Morrissey's managers

[Anonymous]

I'm curious regarding to do with this issue of cost. Or to put it in another way, how much does a manager demand to be payed? I guess it varies a great deal, and is possibly tied up to performance regarding to do with things like getting a record contract, chart positions etc. giving a bonus for the manager or something. Anybody knows...

I had presumed that managers just get a percentage cut off whatever Morrissey makes -so it's to their benefit that a new record sells as many copies as possible, or any record deal is a good earner?

 

[ThePoliticalRevolution]

i need a manager to manage my naps.

 

[Eldritch]

I think it’s fair for an artist to ask of it’s label
the same attention and promotion that other musical acts get. It is simply asking for the same chance, and that chance costs big money.

Now you're just being naive. Do you honestly believe that every artist on Columbia gets the same promotional push than Adele? The main point of marketing is to increase the profits. You get this by increasing sales and streams, but on the other hand marketing is expensive too -- so the money the company spends on the marketing has to be realistically got back from the increased sales. If an album gets to #1 but drops like a stone -- like ROTT did -- and the second single is given a cold shoulder, then just increasing promotion is throwing good money after the bad money. A successfull album finds its own legs after the initial push, but if it drops down dead on the second week or the very minute big money is thrown at it, then it's just not a very successfull album.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Now you're just being naive. Do you honestly believe that every artist on Columbia gets the same promotional push than Adele? The main point of marketing is to increase the profits. You get this by increasing sales and streams, but on the other hand marketing is expensive too -- so the money the company spends on the marketing has to be realistically got back from the increased sales. If an album gets to #1 but drops like a stone -- like ROTT did -- and the second single is given a cold shoulder, then just increasing promotion is throwing good money after the bad money. A successfull album finds its own legs after the initial push, but if it drops down dead on the second week or the very minute big money is thrown at it, then it's just not a very successfull album.

Yes, I agree with you, I know that much in how it works.

Though to a large degree it’s the record companies that shape the general publics ear, in what they believe they want. Art with substance will not get the same chance if it is not constantly put on display like the easier to sell, more accessible product is, and in turn the general music listener’s palate will remain severely limited.

I know it doesn’t work like this. But if an album doesn’t do well from any artist, then it has to be questioned why, amongst other things, why the artist was allowed in the studio in the first place. It’s obvious the company had faith in the album demos to allow it to be recorded. So in this case, if the artist gave everything they agreed they would do, and the company allowed the album to be made, then who or what’s at fault here in the failure of an album’s success?

 

[ThePoliticalRevolution]

this is absolutely none of my business, but im pretty sure one reason why these managers have failed in the marketing department is because they've not tried to understand how steve sees himself in this world. i mean, that can't be an easy lift. and most of these people aren't special like steve.

ok, i gotta go.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

this is absolutely none of my business, but im pretty sure one reason why these managers have failed in the marketing department is because they've not tried to understand how steve sees himself in this world. i mean, that can't be an easy lift. and most of these people aren't special like steve.

ok, i gotta go.

True. But as I said in an earlier post. M signed up for it, he must know, through years of experience with labels, that he’s gonna lose. They don’t seem to have the facilities to understand him or the genius to market an artist like him. How do you market trouble? Beautiful trouble, to a public that have such limited palates.

 

[ThePoliticalRevolution]

True. But as I said in an earlier post. M signed up for it, he must know, through years of experience with labels, that he’s gonna lose. They don’t seem to have the facilities to understand him or the genius to market an artist like him. How do you market trouble? Beautiful trouble, to a public that have such limited palates.

You just jam it down their throats. Thats how i've done it!

 

[ThePoliticalRevolution]

True. But as I said in an earlier post. M signed up for it, he must know, through years of experience with labels, that he’s gonna lose. They don’t seem to have the facilities to understand him or the genius to market an artist like him. How do you market trouble? Beautiful trouble, to a public that have such limited palates.

I would say that he hasn't lost.

If he thinks that, thats his mind playing tricks on him. Or he is just bored. Probably a combo of both.

Loss is a 2.5 trillion dollar crypto wipeout with ongoing contagion affecting god knows how many people.

He's not one of them and thats definitely a win.

Anyway, i'm praying for everyone - especially to the saint in a stained glass window.

 

[Eldritch]

I know it doesn’t work like this. But if an album doesn’t do well from any artist, then it has to be questioned why, amongst other things, why the artist was allowed in the studio in the first place. It’s obvious the company had faith in the album demos to allow it to be recorded. So in this case, if the artist gave everything they agreed they would do, and the company allowed the album to be made, then who or what’s at fault here in the failure of an album’s success?

But what defines a success? I guess for a record company it means that the album makes at least some profit. ROTT was #1 in the UK and Morrissey has never released an album, which has sold platinum, so for Sanctuary it must have been at least some kind of success. However, if they had kept promoting despite public's disinterest, it would have become less and less successfull, since all that takes money which would have eaten away the profits.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

You just jam it down their throats. Thats how i've done it!

Yes, that seems the way to go, otherwise the artist doesn’t have a chance. The record company or popular music platform has to reshape the general publics tastes if they are
going to get them to recognize and begin to appreciate and enjoy other forms of art. And it seems like with pop music, this could only be done through promotion and saturation.

I would say that he hasn't lost.

If he thinks that, thats his mind playing tricks on him. Or he is just bored. Probably a combo of both.

