Heartland

Posted: **30 May 2007, 20:10**

In the latest issue of Classic Rock magazine (July 2007), there is a four page article about The Sisters.

It doesn't seem to be a particulary positive article (the introduction starts "The Sisters Of Mercy could have been huge. With a control freak frontman and 17 years since their last album, Classic Rock asks 'Is ANdrew Eldritch the Axl Rose of goth?'"), although the interviewer appears to have spoken to Gary, Wayne, Patsy and John Perry.

It's worth a read but nothing to get excited about.

Posted: **31 May 2007, 01:51**

trigger wrote: the Axl Rose of goth?

Posted: **31 May 2007, 07:13**

..............I am not even gonna read it!

The British media has always been so very possitive and enthousiastic about the Sisters......no wonder he moved to Hamburg back then....

Posted: **31 May 2007, 09:26**

Ozpat wrote:The British media has always been so very possitive and enthousiastic about the Sisters......no wonder he moved to Hamburg back then....

But still ... the article's opening gambit is pretty spot on, surely? Considering Floodland-era Sisters were starting to push nicely into the mainstream, they could have been huge. No matter how much we love them, you can't deny they're a band who squandered their potential.

Posted: **31 May 2007, 10:08**

smiscandlon wrote:
Ozpat wrote:The British media has always been so very possitive and enthousiastic about the Sisters......no wonder he moved to Hamburg back then....
No matter how much we love them, you can't deny they're a band who squandered their potential.

Yep, they did. Andrew did. It cannot be denied. Though I must admit that inspite of the fact I head to get used to VT, I love that album. Same about the new songs. They should have been recorded in studio and judged after that. No matter the outcome...the old days are gone. The band has developed the way it did, whether people like it or not. Free choice...

Posted: **31 May 2007, 18:19**

scan, please

Posted: **31 May 2007, 20:29**

Article is allright. Nothing new.

Posted: **31 May 2007, 21:04**

Karst wrote:Article is allright. Nothing new.

but I'm still interested in it

Posted: **31 May 2007, 22:03**

smiscandlon wrote:Considering Floodland-era Sisters were starting to push nicely into the mainstream, they could have been huge. No matter how much we love them, you can't deny they're a band who squandered their potential.

I honestly can't understand this attitude. You wanted the Sisters to be a huge mainstream band? The m*****n went down that road, and look what happened. At least Von kept (some of) his dignity.

I personally - and I know this ain't a popular opinion - am so happy that Von hasn't been putting out albums on more and more obscure labels with crappier packaging and production, just for the sake of it. If there ever will be a new album, I agree with Von - it better come out with a 3 million quid marketing budget so it will get the attention it deserves.

That said, the difference with G'n'R is that Axl keeps promising Chinese Democracy and not delivering. Von hasn't promised a new album... ever, or at least not this decade.

Posted: **31 May 2007, 22:33**

H. Blackrose wrote:I honestly can't understand this attitude. You wanted the Sisters to be a huge mainstream band?

Did I say that?

H. Blackrose wrote:The m*****n went down that road, and look what happened. At least Von kept (some of) his dignity.

Really? The Sisters of Mercy have more "dignity" than The Mission? In what respect? Depends who you ask, I guess. Personally I don't understand the attitude that Von's lack of output is somehow a sign of artistic "integrity".

H. Blackrose wrote:I personally - and I know this ain't a popular opinion - am so happy that Von hasn't been putting out albums on more and more obscure labels with crappier packaging and production, just for the sake of it.

I actually do understand where you're coming from. I'm certainly not saying I'd be much happier if the Sisters had released a new album every year for the last 20 years. But I'm 33 years old, and personally I'm deeply disappointed that one of my favourite bands last released an album when I was still at school...

Posted: **31 May 2007, 22:49**

H. Blackrose wrote:
I honestly can't understand this attitude. You wanted the Sisters to be a huge mainstream band? The m*****n went down that road, and look what happened. At least Von kept (some of) his dignity.

I personally - and I know this ain't a popular opinion - am so happy that Von hasn't been putting out albums on more and more obscure labels with crappier packaging and production, just for the sake of it. If there ever will be a new album, I agree with Von - it better come out with a 3 million quid marketing budget so it will get the attention it deserves.

That said, the difference with G'n'R is that Axl keeps promising Chinese Democracy and not delivering. Von hasn't promised a new album... ever, or at least not this decade.

Wait a minute. You don't want the Sisters to be a "huge mainstream band" yet you think the next record, if released, deserves a "a 3 million quid marketing budget" (emphasis added)? That's the sort of money that gets spent on marketing a "huge mainstream band," i.e., the sort of band who can give a good return on the capital invested. Record companies don't care about art, they care about profit--which, incidentally, is why they put up with Axl and not Andrew. If Chinese Democracy is ever released, it would be a massive hit, almost certainly reaping a massive return on the investment. The Sisters in 2007 don't have that kind of audience, ergo, they don't deserve that sort of invesment, regardless of how good the songs are. The numbers just don't add up. Personally, I think Von should have bit the bullet and negotiated a deal with a large indie such as Epitaph/Anti (who have released records by, for example, Tom Waits, Merle Haggard, and Nick Cave, and probably would have, way back in 1997, been more than happy to sign the Sisters to almost any sort of realistic deal they wanted. In 2007, though, I think that ship has sailed). If the M14 rumours are true, that woulld be a decent deal, but the fact is, he's never going to get the sort of investment that a label makes in something like a new Madonna record, and there are good reasons for that.

