is a long time ... also, then there was Wayne, and the release of FALAA ...
followed by the so-called "split" ... but, IMHO, they never stopped going their own way, and even way further
than plenty followers have pleased them to ... as always ... ... and had it not been for that, they were long gone,
especially given the repercussions they therefore gained everywhere, from the fanbase, from the music press,
from record companies, and, last but not least, from former band mates and their entourage.

playboy wrote: Today they play safe. They rather play Temple Of Love (the annoyning second part of the exteneded version which they now have done for ages) instead of new songs like Far Parade, which according to Chris is a good song.

Didn't Chris refer to Far Parade as a song reflecting John Cage's 4′33″, which is, in fact, a good song ... and a good answer as well ... ...

As to "playing safe" ... I don't know how many gigs you've been to recently, but as far as I could gather, they have experimented a lot
on the sound, on the setlist, talking with the media ... all of which was, IMHO, anything but "playing safe" ... very nice it was, though.

Being645 wrote:

playboy wrote: And by not release anything at all, playing one new song after a year or two, or three, feels a bit like "hey, we were good at writing songs back then but not so much anymore so we´ll be playing the songs we released 20-30 years ago". That is not daring to me nor a progress. That is pure nostalgia.

It's got nothing to do with nostalgia, IMHO, but with survival, rather, and during decades
of failed attempts to obtain a reasonable basis (including, among other things, a major contract).

playboy wrote: And that can be very nice sometimes, indeed. Nothing wrong with that. But I personally grew up with the Sisters and the whole thing about them was that they were going their own way, only ahead, very brave. They even refused playing Temple Of Love only a year after its release. And Adrenochrome was far too old for them.

Last time they played Adrenochrome was in 1984, after two years of performing that song regularly ...
and given the lyrics of that song, this is a long time ... also, then there was Wayne, and the release of FALAA ...
followed by the so-called "split" ... but, IMHO, they never stopped going their own way, and even way further
than plenty followers have pleased them to ... as always ... ... and had it not been for that, they were long gone,
especially given the repercussions they therefore gained everywhere, from the fanbase, from the music press,
from record companies, and, last but not least, from former band mates and their entourage.

playboy wrote: Today they play safe. They rather play Temple Of Love (the annoyning second part of the exteneded version which they now have done for ages) instead of new songs like Far Parade, which according to Chris is a good song.

Didn't Chris refer to Far Parade as a song reflecting John Cage's 4′33″, which is, in fact, a good song ... and a good answer as well ... ...

As to "playing safe" ... I don't know how many gigs you've been to recently, but as far as I could gather, they have experimented a lot
on the sound, on the setlist, talking with the media ... all of which was, IMHO, anything but "playing safe" ... very nice it was, though.

Yes, surviving it was. A major deal will never happen.
Not to a band that has little potentional giving anything back.

Not to a band that has been badmouthing record companies for the past 20 years.

Not to a band that has got a website which has got "site under construction" for God knows how many years, some examples: check The Making Of FALAA, The Making Of Vision Thing, The Making Of Floodland, the Discography section: "The detailed version of this page is under construction", nothing new on the biography since 2006, nothing that Simon is no longer in the band, one interview from 1997, the Underneath The Rock section: "When this section is finished, you will be able to
navigate from here to some edited highlights." The Rationale Rhyme & Reason section has got four "page under construction". The Press Index section has got two "page under construction". In the Other News there is nothing. Why they even has got a section called Record News is a mystery. The Showcase section has got some 11 years old material. The Reptile House as well as the Merciful Release link is still under construction.
It doesn´t help them that the website that contains ninety-seven million words, which are
"REDEMPTION" and "BEACH".

How many gigs I have been to recently? Depends on what recently is... I have seen them a couple of times during almost every tour they have done the last 27 years. Except for this year. However I couldn´t find anything new in the setlist from the year before. And by judging from the bootlegs it looks and sound just about the same (I know, it is not fait to judge from bad videos etc etc bla bla bla, but if it REALLY was different it one should notice even from those videos). Out of the ones I have seen (about 50 or maybe 70 or maybe more, I am not counting, it is not really interesting) most have been "safe" since somewhere around 2005 or something, again I cannot tell really when they started to play the show on which todays tours are based.

About the "so called split" Don´t know what you mean, really. It was a real split. The Sisters did not exist. I still have clips from magazines from this time. It just so happened that Andrew later continued.

"also, then there was Wayne, and the release of FALAA ..." and to quote you "had it not been for that, they were long gone".

I don´t know what Chris refered Far Parade to. I just know that it is a new song by Sisters (well, in Sisters world a three years old song seems new...) and that it is yet to played live.


Their latest show contained 15 released songs where the latest was released 21 years ago, one cover, one instrumental cover, two unreleased songs - one 15 years old and one, their newest, 3 years old. One original song newer than 15 years.
No matter how good they played. No matter the sound. No matter the energy, and no matter the re-arrangements, how on earth could this be anything else but nostalgia?

playboy wrote: Yes, surviving it was. A major deal will never happen. Not to a band that has little potentional giving anything back.
Not to a band that has been badmouthing record companies for the past 20 years.

Not to a band that has got a website which has got "site under construction" for God knows how many years, some examples: check The Making Of FALAA, The Making Of Vision Thing, The Making Of Floodland, the Discography section: "The detailed version of this page is under construction", nothing new on the biography since 2006, nothing that Simon is no longer in the band, one interview from 1997, the Underneath The Rock section: "When this section is finished, you will be able to navigate from here to some edited highlights." The Rationale Rhyme & Reason section has got four "page under construction". The Press Index section has got two "page under construction". In the Other News there is nothing. Why they even has got a section called Record News is a mystery. The Showcase section has got some 11 years old material. The Reptile House as well as the Merciful Release link is still under construction. It doesn´t help them that the website that contains ninety-seven million words, which are "REDEMPTION" and "BEACH".