Loss is a 2.5 trillion dollar crypto wipeout with ongoing contagion affecting god knows how many people.

He's not one of them and thats definitely a win.

Anyway, i'm praying for everyone - especially to the saint in a stained glass window.

I only feel it’s a loss for artists for him in the sense that these are businesses that can’t really understand and give artist like these what they want. But I do find it admirable that these artists try. Being on a large label has its benefits, but is it worth the cost.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

But what defines a success? I guess for a record company it means that the album makes at least some profit. ROTT was #1 in the UK and Morrissey has never released an album, which has sold platinum, so for Sanctuary it must have been at least some kind of success. However, if they had kept promoting despite public's disinterest, it would have become less and less successfull, since all that takes money which would have eaten away the profits.

Agree. I’m speaking from a … well, ‘in a better world it might be like this’ model. But yes, success means different things to different people, and naturally the priorities of a label is to make money.

 

[ThePoliticalRevolution]

Yes, that seems the way to go, otherwise the artist doesn’t have a chance. The record company or popular music platform has to reshape the general publics tastes if they are
going to get them to recognize and begin to appreciate and enjoy other forms of art. And it seems like with pop music, this could only be done through promotion and saturation.



I only feel it’s a loss for artists for him in the sense that these are businesses that can’t really understand and give artist like these what they want. But I do find it admirable that these artists try. Being on a large label has its benefits, but is it worth the cost.

At the end of the day, M's body of work speaks for itself. His musical legacy is cemented.
No amount of criticism from poorly paid scribes can change this reality.

He's the Godard of music.

 

[Young And Alive]

I don't know why he's so hung up on chart positions.

There have been many great artists who have failed to ever get a #1 single, and some truly awful individuals who have several. In itself, it isn't really the mark of a genius.

He also seems to forget that the singles chart, whether it should be or not, is primarily the domain of younger artists. And by that I mean artists under the age of 30, and certainly no older than mid to late 30s.

The fact that he had several top 10 singles in the 2000s when he was in his mid 40s is remarkable in itself. Paul McCartney, for instance, hasn't had a UK top 10 single (in his own right, so excluding singles with him as a featured artist) since 1987, when he was 45 years old. Roughly the same age Morrissey was during the Quarry and ROTT eras.

Everyone has a shelf life as the 'in thing'. Losing it is not necessarily the sign of a fading talent. It's just an indictment of the ageism of the singles chart.

 

[Surface]

Agree. I’m speaking from a … well, ‘in a better world it might be like this’ model. But yes, success means different things to different people, and naturally the priorities of a label is to make money.

I would add that different artists have different approaches as well. James will work with any record company who will get their work out there even if it means minimal promotion, they then work on promoting themselves through good social media exposure by both individual band members and their management team. I thought Quest would have stepped up in this space but they don't seem to be doing much to support Morrissey.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

I would add that different artists have different approaches as well. James will work with any record company who will get their work out there even if it means minimal promotion, they then work on promoting themselves through good social media exposure by both individual band members and their management team.

good for them.

I thought Quest would have stepped up in this space but they don't seem to be doing much to support Morrissey.

I assume they helped in the Capitol sign?

But beside that assumption, Quest’s support seems not so visible to the public eye.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

At the end of the day, M's body of work speaks for itself. His musical legacy is cemented.
No amount of criticism from poorly paid scribes can change this reality.

informative

He's the Godard of music.

Well, compared to the pop music he wishes to be charting over, yes it’s something different.

I’ve always been surprised that Morrissey has been as successful as he’s been, he has a unique voice, can’t be that easy to sell to the masses.

 

[Surface]

good for them.


I assume they helped in the Capitol sign?

But beside that assumption, Quest’s support seems not so visible to the public eye.

Yes they probably did but I've always assumed a management company also play a part in keeping an artist relevant through various means and Quest don't seem to doing much in this space. All we seem to see is shit from Sam.

 

[ThePoliticalRevolution]

informative


Well, compared to the pop music he wishes to be charting over, yes it’s something different.

I’ve always been surprised that Morrissey has been as successful as he’s been, he has a unique voice, can’t be that easy to sell to the masses.

Why would you be surprised.
He's special. He's stubborn.
I can relate.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

I don't know why he's so hung up on chart positions.

The love and obsession of following the charts as a child, even drawing his own up, it’s ingrained in his brain, and can’t, it seems, easily be shed.

There have been many great artists who have failed to ever get a #1 single, and some truly awful individuals who have several. In itself, it isn't really the mark of a genius.

He also seems to forget that the singles chart, whether it should be or not, is primarily the domain of younger artists. And by that I mean artists under the age of 30, and certainly no older than mid to late 30s.

The fact that he had several top 10 singles in the 2000s when he was in his mid 40s is remarkable in itself. Paul McCartney, for instance, hasn't had a UK top 10 single (in his own right, so excluding singles with him as a featured artist) since 1987, when he was 45 years old. Roughly the same age Morrissey was during the Quarry and ROTT eras.

Everyone has a shelf life as the 'in thing'. Losing it is not necessarily the sign of a fading talent. It's just an indictment of the ageism of the singles chart.

 

[ThePoliticalRevolution]

have you ever stayed home all day marathon watching godard films / listening to morrissey b-sides and baking in a silk robe? i have. it's very relaxing.

you kids should try it.