And all of these things show him up to be an unpleasant, ill-informed person who resorts to homophobic insults to mask what he's really saying, surely? Also, if it was the third option, it shows how utterly deluded he actually is. Who does he think has more creative freedom? The guy signed to an independent record label who pretty much produced his second album on his own, or himself, the guy signed to a notoriously controlling record label, about to start work on his first, closely-scrutinised effort? He is astonishingly arrogant if he thinks Matt is in a more submissive position right now than he is.
I'm merely speculating. I have no idea what James meant so I gave three different options that people could have taken from it.
I'm sure James knows he has to prove himself and I think he will but until then it is pointless comparing him to Matt. They're both better ignoring each other and focusing on their own careers.
He clearly was trying to offend Matt with the Asda comment too - but it was the homophobic language he used in that tweet that was most out of order. There are a lot of people that he is going to meet and work with in the music industry who are homosexual - they won't have been impressed regardless of their own opinion of Matt Cardle's music. It's telling that the tweet was deleted, probably by his management than Arthur himself. It was indefensible.
If it was meant in a homphobic way then it was a rude thing to say and I'm not defending that. I'm just giving different ways in which it would have been taken. I can't see him being homophobic, he's good friends with gay men so clearly he's got no real issue there.
I think this misses the point though. Matt's current position isn't so much submissive as impossible.The awful sales figures for his second album will pretty much kill his recording career. Any future release will be low-key in comparison even to 'The Fire', which had some super-expensive prime-time TV advertising plus widespread physical format availability. The fact that there is to be no tour to speak of (apart from a few small acoustic shows to save face and make a few quid from a small but loyal fan base) shows that there's zero cash to invest and very little faith in Matt's ability to sell.
We all know that Matt went to an independent label because he had no choice. He was released by his Sony label on the back of disappointing debut album sales. Those sales were 6 times greater than those for The Fire but dwarfed by the performances of other X Factor acts from Matt's year. The sales figures were simply not good enough for a major label. So yes, he may have had more autonomy when recording his second album, though confusingly it turned out a lot like his first album. He'll have even more autonomy when or if he records his third album but unfortunately (and here's the thing) that autonomy will likely extend to distribution and marketing as well as recording. Like I said, an 'impossible' position he is now in.
As for James, he's piling pressure upon himself. He's correct to say that Matt has failed and Matt is right to question the wisdom of his crowing, knowing that he (James) will be discarded just as quickly and casually as he was if he fails to sell half a million. Matt is also in a position to know that James will not have real freedom when it comes to recording his album. I actually suspect that Sony may learn from the Cardle experience and go a different way about things with this year's winner's album. They wont give James a long creative leash but I suspect they may break away from the Eg White formula and hook him up with somebody less 'establishment'. James needs to hope so. If his debut doesn't sell half a million, he'll be a bigger laughing stock than Cardle and with even less industry goodwill. I hope he knows that all those B list musicians and tv celebs who praised him on the show were put up to it by the free ticket/publicity gods at Syco. If he's deluded enough to think otherwise, he could be in big, big trouble.
Well, as the song goes, 'What happens when you lose everything? You just start again, you start all over again.'
Matt has kept his head down since his initial ill-informed interviews (and I think it's worth noting that he never resorted to slagging off people on twitter, for all his earlier faults when it came to presenting himself in interviews), and generally seems to be in a happier place right now from what I can tell by the tone of his tweets. He might not get an extensive release package again, but saying he has no recording career left is ludicrous. Sure, on an XF type level he doesn't, but that isn't the be all and end all of making a living recording music, and it doesn't take into account the majority of independent artists who self-promote and self-fund their stuff in order to carry on doing what they love. I have so many artists in my iTunes library that have probably never troubled the top 40 but just about manage to keep going, and that kind of situation can do wonders for keeping an artist sounding fresh. I do agree that the expensive publicity Matt received initially to promote The Fire wasn't the smartest ever move, but he's still his record label's best bet to claw back profit on that so it's unlikely they'll drop him. At the end of the day, I'm not a fan of Matt's music but if he continues to carry on making music independently then fair play to him. There's nothing wrong with sticking it out for the long game and going a bit more grassroots.
