$300,000 loss claimed by promoter Colors due to cancelled Morrissey concerts in Peru

An anonymous person writes:

Apparently the promoters have lost $300,000 due to Moz cancelling - who is 'uninsurable' due to his health problems - and are trying to get their money back. Good luck with that.

Empresa que trajo a Morrissey a Lima ha perdido hasta ahora US$ 300 mil - El Comercio.pe

Google translate to English link. Excerpt:

Colors CFO also said he did not hire insurance because the singer "is not insurable health problems"

That Morrissey decided to cancel two performances that were pending in Lima resulted in major economic loss for Colors, the company responsible for the arrival of the British singer to our country. Cristian Pereira, chief financial officer of the institution, said that so far the amount of losses amounting to $ 300,000.

"I have not the final figure. People Megashow, company hired to do the show from Morrissey in Peru, is seeing that in Lima. However, the loss costs: subject to lease by the Jockey Club, hotel, transfers, taxes ..., comes to $ 300,000. In Chile the tax paid to the artist only if it sings, but if you do not cancel your submission. Instead in Peru we had to cancel the income tax and all that belonged to Morrissey could SUNAT to leave Peru.

Several versions are shuffled about canceling Morrissey shows in Lima. It is said that he refused to sing because doctors did not give due attention when intoxicated, also unsold tickets for their performances in Lima. What really happened?
The information I use is that on Saturday night the artist went to lunch at a place recommended by us and not part of their team was bad. Then doctors in Lima who treated him did not get the best treatment and dehydration produced a kind of artist. However, what I can categorically deny is that the artist would have refused to sing for low input. We had the tickets sold for the two presentations.

Morrissey came wrong for some time, and had canceled performances in other countries and the possibility of it happening again was latent. Why not hire insurance?
That issue was our concern. When hired as Morrissey company, we wanted to take out insurance and we noticed with surprise that he is uninsurable by the health problems you have. However, we risk.

Do you evaluate Morrissey sue for the cancellation of their shows?
We could have taken legal action against his people, but he wanted to do because we want to maintain a good relationship with the artist and it would cancel all shows missing. We will ask the agent Morrissey to reimburse us the money we gave him, because as you know any artist out of the country if not canceled. The loss is huge.

What is strange is that they have canceled the two dates only Morrissey had planned in Peru, as in Chile postponed seven shows will take place on the last leg of the South American tour.
Not so. In Chile have confirmed only five performances, were canceled both. The first will be on August 8 and the last on 23 March. We're really sorry with what happened, also with a great pressure on social networks Peru people basureado us, especially for being Chilean entrepreneurs. And this is not good because as Colors, we focus on Peru.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peterb

Well-Known Member
With all due respect to your Mum, how could anyone hate Paul McCartney? I've found him occasionally irritating over the years, but ultimately he's one of the few humans to have done far, far more good than harm (Temporary Secretary could, however, be sighted as justifiable cause).
The thing about the Beatles, and some would argue the Smiths aswell (not me though), is that together they were great but as solo performers they were desperately dull.
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
With all due respect to your Mum, how could anyone hate Paul McCartney? I've found him occasionally irritating over the years, but ultimately he's one of the few humans to have done far, far more good than harm (Temporary Secretary could, however, be sighted as justifiable cause).

I suppose familiarity breeds contempt. In Sir Paul's defence she got sick of my Dad far, far faster.
 

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
The thing about the Beatles, and some would argue the Smiths aswell (not me though), is that together they were great but as solo performers they were desperately dull.

I'd have to agree with you when it comes to Paul's solo output - fairly dull. George, ditto. Ringo, absolutely. John's solo work was innovative and occasionally exciting (if not exactly entertaining). That's why history will judge him the greater artist.

As for Morrissey, I think his solo output has rivaled (if not quite equalled) The Smiths. I'm guessing that most people here feel that way, or they wouldn't bother following all this nonsense this closely for this long. I must admit that J. Marr's solo work makes no impression on me whatsoever. That said, the man's a genius guitar player and an all-around good egg.

Still, don't be hatin' on Paul. He may be comfy as an old armchair, but there's no reason to hate an old armchair.
 

Peterb

Well-Known Member
I'd have to agree with you when it comes to Paul's solo output - fairly dull. George, ditto. Ringo, absolutely. John's solo work was innovative and occasionally exciting (if not exactly entertaining). That's why history will judge him the greater artist.

As for Morrissey, I think his solo output has rivaled (if not quite equalled) The Smiths. I'm guessing that most people here feel that way, or they wouldn't bother following all this nonsense this closely for this long. I must admit that J. Marr's solo work makes no impression on me whatsoever. That said, the man's a genius guitar player and an all-around good egg.

