HMV responds to Morrissey’s “Queen Is Dead” singles sales complaints - Pitchfork

HMV Responds to Morrissey’s “Queen Is Dead” Singles Sales Complaints - Pitchfork
By Jazz Monroe, June 20th.

Retailer says they wanted to “give genuine fans as much chance as possible to buy a copy”

HMV has responded to Morrissey’s Facebook post accusing the store of trying to “freeze sales” of the Smiths’ “The Queen Is Dead” single reissue. Morrissey complained Saturday that the store was limiting the 7" and 12" singles’ sales to one-per-customer. (He encouraged fans to wear false noses, clip-on ears, nurse outfits, stilts, or “variable wigs” to fool cashiers.) In a statement to Pitchfork, HMV says they wanted to “give genuine fans as much chance as possible to buy a copy” of the limited-edition single, and that, by Saturday, it had nearly sold out anyway. Read their full statement below.

"Our stores are encouraged to use these stickers where a release is known to be extremely limited in order to prevent bulk buying and on-line resales at inflated prices. This approach gives genuine fans as much chance as possible to find and buy a copy. Over 90% of the allocation we were given across both formats had sold before Morrissey posted his comments on Saturday evening."

The Pitchfork story was immediately then shared via N.M.E.:
HMV responds to Morrissey’s ‘sales freeze’ claims.
http://www.nme.com/news/music/morrissey-hmv-smiths-freeze-sales-response-2090678

Regards,
FWD.

 

[ACTON]

I pull strings.

The one string banjo doesn't count!

 

[ACTON]

' I find these rants disrespectful to his fans because it just makes it harder to be a fan.'


for you? maybe. When taken from his point of view, most of what he says, makes sense, and is rightly justified and spot-on.


.

I find it harder every year to like someone who moans like a 90 year old brittled boned baglady kicked down the stairs of a high rise council estate in the throes of demolition. I'd say he complains in his sleep. Nothing but complaints. I wish he would stop doing interviews and basically stop talking and concentrate on the one thing he excels at: singing/making music (I guess that is two things). I'd love for him to say something positive. Then again I don't really give a toss what he says anymore if it is just more negativity. Just like my post really.
On a positive note I'm liking the new Paul Weller album although it took a while to grow on me.

 

[ACTON]

That's not true. He does a lot of things that have a negative effect on his ability to earn. It's about being famous, a public figure, and to be loathed by the readers of the Daily Mail.
Money is a consideration definitely. He could have saved a lot of money by paying Mike Joyce in a lump sum and being done with it, though, so it's not like he's some financial wizard.
With this record sticker rant it's not about the money that will be generated. It's really not that much money. It was the desire to see the record go as high in the charts as possible. Same with the Paris re-release nonsense. It's possible he had delusions of that turning into an Elton John -Princess Diana level event, but the message said "Guaranteed number one."
If you go back to the very beginning and assume his motivation is to be famous, quoted, and hated by a certain group of people, a lot of his actions make a lot more sense. No one who is only in it for the money would cancel a show because their voice is not quite up to standard. Have you ever heard the Rolling Stones live? Mick croaks like a frog sometimes but he still gets out there and collects his fee.

Tell that to Joyce, Stephen Street, Craig Gannon, and basically everyone who has ever worked for him and got stiffed (not literally I hope). He is as tight as a duck's arse, and that's watertight! Of course I'd be the exact same if I was him

 

[Anonymous]

[QUmjOTE="ACTON, post: 1987009916, member: 7085"]I find it harder every year to like someone who moans like a 90 year old brittled boned baglady kicked down the stairs of a high rise council estate in the throes of demolition. I'd say he complains in his sleep. Nothing but complaints. I wish he would stop doing interviews and basically stop talking and concentrate on the one thing he excels at: singing/making music (I guess that is two things). I'd love for him to say something positive. Then again I don't really give a toss what he says anymore if it is just more negativity. Just like my post really.
On a positive note I'm liking the new Paul Weller album although it took a while to grow on me.[/QUOTE]

Bloody hell Acko the way you're carrying on you'll be singing " vote Benny-the-Butcher " next !

Don't forget kids ! GLASTONBURY IS NOT ANIMAL FRIENDLY ! Steve said so ( even though he performed there more than once )

4KIN CRANKFRAUD HYPOCRITE

Benny-the-British-Butcher

 

[Quando quando quando]

I find it harder every year to like someone who moans like a 90 year old brittled boned baglady kicked down the stairs of a high rise council estate in the throes of demolition. I'd say he complains in his sleep. Nothing but complaints. I wish he would stop doing interviews and basically stop talking and concentrate on the one thing he excels at: singing/making music (I guess that is two things). I'd love for him to say something positive. Then again I don't really give a toss what he says anymore if it is just more negativity. Just like my post really.
On a positive note I'm liking the new Paul Weller album although it took a while to grow on me.

Do as I do Acton, ignore it. It's all secondary and although I can absolutely understand your irritation, I think all the statements and the controversy he likes to create is of a much lesser importance then his songs, his lyrics, his music, his band, his live shows and his albums, which was proven to me at least with WPINOYB and his last tour.
Cheers Acton!

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Yes his statement suggests that, i however do not see what the massive problem is, if he isn't happy about a limited release(which often have on per person) they he should take it up with his label not HMV. he hides behind 'people are out to get me' as away of trying to avoid saying; 'i want the money right now'. and the fact as someone has mentioned he has commented about the bulk buyers.

'if he isn't happy about a limited release'

Is he not happy with a limited release? Nowhere in his statement did he say that. So I don't think that's the problem for him.

'This sticker was not requested by the Smiths' -M

As I said before, someone other than the artist and without the artists consent is being/their art is being controlled (sold in a way that they did not agree to ).

'An attempt to freeze sales is, of course, an overwhelming insult to the Smiths ... as if artistic freedom must struggle in our current culture of banality ... as if only counterfeit emotions may apply. '-M

He feels someone or something, without his consent, is impeding his art from getting out to those in the public who want to purchase as many copies as they wish. And doesn't want his fans to think that the sticker and the limit of purchase has anything to do with him or the Smiths.

It's also an insult to his fans(or people in general) that they have to be limited to one purchase, as if they are not intelligent enough or responsible enough to make their own decisions on what they buy and how much they buy.

CONTROL. 'Freud: "There is no such thing as an accident." -M

.... So just who's pulling the strings?


Sorry, but when people bring out the tired 'he's playing the victim' line, well, it's a bit lazy. I feel it's much more complicated than that. And 'Morrissey as playing the victim' would take up a whole other thread. I'll just say... he doesn't have to 'play'.

I'm afraid I see nothing in what he said to imply that he is saying 'i want the money right now'. Why can't people come to their own conclusion that if he wanted money, he could find much easier and better ways to do it. That's goes for publicity also.


.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

I find it harder every year to like someone who moans like a 90 year old brittled boned baglady kicked down the stairs of a high rise council estate in the throes of demolition. I'd say he complains in his sleep. Nothing but complaints. I wish he would stop doing interviews and basically stop talking and concentrate on the one thing he excels at: singing/making music (I guess that is two things). I'd love for him to say something positive. Then again I don't really give a toss what he says anymore if it is just more negativity. Just like my post really.
On a positive note I'm liking the new Paul Weller album although it took a while to grow on me.

I agree with you to an extent, but.. hell, yeah ! let's hear the music!

But as far as us having an opinion on what he says or does, well it's just and only that, an 'opinion' another point of view, which is fine.

Though I will say.. We wouldn't hear the 'moans' of the 'baglady kicked down the stairs' if people would just stop kicking her down the stairs !

 

[Quando quando quando]

'if he isn't happy about a limited release'

Is he not happy with a limited release? Nowhere in his statement did he say that. So I don't think that's the problem for him.

'This sticker was not requested by the Smiths' -M

As I said before, someone other than the artist and without the artists consent is being/their art is being controlled (sold in a way that they did not agree to ).

'An attempt to freeze sales is, of course, an overwhelming insult to the Smiths ... as if artistic freedom must struggle in our current culture of banality ... as if only counterfeit emotions may apply. '-M

He feels someone or something, without his consent, is impeding his art from getting out to those in the public who want to purchase as many copies as they wish. And doesn't want his fans to think that the sticker and the limit of purchase has anything to do with him or the Smiths.

It's also an insult to his fans(or people in general) that they have to be limited to one purchase, as if they are not intelligent enough or responsible enough to make their own decisions on what they buy and how much they buy.

CONTROL. 'Freud: "There is no such thing as an accident." -M

.... So just who's pulling the strings?


Sorry, but when people bring out the tired 'he's playing the victim' line, well, it's a bit lazy. I feel it's much more complicated than that. And 'Morrissey as playing the victim' would take up a whole other thread. I'll just say... he doesn't have to 'play'.

I'm afraid I see nothing in what he said to imply that he is saying 'i want the money right now'. Why can't people come to their own conclusion that if he wanted money, he could find much easier and better ways to do it. That's goes for publicity also.


.

^^^^^^^ T H I S ^^^^^^^^
All of it!

 

[Calamine Lotion]

Tell that to Joyce, Stephen Street, Craig Gannon, and basically everyone who has ever worked for him and got stiffed (not literally I hope). He is as tight as a duck's arse, and that's watertight! Of course I'd be the exact same if I was him

No I know he's tight with money but that's a secondary motive.

 

[Carly]

'if he isn't happy about a limited release'

Is he not happy with a limited release? Nowhere in his statement did he say that. So I don't think that's the problem for him.

'This sticker was not requested by the Smiths' -M

As I said before, someone other than the artist and without the artists consent is being/their art is being controlled (sold in a way that they did not agree to ).

'An attempt to freeze sales is, of course, an overwhelming insult to the Smiths ... as if artistic freedom must struggle in our current culture of banality ... as if only counterfeit emotions may apply. '-M

He feels someone or something, without his consent, is impeding his art from getting out to those in the public who want to purchase as many copies as they wish. And doesn't want his fans to think that the sticker and the limit of purchase has anything to do with him or the Smiths.

It's also an insult to his fans(or people in general) that they have to be limited to one purchase, as if they are not intelligent enough or responsible enough to make their own decisions on what they buy and how much they buy.

CONTROL. 'Freud: "There is no such thing as an accident." -M

.... So just who's pulling the strings?


Sorry, but when people bring out the tired 'he's playing the victim' line, well, it's a bit lazy. I feel it's much more complicated than that. And 'Morrissey as playing the victim' would take up a whole other thread. I'll just say... he doesn't have to 'play'.

I'm afraid I see nothing in what he said to imply that he is saying 'i want the money right now'. Why can't people come to their own conclusion that if he wanted money, he could find much easier and better ways to do it. That's goes for publicity also.


.

Yet as is said he ISN'T the ONLY person do have one per person sticker, yes he is acting the unnecessary victim. It is a limited release, get over it.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Yet as is said he ISN'T the ONLY person do have one per person sticker, yes he is acting the unnecessary victim. It is a limited release, get over it.

'Yet as is said he ISN'T the ONLY person do have one per person sticker'

Yes, I already covered that in my post #19

Anyways, the real question is... Why are HMV so concerned about a limited record that they must go out of their way to limit it's purchase? how do they benefit? And don't say they were just being fair and courteous to the buyers.

And the other concern is or should be ... shouldn't they notify the artists through the company if it is o.k with them that they sell it in this/that way?

'yes he is acting the unnecessary victim.' ?

if you think. I don't.

In my view, he doesn't have to act.

'It is a limited release, get over it.'

Get over what? yes we all know it's a limited release, but that's really no reason to limit it's purchase to one per person.

 

[SuedeMoz]

'Yet as is said he ISN'T the ONLY person do have one per person sticker'

Yes, I already covered that in my post #19

Not exactly, Payola was about a quid pro quo arrangement for radio airtime. It has nothing to do with a record store stocking inventory to intentionally not sell. No one has yet explained any logical reason why they would do this. Morrissey claimed that only The Smiths received this sticker - alternative facts - not true.

BTW, limiting per transaction sales is really not that foreign of a concept when it comes to a limited inventory situation. When Morrissey, or any other major artist for that matter, plays shows ... why am I limited to 4 tickets per order (sometimes only 2)? Why can't I buy 30 or even 100 tickets at once? Seriously, is the artist consulted on every decision like this?

How much money did the record company invest into the process of creating the physical product for this release? Doesn't that give them a say into how it's sold? So, no, it's not just up to Morrissey in how they things are done. He can always go down a 100% self-financed approach, why doesn't he? That's the real question.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Not exactly, Payola was about a quid pro quo arrangement for radio airtime. It has nothing to do with a record store stocking inventory to intentionally not sell. No one has yet explained any logical reason why they would do this. Morrissey claimed that only The Smiths received this sticker - alternative facts - not true.

BTW, limiting per transaction sales is really not that foreign of a concept when it comes to a limited inventory situation. When Morrissey, or any other major artist for that matter, plays shows ... why am I limited to 4 tickets per order (sometimes only 2)? Why can't I buy 30 or even 100 tickets at once? Seriously, is the artist consulted on every decision like this?

How much money did the record company invest into the process of creating the physical product for this release? Doesn't that give them a say into how it's sold? So, no, it's not just up to Morrissey in how they things are done. He can always go down a 100% self-financed approach, why doesn't he? That's the real question.

Because he likes spending other peoples' money, not his own. It's that simple.

 

[Musician]

[QUOTE="

Anyways, the real question is... Why are HMV so concerned about a limited record that they must go out of their way to limit it's purchase? how do they benefit? [/QUOTE]

I'm surprised nobody pointed out to the obvious yet.

HMV is a record store, not a record label. They cannot release anything. Record label can. So, these records being limited are decided by the label that released both records (quite possibly as a joint effort with HMV).

The decision to put this (and other) rights to the hands of the record label was Morrissey's and Marr's. He and Marr signed the contract from his own will. So, if he doesn't like this, can only blame himself (and Marr) for not negotiating better terms or reading the small print. Or can buy out his share. There are ways in pop business. Moaning is not one.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Not exactly, Payola was about a quid pro quo arrangement for radio airtime. It has nothing to do with a record store stocking inventory to intentionally not sell. No one has yet explained any logical reason why they would do this. Morrissey claimed that only The Smiths received this sticker - alternative facts - not true.

BTW, limiting per transaction sales is really not that foreign of a concept when it comes to a limited inventory situation. When Morrissey, or any other major artist for that matter, plays shows ... why am I limited to 4 tickets per order (sometimes only 2)? Why can't I buy 30 or even 100 tickets at once? Seriously, is the artist consulted on every decision like this?

How much money did the record company invest into the process of creating the physical product for this release? Doesn't that give them a say into how it's sold? So, no, it's not just up to Morrissey in how they things are done. He can always go down a 100% self-financed approach, why doesn't he? That's the real question.

'It has nothing to do with a record store stocking..'


Yes, we know that. I was just using that as an example, that maybe someone is getting paid for these actions, though they (whoever 'they' is) could be benefiting in some other way, maybe with a fruitcake every x-mass.

'No one has yet explained any logical reason why they would do this.'

yes, exactly

'Morrissey claimed that only The Smiths received this sticker'

yes, he was wrong about that, but only because he wasn't notified/told.

'Seriously, is the artist consulted on every decision like this?'

If they were, then there wouldn't be problems like this, or a thread on this subject to begin with, so yes I think they should be consulted in how their art is sold.

I think he could have it written up in his contract that yes he does have a say, or be notified to how his art is being sold.

I don't see why other artists are not concerned about this form of suppression. I take it, 1. they just don't care, or 2. they don't feel that their work can be considered 'art' and they feel it is just product to bring cash in for them, so they never raise a fuss or rock the boat so they can remain on the good side of those that are buttering their bread. But Morrissey, being only who he can be, demands vegan butter... and now the whole world being what it unfortunately is, will in turn try and crucify him !


people....


MORRISSEY DIES EVERYDAY FOR YOUR SINS !


it's about time you began thanking him.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

[QUOTE="

I'm surprised nobody pointed out to the obvious yet.

'The decision to put this (and other) rights to the hands of the record label was Morrissey's and Marr's. He and Marr signed the contract from his own will. So, if he doesn't like this, can only blame himself (and Marr) for not negotiating better terms or reading the small print.'

yes, exactly, that's IF it was in the contract that they would give full permission to the record label to sell their records in the way they see fit. Do we know what it says in that contract they signed?


'There are ways in pop business. Moaning is not one.'

Yes, there are correct 'business-like' ways to fix this issue, but that would take too long.
I mean,because it was a FB post, I feel it was M's concern that the public and his fans be told right now that this sticker and limit of purchase had nothing to do with him and the Smiths.




.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Because he likes spending other peoples' money, not his own. It's that simple.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it ever really 'other peoples money'?

I mean, any money initially put up by a company will be reimbursed to them through sales. So isn't it always his money?

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

How much money did the record company invest into the process of creating the physical product for this release? Doesn't that give them a say into how it's sold? So, no, it's not just up to Morrissey in how they things are done. He can always go down a 100% self-financed approach, why doesn't he? That's the real question.

But isn't it really Morrissey's money? and if so, shouldn't he have a say in how his art is sold? I think so.



.

 

[Musician]

'The decision to put this (and other) rights to the hands of the record label was Morrissey's and Marr's. He and Marr signed the contract from his own will. So, if he doesn't like this, can only blame himself (and Marr) for not negotiating better terms or reading the small print.'

yes, exactly, that's IF it was in the contract that they would give full permission to the record label to sell their records in the way they see fit. Do we know what it says in that contract they signed?

.

Judging from 28 years' endless re-releases, they indeed handed over these rights, too. Otherwise both Morrissey and Marr would have launched lawsuits against the respective label(s) (including the current case).

 

[Quando quando quando]

But isn't it really Morrissey's money? and if so, shouldn't he have a say in how his art is sold? I think so.



.

No, it's Mike Joyce's money.
Hasn't he complained yet?
Or am I now giving him an idea?