Is this down to the record company or the band?

[wireobsessed]

Just wondering if this is purely an economic venture and is down to the record company after the success of the 02 gig and wanting to cash in or if the band really wanted to do this?

Considering all the hype abt no encores, taking 2 years off, re-imagining the band and all the "stuff " that has been said; including James and his "I don't want to sing anymore, I'm bored of my voice" I wondered how much the band actually want to do this. I'm really surprised it's happening. I know they constantly contradict themselves but I thought the whole 2 years off was a serious plan on their part.

What do you think?

[Dext37 Fielding]

I think about 70% of gigs are down to contractual / record company wanting then to do it.

[Takk]

Originally Posted by Dext37 Fielding

I think about 70% of gigs are down to contractual / record company wanting then to do it.

Also, I disagree...some of the promotion stuff perhaps, but not the US tour, or the european or japan gigs, where it's more likely they cost more than they make. Given how few gigs they played (and therefore a max obligation) in say 2004, I don't imagine long recent tours are an obligation.

[MikeS]

''where it's more likely they cost more than they make''

The above statement has always struck me, a few small venues that probally won't all sell out can't be raking in the cash.

Whoever it's down to is fine by me, Fri-Mon in Copenhagen suits me just fine.

Mike

[littlebabyeverything]

Originally Posted by Dext37 Fielding

I think about 70% of gigs are down to contractual / record company wanting then to do it.

Just not true.

For the vast majority of bands the record company makes no money out of gigs. Often if a band is small then record companies will help fund the first couple of tours and at this point the label will have a significant degree of influence but once the band have paid this money back (which is definitely the case with the manics) then the band are the only ones making money out of tours then it really is all in the bands control. They will usually co-ordinate with the label out of a courtesy and a shared interest. Album promotion sells tours and tours help to sell albums.

[Dext37 Fielding]

Originally Posted by littlebabyeverything

Just not true.

For the vast majority of bands the record company makes no money out of gigs. Often if a band is small then record companies will help fund the first couple of tours and at this point the label will have a significant degree of influence but once the band have paid this money back (which is definitely the case with the manics) then the band are the only ones making money out of tours then it really is all in the bands control. They will usually co-ordinate with the label out of a courtesy and a shared interest. Album promotion sells tours and tours help to sell albums.

Ah, thanks LBE, that sounds very credible.

[hummingbird]

I don't think it's contractual at all. Not at their level. They just want to do it or want the cash

[Dext37 Fielding]

Ummm, they only have 2 albums left currently the previous deal was well under £1m for the 3 album they got after JFPL, i think the company has them round thier little fingers.

[hummingbird]

Originally Posted by Dext37 Fielding

Ummm, they only have 2 albums left currently the previous deal was well under £1m for the 3 album they got after JFPL, i think the company has them round thier little fingers.

forcing them to play Europe would be a loss making excercise seeing as they don't sell shit there but hey ho. By *their level* I meant they have a nice established fanbase here

[Takk]

Originally Posted by Dext37 Fielding

Ummm, they only have 2 albums left currently the previous deal was well under £1m for the 3 album they got after JFPL, i think the company has them round thier little fingers.

We don't really know, for all you know it's changed now.

I also don't know how any of us are supposed to give an educated answer to the question.....they always said the two year break was a UK one.

[Bathtub]

Originally Posted by Takk

they always said the two year break was a UK one.

Did they? When? As far as I'm aware they announced they were going to go away for a few years, about last August? And this was what Wire said to the NME then:

Originally Posted by Nicky Wire

It’s the end of an era, not the end of the band but we’re going to disappear for quite a long time. Ideally we have to push ourselves to do something that we haven’t done before. But I do feel it is going to be at least two or three years before we come back after this greatest hits collection.

Nothing about it being UK specific.

[Takk]

Originally Posted by Bathtub

Did they? When? As far as I'm aware they announced they were going to go away for a few years, about last August? And this was what Wire said to the NME then:



Nothing about it being UK specific.

Well he said that there would/could be non-UK gigs. It might not have been at the beginning, but I thought it was fairly early on, and something mentioned a few times.

[Bathtub]

Originally Posted by Takk

Well he said that there would/could be non-UK gigs. It might not have been at the beginning, but I thought it was fairly early on, and something mentioned a few times.

That's fair enough, I don't know why I feel the need to be such a pedant about this issue.

[hummingbird]

i just think the success of the O2 gig has given them a massive shot of confidence and they want to keep it going. I'd be very very surprised if a record company would force a middle aged band on their tenth album to do anything.

[The Gutless Wonder]

I doubt they could be 'forced' to do gigs if they didn't want to do them.