Elvis Costello wants fans to shun a limited edition box-set of his music priced at over £200 when it goes on sale next month. “Unfortunately, we at www.elviscostello.com find ourselves unable to recommend this lovely item to you as the price appears to be either a misprint or a satire,” wrote Costello on the aforementioned …
That last paragraph did look a bit sceptical - but that's not to say it's not true. As much as I like Costello I certainly wouldn't stump up over £200 for a bleedin' box set. I suppose the question is: does he get a percentage of the profits, or a flat-rate per unit sale? Or does he get a 'wage' for the whole deal?
Either way, I can't imagine he actually *needs* the money....
He can afford to say he doesn't need the money, knowing Japanese collectors, traders, and completists will stump up the £210 anyway.
Costello will presumably get the same rate per song as he would if the songs were sold as downloads on on a CD for £7.99
Surely the NIN route was the exact opposite? You could get the stuff for free legally but could get different paid for versions if you want.
This is not what is happening with this release.
The Rumor has it ...
We should be watching the detectives ...
My Punk roots are feeling queasy ...
Why not come clean Declan
Tell us not to buy it because it's crap, that's the reason why I will not be buying it, not yours.
not even if you paid me...
I wouldn't take a copy and force myself to listen to it even if you paid me £210. Life is far too short.
ah yes I remember, wasn't he the poor man's Graham Parker ?
What amuses me about some of the above commentards is the fact that they think we're interested to hear that they think Costello is crap.
"well-heeled completists and traders will fork out, knowing the items will be even more expensive in the secondary market."
You mean they are hoping prices will be higher on the secondary market. There have been cases where this limitted edition stuff has turned out not to be limitted enough. As a result retaillers have been left with stock which has gradually been discounted, leaving traders in a postion where their "valuable collectors item" can be bought much cheaper new than they paid for it, let alone what they are trying to sell it for.
Re: the dumbfuck naysaying commentards above
Musicians are best judged by their peers. So Roy Orbison, Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen etc. obviously haven't a clue and were desperate for the publicity.
Roy Orbison - fat, cloying warbler.
Paul McCartney - Wings and the Frog Chorus, need I say more?
Bruce Springsteen - pub singer who made it because they're are no pubs in the US
Don't totally agree
> Roy Orbison - fat, cloying warbler.
He was a bloody good singer, I wasn't too impressed with the songs he chose to sing though.
> Paul McCartney - Wings and the Frog Chorus, need I say more?
The Frog Chorus Rocks.
> Bruce Springsteen - pub singer who made it because they're are no pubs in the US
I have to give you that one.
Springteen wrote some of the most politically significant lyrics to come out of the US. Ever. But that probably doesn't count as far as you're concerned does it?
"Duh, I don't like it so it's crap!" Just about sums up your attitude. Well done.
no idea how you judge relevancy, but if you truly believe ole brucie (who I, punk/skin I am at heart still quite like) is the pinnacle of political lyrics coming out of the USA within the last -whatever- years: My heart weeps for you.
Even the 'merkin charts have had more on offer, let alone stuff that doesn't hit mtv or clear channel...
NP: Agnostic Front - Something's Gotta Give
"in a depression, the rich get thin, but the poor go hungry"
If this were true, the current economic situation would not be a depression: as the available data bears out, the poor are indeed getting hungry while the rich appear to be getting fatter than ever.
What a load of bollocks.
Here is how the music business works (which is more about BUSINESS than it is about MUSIC) :
Most of the revenues go to the record company. By "most" I mean vast majority, although their profit may not be huge, depending upon production costs (yes, even for a box set), marketing (yes even for a box set). logistics and distribution (yes etc) and so on.
The (small) percentage to the artiste (who is not necessarily the songwriter, so he gets performance income not songwriting royalties) may be clawed back by the record company because when they fork over dollops of cash to sign an artiste and pay for time in the studio (and the producer, engineer)(and the music video etc) that is either all or a large portion an ADVANCE to the artiste.
Now you now why so many performers are permanently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. As soon as they get the advance they spend it on ... well you don't need me to tell you that... so when their first album flops they are deeply in debt,
Welcome to the music biz.
This is merely conformation that the copyright mafiaa view music as a commodity to be traded, this is the equivalent of Goodman Sachs short selling a product into the market what is going to be speculated on by short term investors looking to make a profit. The only consolation I take from this cynical marketing scam is that this music will be ripped and downloaded.
Did he have any hits beside "Oliver’s Army" and "A good day for the Roses", because I can’t remember any of them.
I didn't want one anyway.
The price is only half the scam
I've got a real problem with these high priced box sets. But that's the smaller part of this story caused by me being cheap.
Here's the bigger story:
Amazon UK sells it for £210. Amazon US sells it for $202. Why does this box set cost over $180 more in the UK? That's a 90% mark-up from the outrageous US Price.
Ah, happy days
Saw him for 50p at the Hope and Anchor back in the 70s - bloody good. The late Charlie Gillette thought he was pretty damned good, and that should be enough for anyone! Mind you, Graham Parker...another star now sadly dimmed.