I see no contradiction there. It is nice, though, you summarize your idea of The Sisters of Mercy so neatly.

So, you hate the fact their website is not exactly cared for,
you think they have been badmouthing record companies for 20 years
and you see only little potential with them to give anything back...

The last part is especially ridiculous, IMHO.
What have YOU given to them? Some quid to see a gig or to buy a CD (not mentioning the way larger load you might (perhaps) have downloaded for free???
Or is it any record company they have to give something back to? Here's a short look at the Wiki's section of Record Company Releases, not included the
2006-reissues, from all of which, AFAIK, The Sisters haven't received a pence, yet ... and the deal is going on ... with Japanese CDs, currently.

Also, IMO, whatever they might have said about record companies, i.e. record companies they have been doing business with (or at least tried to do so) ,
are just facts from their personal experience with those very people, and is justified and confirmed from bands and even the music press worldwide - by now.
You, however, seem to contemplate the idea, it had not been their right to report on and complain about certain shortcomings of record companies in public,
so that they have as a matter of consequence been justifiedly punished ...
In that case, fine. Hopefully, you will be able to take the same ... but we know you are not.

Their website is another issue. They made a very good start at it, entertaining, humourous - and a hell lot of work, a hell lot!!!
I'd agree, it looks like a sad negligence, they didn't update and elaborate it much between 1998 and 2005. But hell, I didn't find it earlier than 2001.
Just because for me (and the wide majority of the world population and potential Sisters customers, I guess) the Internet was not so important at the time.
Things have clearly changed, insofar I agree their website oughta be properly updated in full. But hell, who should do that? Apart from Andrew, all members
have other bands running, and Andrew will have other things of some or other kind running as well. Also, IMHO, every person in this world should enjoy the
right to the appropriate extent of leisure time they need for their well-being and for a reasonable private life, and therefore should not be forced or pressured
into sacrifying that (i.e. their life) to the mere unpaid-for entertainment of an ever-complaining following.

If you are bored, you can go to the Wiki - or even contribute to it ... until
The Sisters might find pleasure in making something more of their website again,
though I think the more often one is confronted with pressure and frustration, the
lower any motivation to do anything for those who put pressure and frustration upon you ... thanks.

playboy wrote: About the "so called split" Don´t know what you mean, really. It was a real split. The Sisters did not exist. I still have clips from magazines from this time. It just so happened that Andrew later continued. "also, then there was Wayne, and the release of FALAA ..." and to quote you "had it not been for that, they were long gone".

I simply object you misquote me in a way as such, but perhaps you only misunderstood.
So I've highlighted my references in the following quote to make it clear for you ... if this should help ...
In case, it was my punctuation that led to misunderstandings, I'm pleased to be informed at anytime ...

Being645 wrote: ... also, then there was Wayne, and the release of FALAA ... followed by the so-called "split" ...
but, IMHO, they never stopped going their own way, and even way further than plenty followers have pleased them to ... as always ... ...
and had it not been for that, they were long gone, especially given the repercussions they therefore gained everywhere, from the fanbase, from the music press, from record companies, and, last but not least, from former band mates and their entourage.

playboy wrote: I don´t know what Chris refered Far Parade to. I just know that it is a new song by Sisters (well, in Sisters world a three years old song seems new...) and that it is yet to played live.

You could have read the link to John Cage's 4′33″ which I had posted to give you an idea at least of the intellectual basis, I'm referring to.
As that, apparently, is asking for too much, I really wonder how you've been able to perceive your so dearly missed "intellectual love god"
in earlier times as such ... ... or what you would expect any new Sisters release to be like ... ah well, I've read somewhere up this thread:
you could do with more Metal but it were no reason go to a gig ... ok.

playboy wrote: No matter how good they played. No matter the sound. No matter the energy, and no matter the re-arrangements, how on earth could this be anything else but nostalgia?

That really says it all. Obviously, "no matter" is your preferred strategy when it comes to The Sisters (for that's all what it is about) ...
not just a matter of taste, perception, imagination or interpretation ...

Basically, I feel you are beyond help, but I won't give you for lost just like so.
Therefore, please let me refer you to this pretty side for the definition of "Nostalgia" ...

^^ elevated to platinum hatstand

http://youtu.be/hUJagb7hL0E

eta there are those who may argue this set is louder and less muddy than the sisters

i think everyone concerned needs to step away from the keyboard. agree to disagree. stop biting back at every (pointless) point.

blimey.

it's like a pi$$ing content about who can get the last (2000) word (dissertation) in.

really, you're never going to change each other's minds, and you should all have realised by now that you will never be able to communicate the subtleties of your own viewpoint to the other because you all disagree so fundamentally, and i suspect don't actually want to ever agree...



seriously, add up the time you've each spent typing all those ridiculous replies, and then weigh that up against what you've actually achieved, or not as the case may be (i.e.: changing opinions? getting your own point across so that the other parties understand what you're saying and why?)

then make a call about how much money an hour of your life is worth. think about how much someone would have to pay you for it to be worth your while doing something meaningless for an hour...

multiply the two and see just how much of your life you've wasted on this circular discussion...

you won't like the answer.





i'm all for rational discussion and reasoned debate, but this has gone way past that and most people are no longer interested.

my suggestion is that you all step away from your keyboards and go outside for a bit of sunshine/rain/snow/whatever it's doing near you

go stand at your front doors and take a deep breath, then come back in and give the nearest friend or relative to you a big hug. you'll get much more out of it than this futile ranting....

and with that, i bring this thread to a close. for your own sakes.