Still, don't be hatin' on Paul. He may be comfy as an old armchair, but there's no reason to hate an old armchair.
Oh yeah, there is certainly nothing to hate.
Interesting that you should like Lennons solo stuff. For me George has the more interesting solo stuff (and not that interesting either).
 

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
Oh yeah, there is certainly nothing to hate.
Interesting that you should like Lennons solo stuff. For me George has the more interesting solo stuff (and not that interesting either).

I don't want to hijack this particular thread with a Beatles geek-out, but John has always been my favorite proto-punk. George did some truly gorgeous solo work (I'm actually a big fan), but his post-Beatles output wasn't nearly as visceral and edgy as Lennon's.
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
Ringo Starr anticipates Operation Yewtree...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peterb

Well-Known Member
I don't want to hijack this particular thread with a Beatles geek-out, but John has always been my favorite proto-punk. George did some truly gorgeous solo work (I'm actually a big fan), but his post-Beatles output wasn't nearly as visceral and edgy as Lennon's.
Hey Anaesthesine, let's go the whole hog.
Do you really see Lennon as a proto punk?
For me, it's the exact opposite, from Imagine which is hypocritical and simpering, through Mind Games where he seems obsessed with navel gazing to the extreme, ending up with the tosh that is Woman.
His politics whilst being benign enough were too insubstantial to gather any real following.
Punk on the other hand really broke the mold and challenged us all to change our view on how music should be made.
I love the Beatles but Lennon post fab four bores me.
Whatcha think o' dem apples?
By the way, great to see you back on the forum.
 
Last edited:

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
Hey Anaesthesine, let's go the whole hog.
Do you really see Lennon as a proto punk?
For me, it's the exact opposite, from Imagine which is hypocritical and simpering, through Mind Games where he seems obsessed with navel gazing to the extreme, ending up with the tosh that is Woman.
His politics whilst being benign enough were too insubstantial to gather any real following.
Punk on the other hand really broke the mold and challenged us all to change our view on how music should be made.
I love the Beatles but Lennon post fab four bores me.
Whatcha think o' dem apples?
By the way, great to see you back on the forum.

Oh man. You've really thrown it down. How am I going to get any work done? :)

Quickly: Lennon's work with the Plastic Ono Band (and the song "Mother" in particular) was transgressive and groundbreaking in its day. "Working Class Hero" and other unvarnished political odes (while somewhat naive) were not only substantial, but they serve as rallying cries to this day. Most peace/social justice marchers still sing his songs. They have become secular hymns.

As for punk: Lennon was one of those public figures that destroyed the line between performance, entertainment and art. He confronted his audience with his private pain, he screamed, he moaned, he roused the rabble. He ranted, raved and effectively protested against authority and the absurdity of the media. His performance art collaborations, his political protests and his happenings were early forms of culture jamming. Yes, he did navel-gaze, but that pales in comparison to his ability to rouse and inspire people to actively seek change.

You are absolutely wrong in your assertion that his politics were benign - they were in fact incendiary. Lennon was seen as a serious influence in American politics. His plans to campaign against Nixon and turn out the youth vote were famously seen as a threat to a sitting president's reelection, and prompted a campaign of intimidation by the FBI and an outright attempt by the US government to have him deported. There was a fascinating documentary released a few years ago called "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" which spells out, in well-documented detail, his struggles with the powers that be at the highest levels of the US government. He was, without question, one of the most influential firebrands of his age. If that ain't punk rock, what is?

There's a lot of punk that's nothing but whining and navel-gazing. The best of it raises consciousness and helps us re-imagine what we can be and what we can accomplish. John Lennon did that for members of his generation and generations that followed.

Yes, every idol must be knocked off their pedestal - Lennon always understood that. He was obnoxious, rude, naive, irritating, selfish, brave, honest, intense, vulnerable and uncompromising. He did good.
 

Peterb

Well-Known Member
Oh man. You've really thrown it down. How am I going to get any work done? :)

Quickly: Lennon's work with the Plastic Ono Band (and the song "Mother" in particular) was transgressive and groundbreaking in its day. "Working Class Hero" and other unvarnished political odes (while somewhat naive) were not only substantial, but they serve as rallying cries to this day. Most peace/social justice marchers still sing his songs. They have become secular hymns.

As for punk: Lennon was one of those public figures that destroyed the line between performance, entertainment and art. He confronted his audience with his private pain, he screamed, he moaned, he roused the rabble. He ranted, raved and effectively protested against authority and the absurdity of the media. His performance art collaborations, his political protests and his happenings were early forms of culture jamming. Yes, he did navel-gaze, but that pales in comparison to his ability to rouse and inspire people to actively seek change.