Posted: **01 Jun 2007, 14:23**

Had a quick skim of it and it seems a pretty nasty little article. The writer's gathered as much evidence to to prove what an arse

is.

Most of it's probably true but anyway

Posted: **01 Jun 2007, 14:33**

I can scan this but it probably won't be until Monday (at the earliest).

Good to see they have taken the trouble to get some new pictures [sic].

Posted: **01 Jun 2007, 23:18**

trigger wrote:In the latest issue of Classic Rock magazine (July 2007), there is a four page article about The Sisters.

It doesn't seem to be a particulary positive article (the introduction starts "The Sisters Of Mercy could have been huge. With a control freak frontman and 17 years since their last album, Classic Rock asks 'Is ANdrew Eldritch the Axl Rose of goth?'"), although the interviewer appears to have spoken to Gary, Wayne, Patsy and John Perry.

It's worth a read but nothing to get excited about.

I chatted to Ben a few months ago in the Intrepid Fox (while drunk, so maybe not on top form) and he was rather sweet in an awfully naÃ¯ve way talking about writing new material (what bands don't say they're writing?). I felt bad for disabusing him of the notion that the Sisters will ever release another record - we all gave up thinking that in 1995. No matter how good a new album could be it would always be regarded as a failure, Ã la The Stone Roses The Second Coming (great album). Maybe Ben and I will resume this discussion at Zottegem.

Alexander

Posted: **02 Jun 2007, 14:47**

I duuno, I found quite a lot in it that's either new or unusual. Some interesting perspectives from Gary, a very honest admission from Wayne that Von was correct about the whole Sisterhood thing, a very rare take on the story from Boyd Steemson, and good stuff from John Perry.

Pity about the usual tiresome and predictable bitterness on Patsy's part, but otherwise it was definitely a fascinating read.

Posted: **04 Jun 2007, 16:57**

smiscandlon wrote:
H. Blackrose wrote:I actually do understand where you're coming from. I'm certainly not saying I'd be much happier if the Sisters had released a new album every year for the last 20 years. But I'm 33 years old, and personally I'm deeply disappointed that one of my favourite bands last released an album when I was still at school...
Right on, what a waste of talent. How could someone go from being so creative and an interesting writer to settling for trotting out the same setlist ad nauseum. Even must feel a bit odd singing Alice etc.. for the ten millionth time (to pretty much the same people).

Posted: **04 Jun 2007, 17:02**

lex3000 wrote:I chatted to Ben a few months ago

I had a similar chat with Chris a few months ago.

There's a summary here.

Posted: **10 Jun 2007, 11:33**

I don't have access to a scanner at the mo but here's a 'patched up' version for those who can't buy a copy.

Posted: **10 Jun 2007, 11:47**

Cheers Rise&Reverberate

Posted: **10 Jun 2007, 16:09**

thanks

Posted: **11 Jun 2007, 09:18**

I found it an interesting read. The anecdote about the Rocco / Eldritch sword-fight is hilarious!

Posted: **11 Jun 2007, 12:17**

lex3000 wrote:No matter how good a new album could be it would always be regarded as a failure, Ã la The Stone Roses The Second Coming (great album).

A failure? Financially or artistically? You're not wrong Alex, its a bloody great album, which gets far more plays than the first one.

Regarding the article, any idea why they even bothered doing a piece on the Sisters? Do they say, is there any mention whatsoever of the Sisters2007?

Posted: **11 Jun 2007, 12:45**

Yeah, there's a brief bit from Ben Christo mentioning the perma-tour.

Posted: **11 Jun 2007, 13:13**

markfiend wrote:Yeah, there's a brief bit from Ben Christo mentioning the perma-tour.

What can I say... this is definitely an interesting read. Shame they haven't brought another page filled with statements from Adam Pearson and Andrew Eldritch on that matter.

Jan

Posted: **11 Jun 2007, 17:35**

I bought it, Â£4.25 for page after page of GnR and sub GnR wannabee bollocks. I enjoyed the Sisters piece and it was nice to see Steemson had some input, not a side I've previously heard. The rest of the mag was pretty interesting (for an old Metal Head/Goth/Greebo) and I found a lot of CD reviews that otherwise would have escaped me. My main gripe is that there was a free CD of the aforementioned sub GnR bollocks attached. I now have the dilemma of listen to or not listen to.

The latter is winning.

Heartland

Classic Rock Magazine

Classic Rock Magazine

Re: Classic Rock Magazine

Re: Classic Rock Magazine

Re: Classic Rock Magazine

Re: Classic Rock Magazine