Morrissey Central "‘BONFIRE OF TEENAGERS’ IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" (June 14, 2023)

'BONFIRE OF TEENAGERS’ IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS'

unnamed.png


Artist-friendly Capitol Records (Los Angeles) have no plans to release ‘Bonfire of Teenagers’ two and a half years after the album was recorded.

unnamed.jpg


Morrissey’s new comment on the situation:

“It’s a clear display of how censorian the music industry has become. It is a new part of the music industry that does not work and that nobody likes. Music should be the primary democracy, as all art should be, and any effort to keep people away from it simply invites deeper discussion. There is no point banning ‘Bonfire of Teenagers’ because somebody somewhere might be offended if they heard it. Why waste time on other people’s mental incapacities? And where is Capitol’s support for the kids who were murdered in that Manchester bonfire on 22 May 2017? Although Capitol claims to be a label of ‘diversity’ it is very difficult to see their humanity. If you are only prepared to release music that draws people’s minds away from thinking then you are unfit for any contact with creative people. Songs are literary compositions, and writing music should be an unrestricted open form. It seems to me that Capitol Records cannot observe the possibility that their artists or their potential customers have ever thought. But silencing certain artists achieves nothing, and simply makes the bonfire burn taller and louder. The moral perspective at Capitol Records who is sitting like a hen on an egg on ‘Bonfire of Teenagers’ is Michelle Jubelirer, who played no small part in removing ‘World Peace is None Of Your Business’ from the shelves in 2014 - determined that it could not sell or be heard. The same creeping culture of censorship at Capitol Records has taken place with ‘Bonfire Of Teenagers’, and the civic structure of Capitol now appears fascist. I still have hope in the music industry, but there are evidently several powerful faces within it that have no honest interest in music … and you follow them into the shadows at your peril.”
MORRISSEY.

unnamed[1].png




(Middle image = Michelle Jubelirer).
FWD.



Media items:
 
The real story here is that Morrissey rushed into a dreadful deal with Capitol in his haste to release an album. Soon as I heard it wasn't getting a UK release I knew it was doomed.

I've also said from the beginning that an album with this title will never get a release.

But surely they knew what the title was before signing him.
 
The real story here is that Morrissey rushed into a dreadful deal with Capitol in his haste to release an album. Soon as I heard it wasn't getting a UK release I knew it was doomed.
I've also said from the beginning that an album with this title will never get a release.
Often times label deals with American companies do not transfer overseas. He/Capitol would have had to pursue a deal with a euro label to get proper rights to release overseas.
 
The real story here is that Morrissey rushed into a dreadful deal with Capitol in his haste to release an album. Soon as I heard it wasn't getting a UK release I knew it was doomed.
I've also said from the beginning that an album with this title will never get a release.
It can't be that dreadful.. it wasn't a 360 deal where the label gets a cut of everything you do during the contract.

Ticket sales.. they get a cut.. Merch sales.. they get a cut.. You do an ad for a cologne.. they get a cut... you write a book.. they get a cut.

That is the deal that Morrissey could sign with any label any day of the week because he becomes their cash cow.
 
I wish M would talk about the contract he signed with them that borked it all up. Or could that put him in legal trouble?
Yeah, I wish someone would ask him. Sam? Fiona?

Is there some kind of time limit during which Capitol can have the album without releasing it?
Is he able to re-record it and release it elsewhere, or is there a clause that prevents this?
Is he able to release a live version? Or, again, there's a clause in the contract preventing this?
Is Capitol at all willing to sell the album back to him?
 
It can't be that dreadful.. it wasn't a 360 deal where the label gets a cut of everything you do during the contract.

Ticket sales.. they get a cut.. Merch sales.. they get a cut.. You do an ad for a cologne.. they get a cut... you write a book.. they get a cut.

That is the deal that Morrissey could sign with any label any day of the week because he becomes their cash cow.
It is dreadful... they're apparently entitled to just keep the album and not release it. You really can't sign a worse contract than that.

Does he have no legal representation to check contracts before he sings them? Wasn't he represented by the company that represents Paul McCartney at the time??
 
I still don't understand why he signed with them in a deal that didn't give him the right to walk and shop it elsewhere if they refused to release it within a certain time period. He should have just self-released on on Bandcamp or something for digital, then a boutique label for CD and vinyl special editions. Absurd that 2.5 years later still no album release in sight (and another new album already in the can too!). He has to get over this boomer obsession with big name record company labels and , traditional record contracts, the old way of releasing music.

He could also possibly re-record it and shop the new masters elsewhere or just self-release those (Capitol may own the original master recording, but if Moz still owns the publishing rights, he could essentially just do a cover of himself and re-record and not even have to pay a publishing rights fee to Capitol).
talking of self releasing,woman in my works son is 17 and in a band called the witts,young boys still in school,they have been invited to play the isle of wight festival and last week pressed 1000 vinyl albums at £32 per copy,if young boys in school can cut their own album then surely M could do the same.
 
Who is this hideous Carol King looking amazon woman and why does she have anything to do with the record being released?
 
It is dreadful... they're apparently entitled to just keep the album and not release it. You really can't sign a worse contract than that.

