Stevie only writing ONE song in 18 months?

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

By the way, I'm curious - when's the last time Don Henley came out with a new album?

Inside Job, released in May of 2000, was his last one, I believe.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Bruce Springsteen got quite a bit of promotion from Sony when his album was released earlier this year, although he does tend to be the exception more than the rule.



(and what exactly is prestigious about Warner?). .

Warner Brothers is owned by "Time Warner Interplanetary Hippie Killers,
Incorporated," ( ) a big huge Mega-Corporation worth Billions of dollars.
Not that there's any thing wrong with that -
but it doesn't actually fit with Stevie's anti-corporate image,
in a way. . . .

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Inside Job, released in May of 2000, was his last one, I believe.

Yes, and Stevie's last was 2001, Lindsey's was years back, Carly Simon's
was 2000 or so.
I read in an article that there was a trial around this time frame, or shortly
after, in which Stevie, Don Henley, Elton John and a few others filed
briefs. (Their lawyers, obviously - they probably didn't have to show up
personally.) During the course of this trial, it surfaced that the record
companies - shocker of shockers - have been under-representing the
number of records sold - and thus ripping off MILLIONS of dollars from
the artists, since they're "paid" by the numbers sold, often.
So - yeah - I suspect they ripped Stevie off.
Now they're finding out what happens
when you mess with the Queen of Rock.
What are they gonna do, SUE her???
( I could easily imagine her hinting to them that that wouldn't be in their
best interests - that might actually get her slightly miffed.
A slightly miffed Stevie Nicks, of course, is not a pretty sight... )
Anyway I'm just speculatin' about all this
but it seems like a mighty odd coincidence that neither Stevie nor many
of her closest musician friends have come out with a new album since
that trial. I kind of suspect that in an informal, unorganized way, the
record companies are being "punished." I don't think anything formal
is going on - it's just that after suspecting all along that this was going
on - and then having their suspicions confirmed - no one feels
particularly motivated right now. Check out Lindsey's Official Web Site -
there's NOTHING going on there. And look at it this way - with touring
being so lucrative ANY-way - maybe the feeling is to let the new records
slide for a year or two, until the big record labels have "learned their lesson."

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

Yes, and Stevie's last was 2001, Lindsey's was years back, Carly Simon's
was 2000 or so.
I read in an article that there was a trial around this time frame, or shortly
after, in which Stevie, Don Henley, Elton John and a few others filed
briefs. (Their lawyers, obviously - they probably didn't have to show up
personally.) During the course of this trial, it surfaced that the record
companies - shocker of shockers - have been under-representing the
number of records sold - and thus ripping off MILLIONS of dollars from
the artists, since they're "paid" by the numbers sold, often.

I'm not sure how this would be possible. Sales data for music media is compiled and released by Soundscan, a company which is independent from any record label. There's no real way for any record company to cook these numbers, since they're widely reported by other independent organizations, such as Billboard. Am I being incredibly naive and not thinking of an obvious way for record companies to underrepresent album sales to their artists?

I kind of suspect that in an informal, unorganized way, the
record companies are being "punished." I don't think anything formal
is going on - it's just that after suspecting all along that this was going
on - and then having their suspicions confirmed - no one feels
particularly motivated right now. Check out Lindsey's Official Web Site -
there's NOTHING going on there. And look at it this way - with touring
being so lucrative ANY-way - maybe the feeling is to let the new records
slide for a year or two, until the big record labels have "learned their lesson."

That's certainly not very much of a punishment. Actually, I can't see why Warner would care at all. They don't make any money from new Stevie Nicks or Don Henley records. They're lucky to break even on those kinds of projects. It costs a lot of money to produce and distribute new albums from older artists, and they never sell that well, relatively. The only real profits they make from acts like Stevie and Henley are from sales of catalogue titles: older albums, greatest hits packages, box sets, etc. Those are the things that sell consistently and cost next to nothing to put together.

Beyond that, these days a record company like Warner/Reprise makes its money from the few huge blockbuster albums it happens to release each year (this year it's albums from folks like Faith Hill and Green Day and Michael Buble and pretty soon Madonna and Enya). They neither need nor really want new albums from folks like Stevie and Henley if they want to make money. The only real benefit of those new albums is that it keeps those artists in the public eye and fuels catalogue sales. And of course touring does that as well, so I doubt Warner really minds if the two of them stay out on the road indefinitely and never ask for a dreaded advance to record something new.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I'm not sure how this would be possible. Sales data for music media is compiled and released by Soundscan, a company which is independent from any record label. There's no real way for any record company to cook these numbers, since they're widely reported by other independent organizations, such as Billboard. Am I being incredibly naive and not thinking of an obvious way for record companies to underrepresent album sales to their artists?