I do agree that Sony will have learnt some lessons since Matt, so if anything James should be grateful to him for ensuring he's got a much better chance of succeeding. But I still think that what he's aiming to do - become a credible yet successful recording artist - is a very risky position to put yourself in. Matt found out for himself that the more you go on about wanting to be taken seriously, the more people are going to scrutinise your musical output, and the type of audience that James is going to be targeting are notoriously the most unforgiving about anything they don't perceive to have any hype about it. James might have been hyped to the high heavens on the show, but he won't release until the summer of 2013, minimum, and people may well have moved onto the next big thing by then. I've said all along that I'm looking forward to seeing what James comes up with, just as I was with Matt, but in a way the quality of the product is unimportant; it's all down to whether he can continue to capture imagination a good six or so months after the XF finished and the huge weekly promotion that comes with that. Some XF acts manage it, but many don't. James just needs to pray it does work out for him because as you say, he isn't exactly building any industry goodwill at the moment.
I think this misses the point though. Matt's current position isn't so much submissive as impossible.The awful sales figures for his second album will pretty much kill his recording career. Any future release will be low-key in comparison even to 'The Fire', which had some super-expensive prime-time TV advertising plus widespread physical format availability. The fact that there is to be no tour to speak of (apart from a few small acoustic shows to save face and make a few quid from a small but loyal fan base) shows that there's zero cash to invest and very little faith in Matt's ability to sell.
We all know that Matt went to an independent label because he had no choice. He was released by his Sony label on the back of disappointing debut album sales. Those sales were 6 times greater than those for The Fire but dwarfed by the performances of other X Factor acts from Matt's year. The sales figures were simply not good enough for a major label. So yes, he may have had more autonomy when recording his second album, though confusingly it turned out a lot like his first album. He'll have even more autonomy when or if he records his third album but unfortunately (and here's the thing) that autonomy will likely extend to distribution and marketing as well as recording. Like I said, an 'impossible' position he is now in.
As for James, he's piling pressure upon himself. He's correct to say that Matt has failed and Matt is right to question the wisdom of his crowing, knowing that he (James) will be discarded just as quickly and casually as he was if he fails to sell half a million. Matt is also in a position to know that James will not have real freedom when it comes to recording his album. I actually suspect that Sony may learn from the Cardle experience and go a different way about things with this year's winner's album. They wont give James a long creative leash but I suspect they may break away from the Eg White formula and hook him up with somebody less 'establishment'. James needs to hope so. If his debut doesn't sell half a million, he'll be a bigger laughing stock than Cardle and with even less industry goodwill. I hope he knows that all those B list musicians and tv celebs who praised him on the show were put up to it by the free ticket/publicity gods at Syco. If he's deluded enough to think otherwise, he could be in big, big trouble.
Have you ever thought that Matt might be too busy to actually fit a large and expensive tour into his schedule this year? As I have repeatedly said he is happy, his fans are happy and even his main critics seem to find happiness in stalking his movements.
With regards James Arthur, hopefully he has learnt a lesson, because if he finds himself outside the Syco bubble he is going to get crucified.
Have you ever thought that Matt might be too busy to actually fit a large and expensive tour into his schedule this year?
:D
Oh dear! Large tours are generally lucrative, not 'expensive'. That's the idea at least. It works well for successful artists but maybe not so well for others. You invest, then you earn. You speculate to accumulate etc. In any case, your unfortunate phrasing actually indicates that you concur with my view as regards the real reason for there being no full tour. As Matt's woeful album sales indicate, there would not be enough tickets sold, in which case the whole venture would prove an expensive folly for any party idiotic enough to front the cash to set the thing up. That's the obvious truth of the matter.
It's great if Matt and his fans are happy. What I don't understand is why they feel the need to deal in porkies and lame-arsed spin. It is what it is, after all. Nobody is going to be fooled around here. We've all seen the sales figures!
James Arthur might well be an arse but he's right some of the time and he is certainly right about Matt trying to leach publicity off the back of his recent win.
Oh dear! Large tours are generally lucrative, not 'expensive'. That's the idea at least. It works well for successful artists but maybe not so well for others. You invest, then you earn. You speculate to accumulate etc. In any case, your unfortunate phrasing actually indicates that you concur with my view as regards the real reason for there being no full tour. As Matt's woeful album sales indicate, there would not be enough tickets sold, in which case the whole venture would prove an expensive folly for any party idiotic enough to front the cash to set the thing up. That's the obvious truth of the matter.
It's great if Matt and his fans are happy. What I don't understand is why they feel the need to deal in porkies and lame-arsed spin. It is what it is, after all. Nobody is going to be fooled around here. We've all seen the sales figures!
