|
Post by thetange on May 4, 2008 10:54:53 GMT -5
Are you serious? Wendy doesn't work for Sony. She has her own management company. It has nothing to do with Sony. Duran themselves are the only ones in a position to fire her Er - well, yes, I was serious, but Corene set me straight on who can fire who. Thanks, though! I do agree with you on your other points, though. If Andy's absence from NY was due to something as simple as a visa snafu, I'm not sure why the band didn't just say so when asked. Instead they seemed to go out of their way to make it sound as if it really was Andy being a snot: "He didn't show up and left a note saying he'd left the band" - a lie - "He never showed. We didn't know why. We still don't know why" - another lie. But I don't get it - why lie? Why not just say, "He didn't show because there was a problem with his visa"? Who were they protecting, and why were they so willing to use Andy's absence from New York as an opportunity to paint him as unreliable and rude when that was *not* the case? Don't get me wrong, the rift between DD and Andy had been going on for a while by that point and there's no guarantee that, even if he'd HAD the visa, that he would have showed. But the fact that the rest of the band hid the truth and instead acted like, "Yeah, Andy bailed on us, what an unreliable jerk!", thereby encouraging us fans to believe that Andy somehow reniged on his responsibilities and flaked out, is troubling. At least, it is to me. Lying to your fans about a bandmate's behavior to make him look bad is not cool. SarahB1863 - Sorry for my "are you serious" quip. I re-read the post I made last night and thought to myself, "that didn't come across as very nice". That's kinda how I talk to myself too <grin>. My motto is, "I get on my own nerves...". Being a guitarist in Duran doesn't seem the best place to be. I'm neither a Warren C. fan or a hater - but what Simon/Nick did to him was kinda lame (fans knowing about reunion plans before he did......the band issueing a statement on their website saying "we have no idea where these rumors are coming from - they're not true" and then the statement shortly after that of "the rumors are true....the five members will be......Warren will be rejoining Missing Persons". Course, most of us were pretty psyched about the original band getting back together, that we overlooked it. "Andy didn't show up.....we haven't talked to him......we don't know......there was a riff and he's out of the band......[but what was the riff???]" - just more typical Duran Duran b.s. and ego. Not saying Andy's not at fault too......I dunno. I kinda relate to Andy's "tell it like it is" personality - and I can imagine the friction and resentment that might cause with some of the egos of the other band members. The rest of the band seem really naive and like they can easily be b.s'ed by their management and the record company suits. They just make bad decisions. I could be wrong, but I can imagine Andy trying to get through to them - and ticking off the management and the record label in the process, and all of those folks preasuring the band into shutting Andy out. Maybe I'm completely off base, but RCM was such a blatant attempt to give over control to everyone else for the purpose of selling out......and Andy just somehow ends up "missing" in the process (after he'd invested well over a year working on an album along-side the rest of the band, etc.). I'd believe anything he said over the band or their management. Who's looking out for Duran's legacy? They're at a point in their career where everything they do should be to elevate them above all of the bands that have come and gone, and to come across with a little class. Duran keep going the 99 cent menu route. ReflexOZ - yeah, we tend to share each other's brainwaves or something. We must be the same personality type.
|
|
|
Post by starfish on May 4, 2008 13:27:26 GMT -5
What's the problem then? I remember Amy Winehouse having dificulties getting her visa for the Grammys. It was her drug record at that time that made headlines. At the end she received a visa but didn't wanna go anymore. To have The Times issue something like that now, isn't worrying timewise. The piece of information they are giving is more interesting. And before anyones asks: Yes I do think AT behave like an unreliable jerk sometimes and yes I do believe that he thought himself being irreplacable. BUT one has to admire his firm stand on things like the business, money and his right as an artist. I have lost all respect for the DD that is DD inc. It even went so far that Roger sold his weddings pics. Give me good music and I#l be happy to ignore the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Glamour Tiger Baby Junkie on May 4, 2008 13:57:09 GMT -5
Not for nothing, but if the newspaper is printing an apology a year after the story ran, obviously it was something legally that couldn't have been retracted until the red tape lifted. It's not exactly clear who asked for the retraction. It doesn't have to mean it came from Andy himself. Who's to say they(the rest of the band) aren't acknowledging they had dissolved a relationship with Andy, as well as not REsolving a passport issue.