That's certainly not very much of a punishment. Actually, I can't see why Warner would care at all. They don't make any money from new Stevie Nicks or Don Henley records. They're lucky to break even on those kinds of projects. It costs a lot of money to produce and distribute new albums from older artists, and they never sell that well, relatively. The only real profits they make from acts like Stevie and Henley are from sales of catalogue titles: older albums, greatest hits packages, box sets, etc. Those are the things that sell consistently and cost next to nothing to put together.

Beyond that, these days a record company like Warner/Reprise makes its money from the few huge blockbuster albums it happens to release each year (this year it's albums from folks like Faith Hill and Green Day and Michael Buble and pretty soon Madonna and Enya). They neither need nor really want new albums from folks like Stevie and Henley if they want to make money. The only real benefit of those new albums is that it keeps those artists in the public eye and fuels catalogue sales. And of course touring does that as well, so I doubt Warner really minds if the two of them stay out on the road indefinitely and never ask for a dreaded advance to record something new.

Well I just honestly don't know. All I do know is that if I had
been working that hard for so long, and suddenly found out that my
"employer" had been ripping me off to the tune of millions of dollars for
years, I wouldn't feel particularly motivated for a little while to make them
any more money. I really don't know what the details are, whether it's
true or not, etc. I could picture them cooking the books on actual numbers
of albums produced. So maybe that's what happened - I really don't
know. If I can find time later in the day I'll try to re-locate the story
where I saw this, but it was about a month ago that I read it.

When did this Soundscan stuff start??? Maybe this happened ( IF it did ) back some years ago, before Soundscan
got established.....

I definitely agree with what you're saying about the money aspect, but I also feel that if the record companies were
more willing to advertise, produce honest-to-god videos like they used to back in the day, and put some muscle behind
other types of publicity, etc., then maybe sales would be surprisingly higher. So maybe there's a lack of motivation
on the part of the mega-corporation record companies, as well. Then again, a "mega-corporation" is more willing to
take the hit if an "older" artist's stuff doesn't sell as well as, say, Britney Spears's stuff.

"So you say I've got an ugly face?
It makes me money. . . .
And I don't know why..."

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

When did this Soundscan stuff start??? Maybe this happened ( IF it did ) back some years ago, before Soundscan
got established.....

Soundscan was established back in 1990 or 1991, I believe, so it is possible that this lawsuit could refer to sales from before then. That might actually make a lot more sense, since all of those artists you mentioned were obviously selling many more albums before the 1990s.

I definitely agree with what you're saying about the money aspect, but I also feel that if the record companies were
more willing to advertise, produce honest-to-god videos like they used to back in the day, and put some muscle behind
other types of publicity, etc., then maybe sales would be surprisingly higher.

Well, I don't know about music videos - as MTV and VH1 have moved further and further away from ever airing music videos, record companies have understandably been less willing to fork over money to produce them - but yeah, there are certainly other avenues of publicity which remain untapped for older artists. The feeling on the part of the labels, I think, is that these artists aren't going to be bringing in many or any new fans, and those who are already fans will know that there's a new album anyway, so why promote if it's not going to increase sales? Of course, there's kind of a circular logic at work there: sales don't go up if they don't promote, and they don't rpomote because sales aren't up.

Then again, a "mega-corporation" is more willing to
take the hit if an "older" artist's stuff doesn't sell as well as, say, Britney Spears's stuff.

Not necessarily. The mega-corporation labels are actually more likely to treat older artists who don't sell that well like crap. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that there were rumours Fleetwood Mac and a number of other older acts were simply going to be dropped entirely from Warner/Reprise's roster. Huge corporate labels release a lot of music and have a lot of overhead and a lot of people on the payroll, so they're often less tolerant of artists who don't meet sales expectations. On the other hand, the number of smaller and independent labels has gone way up in the past few years, and many of those labels are more concerned with fostering their artists' creativity and marketing to a dedicated niche audience, than they are with huge profits.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

There are dozens of smaller or independent labels that would be more than happy to sign up an artist like Stevie, and she'd likely have much more control over her recording career, though she might have to get used to a smaller recording budget.

If I were Stevie, I'd much rather be a big fish in a small pond, than the other way around.
Whereas Warner Bros might greet a new album with the attitude of, "eh, we'll only move about 500,000 copies," a smaller, independent label would probably be ecstatic to do those numbers.

