On 17 Oct 2002 at 17:11, johnirving wrote: > Well, well. Tongues are certainly wagging around here... > > Jim made a brilliant observation re: the Travelogue cover. Jim, you'd > make a great ad man. If you'd been around the table during the > discussion of the cover art, there'd be a new cover.
It seems unlikely that it would change. As Reprise President Howie Klein said "she wears the pants in all departments when it comes to her music." I don't think it's that much of a problem, mostly because it's a double CD and the price will be much greater than any of the releases it's similar too (to me it looks more like TTT than BSN). But flipping through the rack it'll stand out as being different because of price. And I'm sure advertising will highlight songs like "Woodstock" and "Circle Game" to attract potential buyers who aren't die hard fans like us who are waiting on pins & needles for a new release. > > As to the subject of Nonesuch... I hate to be the worry wart, but > there's no new deal here. This is the old Warner deal, which > contractually demanded 2 recordings. Hence her comment saying she 'may > never sign another record deal.' The best we can hope for, at the > moment anyway, is that Travelogue will count as one record, not two. > Leaving her obligated to once more. Although, if she wanted out... and > they wanted out... "sigh." > I think it's just a matter of choosing Nonesuch to release her record as well, and that it's not necessarily a new deal. The decision was for financial and marketing purposes. (Someone I know is checking to see if there was an extension negotiated with the move, which would mean more to come, but given how quickly it happened I doubt it.) Even though there are two records left on the contract, I don't think delivery would be "demanded." If she wanted to call it quits, her lawyer could negotiate her out. I really don't think anyone would hold her feet to the fire, unless Travelogue becomes a huge success. > Quoting Brenda... > "Tom Whalley, the chairman of Warner/Reprise has been nothing but > clear since he arrived last year about rejuvenating those labels as > pop labels and increasing market share. He came from Interscope - a > big spend, big sales kind of label. Joni's new music doesn't fit that > plan." > > Much of Joni's present distaste for the Industry stems from this > little tidbit. I recall one of her interviews she was quite bitter > about the 'new guy' coming on board after promises from the 'old guy' > who retired just as the ink was drying on her Warner contract. I'm > certain she felt betrayed. -I also think the dirth of new material > rises out of this. I don't think she wants to give Warner anything > more than she has to. In a way it's all fitting when you think of it. Which old guy are you talking about, Mo Ostin? Mo did not retire. He, his son Michael and Lenny Waronker were forced out. It was a huge shock across the business. Mo is not a false promises kind of guy. Not buy a stretch. And after he left, Joni delivered new material in TTT. (In fact, there was an article where Klein talked about how Joni was "exuberant" re: working TTT.) It was 6 years between Mo leaving in 1995 and Whalley starting in 2001 (and in between were Danny Goldberg and Russ Thyret). BSN was out before there was even a hint that Whalley was going over. For me, it just doesn't add up that this is about his arrival or Mo's departure. I'm with the camp that believes that she is just more interested in painting than she is in writing music. (I also think that the level of sales for Turbulent Indigo - and all the records subsequent to it - was a disappointment, especially given all the Grammy hype that TI got.) B n.p.: Squeeze - "Is That Love" -------------------------------------------- "Radio has no future" - Lord Kelvin, 1897