Soap Operas are better than this, but with issuing new statements newspapers, it probably won't be the last. It's still boring.
|
|
|
Post by nooks1 on May 4, 2008 14:54:41 GMT -5
Thetange said it all!
|
|
ruby
I posted a little more
Posts: 21
|
Post by ruby on May 4, 2008 16:29:08 GMT -5
I totally am with thetange and starfish. I lost all respect for DD quite awhile ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2008 17:03:02 GMT -5
I totally am with thetange and starfish. I lost all respect for DD quite awhile ago. Can I ask why you are on a fan site then?
|
|
|
Post by speedbunny on May 4, 2008 18:33:20 GMT -5
Maybe speedbunny can confirm or deny? I've not spoken to Andy about this - but anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the UK media should be able to ascertain the following: The Times is one of the most respectable newspapers in the UK. They would not print a retraction just for the hell of it - to get any newspaper in the UK to print a retraction is a long drawn out legal procedure; facts that contravene what has previously been printed have to be shown and proven to be true. So you can take everything that The Times has printed in their retraction today as having been legally proven to their solicitors. Had they not printed a retraction, I believe the next step would be to sue the newspaper for costs & liable - my knowledge of law fails me on this one, they may still have to make a damages payment on top of printing the retraction. And so, the story begins to unfold....
|
|
|
Post by sueb1863 on May 4, 2008 18:40:29 GMT -5
I just wonder how in the heck there could be any 'administrative failure' in getting Andy's visa. I mean, here they are, planning to work with Timbaland who they waited SIX MONTHS to get and with whom they only have THREE DAYS to work -and, oops, Wendy didn't get Andy a work visa! With tens of thousands of dollars and the band's future album on the line...
I mean, either she's the most incompetent manager in show business, or else the 'administrative failure' wasn't an accident. Sorry, I hate to sound conspiratorial, but I just can not buy that the oversight was a mistake, Wendy just CAN'T be that stupid. It makes more sense to me that somebody, either Wendy or Sony, didn't want Andy at that session, maybe because he made it clear how much he hated the fact that Sony didn't approve Reportage as they recorded it, I dunno. And maybe I'm wrong and Wendy really IS so careless and sloppy that she messed up the very expensive and long-waited-for Timbaland sessions by not making sure everybody could make it.
Maybe we'll learn more soon and this will make some sort of sense, because right now, to me, it sure doesn't...
ETA: Thanks for the info, speedbunny!
|
|
Corene
BIG THING
A girl's best friend is her honey bear
Posts: 672
|
Post by Corene on May 4, 2008 18:43:45 GMT -5
If the visa was the real reason (or part of it), I can see her (Wendy) being instructed to forget to get that taken care of for Andy.
|
|
|
Post by sunrise on May 4, 2008 19:16:02 GMT -5
I think most fans will agree (at least in part) with the following 1. Andy did not take the rejection of Reportage well. He might have been fighting with the band the whole time, but at least they got through the recording...only to have the label reject it.
2. The constant arguing with Andy coupled with Andy's negative F-the-world attitude created a huge rift with the rest of the band.
3. By the time the Timbaland sessions occurred, there was no real communication between Andy and the rest of the band. The remaining four were all in agreement with using Timbaland, were excited about working with him. Never once did anyone mention that Andy too, was excited about working with Timbaland.
4. Andy may not have quit, but his attitude finally pushed the remaining members over the edge. They just didn't want to put up with his Sh*t anymore. Now they have a fill-in guitarist who doesn't complain, doesn't question their direction and does what he's told......exactly the way Nick, yes Nick...wants it. I think Simon, John and Roger were tired of Andy, but Nick, in my opinion is happiest to see him go. Now there is no one to question whether the keyboards are too loud. Now the guitars are never too loud on stage or on the final mix.
5. Andy is interested in trying to get back with the band, but I don't see it happening. I just think the relationship is too destroyed. Too much sh*t has happened over the years. Getting Andy back, although a great musical move by the remaining members, isn't a good move to keep the friction down. It's like a relationship where the sex is great but you just can't stand the person. On stage and song writing, DD with Andy works. But when the lights are off and they have to talk to each other...that is where things go south fast.
sunrise
|
|