[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Getting it all togetherSun Dec 7 13:17:06 PST 1997



Mark,

You don't need to get into all this. Basically, your questions do form the underpinnings of a reasonable business rationale for doing this.

Let's get real. Why did the Beatles choose to do Anthology and Beatles at the BBC? Well, if I look at my shelf, I have had more Beatles at the Beeb and  boots than will appear on all of the Anthologies put together for years. So why are they out? And why would the Who Mgmt. team (all this talk of faxes and so forth to the insideres is also needless bragging btw - notice that you and I are just fans but) be interested in what we're prorposing. 

Because like the $1000 or so I spent on Beatles records/boots, Curbishley may be interested in getting the money that Swinging Pig and their ilk have gotten for years. Same reason the Scoop albums appeared. Etc.

Writing letters to MCA makes no sense. Admitting to having spent $1000 for these recordings and admitting to be willing to spend it again makes more sense.

-g

----------
From: 	Mark Leaman[SMTP:mleaman@sccoast.net]
Sent: 	Tuesday, January 09, 1996 5:13 AM
To: 	thewho@mpath.com
Subject: 	Getting it all together

>Let's put it to you another way. Suppose this was a Mercedes-Benz forum and
>we sat here and dissected every merit of the car, how it was built, it's
>history and... Do you think that people who are involved on a daily basis,
>from the factory workers to the COO would be interested in participating in
>these discussions? Perhaps on a "fringe" basis to get some "feedback" here
>and there, but that's about it. Do you enjoy bringing YOUR work home with
>you? Or, like most of us, do you prefer to do something a little "different"
>when you get home? Do you seriously think Pete Townshend would be interested
>in this "discussion"?

WF:
Do I expect Townshend to be fascinated by this list? No. But interested, 
perhaps. Roger McGuinn is certainly on the Byrds BB, so it's not that
far-fetched to believe that Townshend might be interested enough to see what
is important to the fans.
On the other hand, should Charlesworth be reading this list as part of his
job chosing the new material for release? Absolutely! Is it in his
job-related interest to see what we want? Yes! Does he have to do it in his
spare time? No. But he should do it AS part of the job.

>"Dear MCA,
>Your interference in the band's history thus far has been the prime reason
>The Who are not as popular or respected as less talented and innovative
>bands. History has proven that you don't know what's best for them. Need I
>say MAGIC BUS? This time you MUST treat them as they should have been treated
>all along. This is literally your last chance. Atone for your sins! (Amen!)
>This band should and could be treated better than (say) The Rolling Stones or
>Led Zepplin...and this is the way to do it! Make a definitive historic
>collection of the band's music live. What's in it for you? Their entire
>catalog will sell better, and longer. The band (known as the greatest live
>band ever) will get more respect. The buying public will be happy. You will
>make more money. Everybody wins; nobody loses."

>Mark, from a business perspective that fails. That's an emotional appeal to
>people running a business (and that's exactly what record companies are). 

Of course, my imaginary letter (prepared merely for this list) is 50%
entertainment. The basis is there, however: "Make a definitive historic
collection of the band's music live. What's in it for you? Their entire
catalog will sell better, and longer. The band (known as the greatest live
band ever) will get more respect. The buying public will be happy. You will
make more money. Everybody wins; nobody loses." This is the business
perspective, and a damned accurate one. You don't agree?

>>Again, I would say: "Roger, John...there are already twenty versions of
>>that song released. The fans, the people who will buy this and who care about
>>the band, want something more. They want something special this time. (and
>>the comments about mix et al)

>That is what you would say. But it's just words. They won't sound too good
>when you're conveying that message to Pete and he slams the phone down on
>you! Playing devel's advocate again, I'll say to you: Back up everything
>you're saying with some hard statistics and sales figures. The fact is, you
>may be right. However, the statistics don't agree with you. Are you prepared
>to put up YOUR own money if you're wrong?

Yes, I'd put up the money for a 5 disk set in a heartbeat. I'm absolutely
convinced it would sell (and sell well), but I think I would also be
entitled to a percentage of the growth of sales for the other CDs. Of
course, I'd want to have a hand in the marketing, as well. Petty's boxed set
(6 disks) was marketed correctly and that worked. MCA has a track record of
failing on this front. Many bands have 5 and 6 disk sets...doing the same
for The Who is not out of line with standard business practices.
As for Pete, I'd say: "If you don't agree with my decisions, fine. Do it
yourself. I was hired to do this job correctly, and I have the best
interests of the band at heart. I have a strong perspective on Rock music as
a genre, which is why I was hired. If you don't want to use that to your
benefit, you have a perfect right to find someone who is a `yes' man."

>While I'm not defending these guy's mistakes, I am saying that the job is a
>LOT more complicated than you make it out to be. You think you can waltz
>right in there and charm people into doing things your way? Based on what???
>I don't think so...  

I'm not asking anyone to do things "my way." No, I want them to do things
right. Researching the project is a perfectly acceptable marketing practice.
I stand by my statement that Jon and Chris should be aware of what the
people want, and that this forum is the best way to do that.
I wouldn't be there to make friends or charm people. Nor should J&C be doing
that. The job is the reason and it should be done the best it can be. Sure,
it's a complicated job. That doesn't matter; it's part of it and therefore
acceptable.

     Cheers                              ML