Does he have no legal representation to check contracts before he sings them? Wasn't he represented by the company that represents Paul McCartney at the time??
I know a band that was signed to Sire records.
They released 2 or 3 albums and the sales were not good enough for the label.

They wrote another album and gave it to the label for release.
Sire hated the record and said they are not going to release it.

Sire then brought in ghost writers to help write the next album and the songs were made to be more radio friendly, less dark, more cliche. They were not allowed to change the lyrics or music they didn't even write.

The album Sire wanted was released. It was definitely nothing like they had done before and the fans didn't like it. They were put on a national tour opening for a very popular band but that didn't help the sales and they were dropped.

They asked for the songs they had recorded and Sire said no. Those songs sat on the shelf for a few years before they were able to negotiate a way to purchase the songs from Sire and then re-record them and release them.

This is what the labels are really doing. Morrissey is not wrong to be without a label when the things in the contracts offered are never in the best interest of the artist. He knows this because he's been around. New people have no idea. The label tells them, "This is how everyone does it" and they sign because getting signed is the goal and without any track record of generating money for the label there isn't any room to negotiate because the label will just sign someone else who doesn't put up a fight.
 
talking of self releasing,woman in my works son is 17 and in a band called the witts,young boys still in school,they have been invited to play the isle of wight festival and last week pressed 1000 vinyl albums at £32 per copy,if young boys in school can cut their own album then surely M could do the same.

I thought "self releasing" meant something else!
 
I still don't understand why he signed with them in a deal that didn't give him the right to walk and shop it elsewhere if they refused to release it within a certain time period. He should have just self-released on on Bandcamp or something for digital, then a boutique label for CD and vinyl special editions. Absurd that 2.5 years later still no album release in sight (and another new album already in the can too!). He has to get over this boomer obsession with big name record company labels and , traditional record contracts, the old way of releasing music.

He could also possibly re-record it and shop the new masters elsewhere or just self-release those (Capitol may own the original master recording, but if Moz still owns the publishing rights, he could essentially just do a cover of himself and re-record and not even have to pay a publishing rights fee to Capitol).
I think it's a matter of pride.

I think Fiona Dodwell asked him why he doesn't do that and he said something along the lines of doing it yourself still requires you to rely on a bunch of people and something like it's easier to get people who know what needs to be done via the labels or something like that.

For me it's more likely he believes he has earned someone saying, "We would love to release your album. You're a legend."

Him doing a self-release has an element of saying, "No one believes in me anymore."
I disagree with that sentiment. The only people that need to believe in you are the fans.
Because the labels are such selfish pricks and anyone who can do it without them should.
 
I know a band that was signed to Sire records.
They released 2 or 3 albums and the sales were not good enough for the label.

They wrote another album and gave it to the label for release.
Sire hated the record and said they are not going to release it.

Sire then brought in ghost writers to help write the next album and the songs were made to be more radio friendly, less dark, more cliche. They were not allowed to change the lyrics or music they didn't even write.

The album Sire wanted was released. It was definitely nothing like they had done before and the fans didn't like it. They were put on a national tour opening for a very popular band but that didn't help the sales and they were dropped.

They asked for the songs they had recorded and Sire said no. Those songs sat on the shelf for a few years before they were able to negotiate a way to purchase the songs from Sire and then re-record them and release them.

This is what the labels are really doing. Morrissey is not wrong to be without a label when the things in the contracts offered are never in the best interest of the artist. He knows this because he's been around. New people have no idea. The label tells them, "This is how everyone does it" and they sign because getting signed is the goal and without any track record of generating money for the label there isn't any room to negotiate because the label will just sign someone else who doesn't put up a fight.
The ghost-writers thing you mentioned is shocking. I would expect the band at least had the chance of saying no to that being released, but probably didn't cause they didn't want to be dropped.

Still, this still begs the question, why did Moz sign a contract that gave Capitol the power to keep the album and refuse to release it. I don't see an explanation for that other than poor representation/legal advice.
 
I think it's a matter of pride.

I think Fiona Dodwell asked him why he doesn't do that and he said something along the lines of doing it yourself still requires you to rely on a bunch of people and something like it's easier to get people who know what needs to be done via the labels or something like that.

For me it's more likely he believes he has earned someone saying, "We would love to release your album. You're a legend."

Him doing a self-release has an element of saying, "No one believes in me anymore."
I disagree with that sentiment. The only people that need to believe in you are the fans.
Because the labels are such selfish pricks and anyone who can do it without them should.
Absolutely. The labels "believing" in him or not is irrelevant. He should only care about whether the fans still want to hear the music.

I agree btw that's probably his reason for wanting a big label still. He was very evasive when Fiona asked the question.

If he can't get a decent record deal with a big label he just needs to go the independent label or self-release route. Otherwise he won't be able to release anything. He surely wants his music out?
 
By the way, it is also an interesting time to refer to "his" topic again after the Nottingham incident.
 
I know a way we can get Bonfire. One of us gets hired to work at Capitol Records (HQ ideally), sneaks around, and gets the physical/digital copies. We then give them to Morrissey and he sets up a page where you can buy them online digitally
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom