The Economics of Being Spiritualized

cheaps · Post by **cheaps** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:18 pm

I was wondering if people have any views on the economics of surviving as a rock band these days. I started thinking about this after listening to Amazing Grace, which was recorded fast, apparently because Jason wanted to focus less on production values. But at the same time, they just moved to a new and smaller label. So that made me wonder: does the sound of the new album really just reflect a new artistic approach, or were they working to a tighter budget?

Just wondering!

twentysixdollars · Post by **twentysixdollars** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:49 pm

As far as I know Amazing Grace was recorded under the aegis of BMG, with their money and studio time, and Jason's contract was terminated after it was already finished, thereby allowing Jason to deliver a finished product to his new label. He probably got out of BMG's owning the recordings by means of his own 'label', Spaceman Records, which officially owns his last two records and for which BMG was largely a distributor and promoter. It's a pretty good racket: BMG pays for everything but owns relatively little. I'm not sure if future reissues of Let It Come Down (if it's ever reissued) will be on BMG or Sanctuary or some combination of the two (see Japanese Amazing Grace thread). And one wonders why BMG was so sick of him! Of course, this is assuming what I've said is true, when in fact it is a mish-mash of fact and speculation, ie, I don't know the terms of the dissolution of the contract with BMG nor do I fully understand what Spaceman Records is or what agreement it had with BMG.

My theory has always been that the sound of Amazing Grace is the product not of being strapped for cash but rather of fatigue on Jason's part. After he'd worked harder and longer on an album than he'd ever worked before, and spent an absurd amount of money getting it glistening, the result was lukewarm critical reception and public indifference. In this position, wouldn't anyone pare down their ambitions?

veiko · Post by **veiko** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:50 am

twentysixdollars wrote: I'm not sure if future reissues of Let It Come Down (if it's ever reissued) will be on BMG or Sanctuary or some combination of the two (see Japanese Amazing Grace thread).

Let it come down has been reissued.
i saw a review about it in this autumn (probably october or maybe was it november) The Face.
can't remember the label.

slim · Post by **slim** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:45 am

twentysixdollars wrote:...BMG pays for everything but owns relatively little...

They might own very little but Spiritualized Ltd will still have to repay the costs, it's called recouping. I wouldn't be too surprised if they don't owe a shed load of money to BMG, especially for the recording of LICD.

Anyway it's probabily a bit of lots of things, belt tightening and a new artistic approach, whatever.

Silent Corner/Empty Stage · Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:53 pm

So how well do Spiritualized albums sell anyways? The tours aren't in very big venues at all, and aren't exactly packed. Every time I mention the band to someone I get the inevitable response 'Who?' Lack of funds would certainly explain the thrown together Amazing Grace and CW 1 & 2 albums.

spacemanrich · Post by **spacemanrich** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 1:27 am

Yeah, it seems like the AG Tour was less received than other previous tours, even though both dates for S.F. were sold-out ! Reading from other posts, it seems like the venues were smaller and were less than half-filled ?

I'm sure that their is a 'billboard' type of thing to see the amount of units or records that artists are selling i.e. - albums sold in the U.K., albums sold in the States that people can look up and access - is there ? I would assume that SPZ sells less than 100,000 units/album while Britney Spears several million - what a shame ? I saw the 'eurocharts' on a German program and their is an artist called " DJ Bobo " charting with a song called, " Chihuahua " -spelling - quite hilarious and sad at the sametime ...