Call me Russ L

The Surface Unsigned hoo-har rolls on, it seems

Posted in Do Not Use These Companies, Modern Living, Music, Well, it passes the time by Russ L on 15 September, 2008

Right, so, it’ll be back to the blogging of Lots Of Things I’ve Seen And Done soon (probably. You know what I’m like), as well as a a meme that has been slapped on my back in the manner of the ‘Kick Me’ sign that you actually appreciate. In the meantime, though, this Surface Unsigned nonsense (see previous post) seems to still be going on.

Check it one time. SU themselves are now claiming that bands didn’t actually need to sell the specific quota of tickets to play/progress to the next round. I’m not sure whether to believe that or not. Leaning towards ‘not’, really. In the face of their insistence that it wasn’t pay-to-play, someone else posts saying that bands connected to him had to pay £25 which was never refunded. Someone else insists that we should we ‘do our research’ about who the judges were and the connections with record companies, but frankly that was all a bit vague for my tiny little mind.

Funny stuff, though. One gets the impression that the S’Unsigned sunshines still really feel themselves to be the aggrieved parties after using legal threats to tell other people to shut up. Judging by the comments they’ve left on CIB, they may also like to investigate the newfangled invention known as ‘paragraphs’.

EDIT (half an hour or so later): I’ve just noticed something I’d previously missed. Your SU representative claims that the initial “take this down or suffer” letter came about as a result of “the harsh criticism about a speech impediment of a female presenter”. A copy of what was actually emailed is reprinted here. It doesn’t seem to mention anything of the sort, as far as I can see, and just speaks of the nonsensical copyright claims. Are they fibbing again? God forbid.


4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Chris said, on 15 September, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    Oh goodie. I’ve not looked at the blog yet today – cheers for the heads-up.

    Hmm, I don’t think there’s any fibbing going on – I think that comment of Danny’s riled them and, like they say, the intial legal route wasn’t the right way to go about removing it.

    To be fair I think it’s big of the Surface Unsigned peeps to be engaging in the comments like they are. Just wish I didn’t have to keep an eye out for moderator-type duties.

  2. Russ L said, on 15 September, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    I’m still failing to understand how what they claim was the root of the problem and what they (spuriously) actually complained about are connected in any way. The ‘speech impediment slur’ bit really seems to be something they’ve latched on to afterwards in an attempt to regain some moral footing. ‘Seems’, at the very least.

    Commenting is a first step, I would agree. I was quite pleased when I initially saw their name, before I actually read the content.

  3. probdrunk said, on 16 September, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    the first mention of my speech impediment comment (which when looked at is more an attack on them than the young lady in question) was in an interview in the Post about a week after the initial bally hoo-ha.

    Thats not the issue, they know this. I really by now couldn’t care less about SU anymore, i thinks its good the pay-to-play model is being scrutinised as I am glad the company and competition are. I am also glad that SU are engaging with their detractors now instead of hiding behind childish threats.

    I’ve posted this here as not to derail the comments or throw petrol on the flames.

  4. Russ L said, on 17 September, 2008 at 11:13 am

    I’ve thought about this, and in my reading of the whole affair there are four different matters at hand.

    1) The one that was actually important but seems (to some extent) to have had a happy ending: SU deciding to try the legal threats. Since they’ve admitted that this wasn’t the best idea and are now (incoherent though their messages might be) willing to try to engage with people and/or address their concerns, I think we can call this one a win.

    2) The one that is kind of important but I’ve decided I don’t really care about that much, since it’s as plain as day: The ‘Pay To Play’ larks. SU still seem to be insisting that their model isn’t pay to play, but they’re not hiding the specifics that demonstrate that it clearly is. If people are going to be silly enough to fall for it then that’s their own lookout.

    3) The things that aren’t really specific to this and aren’t really urgently pressing, but are probably worth affirming and restating whenever possible: ‘Battle Of The Bands’ competitions are stupid as a concept, and even apart from that are more-or-less always of questionable value. ‘Unsigned’ is not a useful designation for bands in this day and age (even if the band in question views what they do in careerist terms themselves). Any bands who see themselves as ‘unsigned’ and think that winning a BOTB will help them in any tangible way could probably do with reading more Andrew Dubber.

    4) The things that seem to be upsetting some people but (in view of point three) I couldn’t personaly give a toss about: The concerns about whether the judges have vested interests, and how fair it is to bands without appropriate connections. I really don’t care. It’s a pointless exercise in the first place, and so I don’t really see how it matters if only the head judge’s nephew’s band can win or whatever-have-you.

    And that just about wraps the matter up for me, unless something else funny happens. This is, of course, entirely likely.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s