James Arthur might well be an arse but he's right some of the time and he is certainly right about Matt trying to leach publicity off the back of his recent win.
I can understand the staff of Modest Management having something to prove in seeing Matt underachieve, but I do wonder why it is in the interests of some of the posters on the site and where they are coming from? Each to his own as life is to too short and precious to be bothered.
However, why do some people assume that everything positive that is said about Matt Cardle is a lie? Even when supported with proven facts? There again, for somebody that is such an authority on Mr Cardle, what would us mere mortals called fans, who happen to support him by attending his performances, purchasing his music or just following his career actually know? Was most of what has come back to taunt Matt, the same stories that were touted by his old management company, under the umbrella of Syco? How you can spin the same story to promote an artist or put a different take on it, providing a completely different meaning, as positive becomes negative?
The jury is out on Mr Arthur, but I look forward to where he will be in two years time. Will he be producing, co-writing, playing the majority of the instruments and providing the majority of the vocals for his newly released album, on an independent record label (which allows him full control and more importantly the majority of profits) or will he still be with Syco? Will they promote his work internationally, or just keep it UK based? Will he walk away from his management team or will he stay? How much control will he actually have with regards his career and how and what is produced? Or will he be filling in for the missing celebrity on CBB?
Can Mystic Popsmartz see that far into his/her crystal ball?
And talking of the rules, with special reference to James, they are being flouted routinely by Matt fans in the Cardle Appreciation Thread, who delight in using it as a forum to criticise James and call him an 'arsehole' among other things. Yet here is chapter and verse from the Community Guidelines:
Appreciation Threads
Appreciation threads are designed to allow fans of a particular subject to engage in positive and lighthearted discussion of a subject. Negative posts in an appreciation thread are considered off-topic and will be removed.
I can understand the staff of Modest Management having something to prove in seeing Matt underachieve, but I do wonder why it is in the interests of some of the posters on the site and where they are coming from? Each to his own as life is to too short and precious to be bothered.
Can Mystic Popsmartz see that far into his/her crystal ball?
You are becoming too distracted by posters to address what is actually being posted. Actually, you are veering dangerously close to outlandish conspiracy theory and that way surely lies madness. It has been a common pattern on these threads over recent months. People failing to make headway in rational discussion begin to veer off and question the identities, motives, agendas of other posters. Aside from being tantamount to an admission of defeat of sorts, and a poor and shabby effort at diversion, it risks contravention of forum membership terms and conditions. I therefore suggest that we all stick to addressing each other's views and arguments and desist from getting too personal. It is, after all and at its most constructive, a simple discussion of facts, with conjecture based thereon.
And talking of the rules, with special reference to James, they are being flouted routinely by Matt fans in the Cardle Appreciation Thread, who delight in using it as a forum to criticise James and call him an 'arsehole' among other things. Yet here is chapter and verse from the Community Guidelines:
Appreciation Threads
Appreciation threads are designed to allow fans of a particular subject to engage in positive and lighthearted discussion of a subject. Negative posts in an appreciation thread are considered off-topic and will be removed.
Comments
I'm merely speculating. I have no idea what James meant so I gave three different options that people could have taken from it.
I'm sure James knows he has to prove himself and I think he will but until then it is pointless comparing him to Matt. They're both better ignoring each other and focusing on their own careers.
If it was meant in a homphobic way then it was a rude thing to say and I'm not defending that. I'm just giving different ways in which it would have been taken. I can't see him being homophobic, he's good friends with gay men so clearly he's got no real issue there.
Well, as the song goes, 'What happens when you lose everything? You just start again, you start all over again.'
Matt has kept his head down since his initial ill-informed interviews (and I think it's worth noting that he never resorted to slagging off people on twitter, for all his earlier faults when it came to presenting himself in interviews), and generally seems to be in a happier place right now from what I can tell by the tone of his tweets. He might not get an extensive release package again, but saying he has no recording career left is ludicrous. Sure, on an XF type level he doesn't, but that isn't the be all and end all of making a living recording music, and it doesn't take into account the majority of independent artists who self-promote and self-fund their stuff in order to carry on doing what they love. I have so many artists in my iTunes library that have probably never troubled the top 40 but just about manage to keep going, and that kind of situation can do wonders for keeping an artist sounding fresh. I do agree that the expensive publicity Matt received initially to promote The Fire wasn't the smartest ever move, but he's still his record label's best bet to claw back profit on that so it's unlikely they'll drop him. At the end of the day, I'm not a fan of Matt's music but if he continues to carry on making music independently then fair play to him. There's nothing wrong with sticking it out for the long game and going a bit more grassroots.
