Alice's Relationship with Warner

[Seriously]

Do you have any idea how many artists have been signed to Warner Bros over

Its just my opinion as a fan that they should be doing more. Other labels still have on their back catalogue website artists who are no longer with them, but absolutely nothing on WB.[/quote]

Can you, or can you not still buy the albums by Alice released by Warner Bros?

That's all that matters[/quote]

To you. If you don't like the question or got nothing meaningful to say don't say it.

[While Heaven Wept]

Do you have any idea how many artists have been signed to Warner Bros over

Its just my opinion as a fan that they should be doing more. Other labels still have on their back catalogue website artists who are no longer with them, but absolutely nothing on WB.

Can you, or can you not still buy the albums by Alice released by Warner Bros?

That's all that matters[/quote]

To you. If you don't like the question or got nothing meaningful to say don't say it.[/quote]

What is it exactly that you think Warner Bros should be doing for Alice?

[A_MichaelUK]

>Sorry to press you on this, but in response to the questions and your replies:

No apology is necessary.

>I think if they reap the benefits they should recognise this with support.

You keep using that word but you don't explain what you mean.

>I quite like statistics.

It looks like you're out of luck as far as those are concerned. I could probably give you an indication of what each album sold but it wouldn't be exactly correct.

>I think it still has much more milage for discussion.

Go ahead.

>(Or perhaps I should get out a bit more)!

Now you're starting to make sense.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Its just my opinion as a fan that they should be doing more.

LIKE WHAT?!

>Other labels still have on their back catalogue website artists who are no longer with them, but absolutely nothing on WB.[/quote]

Who cares about a record company "website" though?! It's hardly the cutting edge of marketing! Most people don't buy recordings from a record company "website" as you may have noticed.

>To you. If you don't like the question or got nothing meaningful to say don't say it.

You still haven't explained what you want to see happen.

[A_MichaelUK]

>What is it exactly that you think Warner Bros should be doing for Alice?

Not only that, but at the expense of all their other artists as well. If Seriously had been making these claims when Alice was actually with that company, I could understand it (nobody was complaining louder back then I was) but I'm not sure what he or she is expecting to happen all these years later - that's the part that he (or she) hasn't explained.

[Seriously]

To you. If you don't like the question or got nothing meaningful to say don't say it.[/quote]

What is it exactly that you think Warner Bros should be doing for Alice?[/quote]

Now that is a good question. Personnally I would like to see him included in their list of (back) artist, so when I do a search on WB and find him, I as a Hypothetically new fan, can see his back catalogue with them and sample some of the music. I honestly think this is a small ask.

However, I think they also they could promote/support him in other ways, dare I say it - sponsor a tour. The fiscal return long term would be advantageous.

These are just ideas, before certain people put the boot in.

[Seriously]

>I quite like statistics.

It looks like you're out of luck as far as those are concerned. I could probably give you an indication of what each album sold but it wouldn't be exactly correct.

That would be good, just out of interest.

[While Heaven Wept]

Personnally I would like to see him included in their list of (back) artist, so when I do a search on WB and find him, I as a Hypothetically new fan, can see his back catalogue with them and sample some of the music. I honestly think this is a small ask.

Why would a 'hypothetical new fan' be searching Warner Bros for music? Surely most people use things like youtube, spotify, wikipedia and iTunes for stuff like that now?

However, I think they also they could promote/support him in other ways, dare I say it - sponsor a tour. The fiscal return long term would be advantageous.

I think you're confused about what a record company actually do. They are not a touring agency.....they're a record company.

Let's say they did sponsor a tour..... surely everyone would be asking "Why are you doing that?". It's not as if he's got anything to promote for Warner Bros.

[A_MichaelUK]

> Personnally I would like to see him included in their list of (back) artist, so when I do a search on WB and find him,

Well for one thing, he actually is listed on one of their sites - I accept it doesn't help that they have more than one but you need to look a bit deeper.

> I as a Hypothetically new fan, can see his back catalogue with them and sample some of the music. I honestly think this is a small ask.

Why would you go there and not directly to the artist's official site or iTunes (or Spotify as well)>

>However, I think they also they could promote/support him in other ways, dare I say it - sponsor a tour.

HE IS NO LONGER SIGNED TO THAT LABEL SO THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATIONS TO HIM AND HE HAS NONE TO THEM EITHER.

> The fiscal return long term would be advantageous.

You're not living in the real world, unfortunately.

>These are just ideas,

There's nothing wrong that - they're just not thought through very well.

[homerx]

Alice is on the rhino website which is owned by Warner. Most of the Back catalog being there.

[While Heaven Wept]

>
There's nothing wrong that - they're just not thought through very well.

I just spat out a bit of my tea while reading that!!

[A_MichaelUK]

>I think you're confused about what a record company actually do. They are not a touring agency.....they're a record company.

To be fair to Seriously, they used to do that and still do (as part of what are called 'three hundred and sixty degrees deals') but the claim that that particular label should be doing it at this particular time for that particular artist makes no sense.

[Seriously]

>What is it exactly that you think Warner Bros should be doing for Alice?

Not only that, but at the expense of all their other artists as well. If Seriously had been making these claims when Alice was actually with that company, I could understand it (nobody was complaining louder back then I was) but I'm not sure what he or she is expecting to happen all these years later - that's the part that he (or she) hasn't explained.

There's always a first time, maybe who knows if one doesn't ask as I am doing now. What can be the worst thing that could happen!

[Seriously]

Alice is on the rhino website which is owned by Warner. Most of the Back catalog being there.

Thanks for that, I'll check it out.

[While Heaven Wept]

To be fair to Seriously, they used to do that and still do (as part of what are called 'three hundred and sixty degrees deals') but the claim that that particular label should be doing it at this particular time for that particular artist makes no sense.

exactly, i should have qualified that comment a bit better.

[Seriously]

To be fair to Seriously, they used to do that and still do (as part of what are called 'three hundred and sixty degrees deals') but the claim that that particular label should be doing it at this particular time for that particular artist makes no sense.

exactly, i should have qualified that comment a bit better.

Yes you should have, it's always good to think before typing.

[While Heaven Wept]

Yes you should have, it's always good to think before typing.

[Seriously]

Got to go out now, enjoyed that and Andy if you put my suggestions forward, you can have the credit for them and just send me a bottle of whiskey for my creative nous.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Alice is on the rhino website which is owned by Warner. Most of the Back catalog being there.

Yes and that is referred to on one of their sites which I think I alluded to in an earlier post.

[A_MichaelUK]

>There's always a first time, maybe who knows if one doesn't ask as I am doing now. What can be the worst thing that could happen!

Here's the part you still don't understand. What you are suggesting is not unreasonable as far as it goes, but for it to happen, there needs to be a reason or opportunity. So for example, let's say Alice's next albums sells several million copies, in which case that would be a good opportunity for Warner Brothers to promote the old material so as to take advantage of Alice's success. Until something like that happens, there really isn't a reason for them to give him priority at this time when they have so many other artists as well. You're getting way too obsessed with this "website" situation.