As a fan, I have somewhat mixed feelings about the idea of her switching to an indy. I'd largely be thrilled, of course, but I'm sure a part of me would be bummed that she was releasing albums in relative obscurity and with very little P.R. (such as Heart encountered with 'Jupiter's Darling').
Though, having said that, I think Stevie's fans have always done more to promote her music through word of mouth, than any record company ever could.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

If I were Stevie, I'd much rather be a big fish in a small pond, than the other way around.
Whereas Warner Bros might greet a new album with the attitude of, "eh, we'll only move about 500,000 copies," a smaller, independent label would probably be ecstatic to do those numbers.

As a fan, I have somewhat mixed feelings about the idea of her switching to an indy. I'd largely be thrilled, of course, but I'm sure a part of me would be bummed that she was releasing albums in relative obscurity and with very little P.R. (such as Heart encountered with 'Jupiter's Darling').
Though, having said that, I think Stevie's fans have always done more to promote her music through word of mouth, than any record company ever could.

Exactly. I think her name recognition would be enough to push the sales pretty high, even on an indy label

[Ghost_Tracker]

Uhm, the story about the lawsuit is here -
http://nicksfix.com/article_reuters_jan23_2002.htm

I admit that it doesn't flat-out say that Stevie, Don Henley and the
rest were getting ripped off, but it makes me wonder.

[blinker12]

Does anyone else remember how a few months ago she was talking again about putting out a Rhiannon album? Maybe she just pulls out that old chestnut when she doesn't really know what else to say about her future recording plans...

It strikes me as odd how few of the Australian interviewers have been asking whether and when she'll record again! That would be my first question!

[billwebster]

Other Warner Bros artists:

Don Henley is probably mainly focused on material for an Eagles project that was already announced a few years back when their Hole In the World DVD-single was released. There are also many Joe Walsh interviews on the web which say that they currently have a policy that makes the Eagles their top priority. That might change with the moods, though.

There's a rumor that Tom Petty's last album The Last DJ wasn't particularily loved at the label because of its content of using the music industry and corporate radio in particular as a metaphor, which the labelheads probably took rather literally, so it's not yet known on which label the disc that he announced for a 2006 release will appear.

These days, the major labels change CEOs so often that it's getting near impossible to build up a new artist in the marketplace, because every time a new CEO comes up, it's possible that he wants to make a name for himself and halts the ambitious projects that his predecessor started, who by then has disgracefully left the company. Artists (and that's not limited to new artists) soon realize that they're not wanted any longer by the new management, but they're under some piece of contract that does not allow them to put out their music elsewhere.
(Even a producer as big as Jeff Lynne (of ELO) reportedly was in that situation after Mo Ostin and Lenny Waronker left Warner Bros. and the new management didn't like the outlines of his then planned 2nd solo album, which was aborted.)
So instead of musicians' careers, major labels these days tend to manufacture releases by celebrities. I don't know if Stevie Nicks is considered enough of a celebrity by the marketing department of her label, but Fleetwood Mac surely is, and Lindsey Buckingham probably is not, or else Gift Of Screws would probably be out already. Just because they've got Fleetwood Mac under contract, Warner Bros. does not seem to want to be their boutique label (though that would be very nice for fans and music lovers, because it would mean more music in the form of solo albums and even albums of former members maybe).

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

Yes, and Stevie's last was 2001, Lindsey's was years back, Carly Simon's
was 2000 or so.

Unlike Stevie, Carly Simon knows her ****. Her and Richard Perry financed "Moonlight Serenade" by themselves and then sold it to Sony.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Unlike Stevie, Carly Simon knows her ****. Her and Richard Perry financed "Moonlight Serenade" by themselves and then sold it to Sony.

I wanna see Carly Simon in concert soo bad. Maybe one day.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

I wanna see Carly Simon in concert soo bad. Maybe one day.

She just finished her tour recently and came out with a live DVD. I tried so hard to get tickets for opening night in Boston and I couldn't. I'm still pissy about it. Her site has lots of photos from the tour and she looks amazing.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by dissention

She just finished her tour recently and came out with a live DVD. I tried so hard to get tickets for opening night in Boston and I couldn't. I'm still pissy about it. Her site has lots of photos from the tour and she looks amazing.

She didnt come near here unfortunately. I'm so happy for her that she has been able to oveercome her stage fright problems to the extent that she can go out there and perform. I Just love that thing she did on Martha's Vineyard back in 88. ONe of my alltime fav shows