I do agree that Sony will have learnt some lessons since Matt, so if anything James should be grateful to him for ensuring he's got a much better chance of succeeding. But I still think that what he's aiming to do - become a credible yet successful recording artist - is a very risky position to put yourself in. Matt found out for himself that the more you go on about wanting to be taken seriously, the more people are going to scrutinise your musical output, and the type of audience that James is going to be targeting are notoriously the most unforgiving about anything they don't perceive to have any hype about it. James might have been hyped to the high heavens on the show, but he won't release until the summer of 2013, minimum, and people may well have moved onto the next big thing by then. I've said all along that I'm looking forward to seeing what James comes up with, just as I was with Matt, but in a way the quality of the product is unimportant; it's all down to whether he can continue to capture imagination a good six or so months after the XF finished and the huge weekly promotion that comes with that. Some XF acts manage it, but many don't. James just needs to pray it does work out for him because as you say, he isn't exactly building any industry goodwill at the moment.
Have you ever thought that Matt might be too busy to actually fit a large and expensive tour into his schedule this year? As I have repeatedly said he is happy, his fans are happy and even his main critics seem to find happiness in stalking his movements.
With regards James Arthur, hopefully he has learnt a lesson, because if he finds himself outside the Syco bubble he is going to get crucified.
Oh dear! Large tours are generally lucrative, not 'expensive'. That's the idea at least. It works well for successful artists but maybe not so well for others. You invest, then you earn. You speculate to accumulate etc. In any case, your unfortunate phrasing actually indicates that you concur with my view as regards the real reason for there being no full tour. As Matt's woeful album sales indicate, there would not be enough tickets sold, in which case the whole venture would prove an expensive folly for any party idiotic enough to front the cash to set the thing up. That's the obvious truth of the matter.
It's great if Matt and his fans are happy. What I don't understand is why they feel the need to deal in porkies and lame-arsed spin. It is what it is, after all. Nobody is going to be fooled around here. We've all seen the sales figures!
James Arthur might well be an arse but he's right some of the time and he is certainly right about Matt trying to leach publicity off the back of his recent win.
I can understand the staff of Modest Management having something to prove in seeing Matt underachieve, but I do wonder why it is in the interests of some of the posters on the site and where they are coming from? Each to his own as life is to too short and precious to be bothered.
However, why do some people assume that everything positive that is said about Matt Cardle is a lie? Even when supported with proven facts? There again, for somebody that is such an authority on Mr Cardle, what would us mere mortals called fans, who happen to support him by attending his performances, purchasing his music or just following his career actually know? Was most of what has come back to taunt Matt, the same stories that were touted by his old management company, under the umbrella of Syco? How you can spin the same story to promote an artist or put a different take on it, providing a completely different meaning, as positive becomes negative?
The jury is out on Mr Arthur, but I look forward to where he will be in two years time. Will he be producing, co-writing, playing the majority of the instruments and providing the majority of the vocals for his newly released album, on an independent record label (which allows him full control and more importantly the majority of profits) or will he still be with Syco? Will they promote his work internationally, or just keep it UK based? Will he walk away from his management team or will he stay? How much control will he actually have with regards his career and how and what is produced? Or will he be filling in for the missing celebrity on CBB?
Can Mystic Popsmartz see that far into his/her crystal ball?
Appreciation Threads
Appreciation threads are designed to allow fans of a particular subject to engage in positive and lighthearted discussion of a subject. Negative posts in an appreciation thread are considered off-topic and will be removed.
You are becoming too distracted by posters to address what is actually being posted. Actually, you are veering dangerously close to outlandish conspiracy theory and that way surely lies madness. It has been a common pattern on these threads over recent months. People failing to make headway in rational discussion begin to veer off and question the identities, motives, agendas of other posters. Aside from being tantamount to an admission of defeat of sorts, and a poor and shabby effort at diversion, it risks contravention of forum membership terms and conditions. I therefore suggest that we all stick to addressing each other's views and arguments and desist from getting too personal. It is, after all and at its most constructive, a simple discussion of facts, with conjecture based thereon.
Alert the posts and we'll look into them.
Now, please stay on-topic.