You are absolutely wrong in your assertion that his politics were benign - they were in fact incendiary. Lennon was seen as a serious influence in American politics. His plans to campaign against Nixon and turn out the youth vote were famously seen as a threat to a sitting president's reelection, and prompted a campaign of intimidation by the FBI and an outright attempt by the US government to have him deported. There was a fascinating documentary released a few years ago called "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" which spells out, in well-documented detail, his struggles with the powers that be at the highest levels of the US government. He was, without question, one of the most influential firebrands of his age. If that ain't punk rock, what is?

There's a lot of punk that's nothing but whining and navel-gazing. The best of it raises consciousness and helps us re-imagine what we can be and what we can accomplish. John Lennon did that for members of his generation and generations that followed.

Yes, every idol must be knocked off their pedestal - Lennon always understood that. He was obnoxious, rude, naive, irritating, selfish, brave, honest, intense, vulnerable and uncompromising. He did good.
Oh Anaesthesine, are you posting on Solo whilst at work? I am.
Great response. One that I am loathe to argue against as I also should be working.
If we were face to face over a cappucino and say, an apricot danish I might contest some of your claims.
Since we are not I will lay down and concede.
Rock and Roll!
 

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
Oh Anaesthesine, are you posting on Solo whilst at work? I am.
Great response. One that I am loathe to argue against as I also should be working.
If we were face to face over a cappucino and say, an apricot danish I might contest some of your claims.
Since we are not I will lay down and concede.
Rock and Roll!

I am my own boss, and as such I have an even more pressing duty to act responsibly. I'm supposed to be doing some heavy research, and here I am mulling over Morrissey's latest unfortunate setback and getting drawn into an (always pleasant) give-and-take with some of the more engaging members of this forum. It's nice to see that there's still a few constructive voices hanging around. :)

I will accept your gracious concession and perhaps, one day, we can face off properly over said apricot danish (my favorite).

Be well Peter.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oh Anaesthesine, are you posting on Solo whilst at work? I am.
Great response. One that I am loathe to argue against as I also should be working.
If we were face to face over a cappucino and say, an apricot danish I might contest some of your claims.
Since we are not I will lay down and concede.
Rock and Roll!

Forgive me for barging in, but this is perhaps the most interesting and moving exchange of musical consciousness
I have been privy to for a bit. Thank you, both. xx
 
P

Pontiff

Guest
Great writing by Anaesthesine on July 18th. Bang on ... no idea how I wound up here ... oh yeah, a guy named Morrissey.
 

BrummieBoy

BrummieBoy
Unfortunately, you are correct. This is why great artists are often lousy business people, and why talent and vision are no guarantee of success. It takes discipline, PR acumen and a willingness to play by at least a minimum set of rules to get ahead. It's a miracle that Morrissey made it as far as he did. That's why, back in the day, so many people (myself included) had our doubts about his future. The man appears to be ungovernable.

As per the Beatles: McCartney really was the one with the head for business. It seems to have infuriated John (along with so many other things). Paul certainly deserves credit for attempting to steer what was essentially an artistic corporation through such a rough period (even if did result in embarrassments like "Magical Mystery Tour"). Of course the Beatles didn't end well, but that was due to so many unavoidable creative, emotional and personality issues.

Poor J. Marr never had a chance in that department either: artistic management is a pursuit best left to gamblers, ambitious accountants and masochists. In any event, Morrissey and Marr had so much in common with Lennon and McCartney: they were doomed from the start, but we're all lucky that they held on for as long as they did.

It's no miracle. The financial largesse of the recorded music industry during the 80s and 90s allowed his absurd diva posturing to be tolerated, as with so many others. Now that the financial underpinnings of the industry have collapsed due to P2P downloading, the bean-counters have given Morrissey a reality check by downsizing any likely advance which he deems inappropriate to his imagined status. We've seen this impasse before. It ended with YATQ, which was blighted by several distracting and irrelevant musings about his business and personal failings. I imagine he expects a similar reprieve once the Corporates 'come to their senses'.

He has become no different to any other exhausted Boomer Punk whose pension fund from legacy royalties went up in smoke after Napster. His 'love' of touring seems slightly more likely to be explained by cash-flow needs and/or uncritical feedback from The List 'fans' in the first 10 rows.

You write well, and I agree there is a Doomed Diva tradition which Morrissey could easily be slotted into, but there's a problem. Most of his lyrics are so solipsistic that it's hard to imagine them being widely covered by other artists in anything other than a sycophantic homage to their 'idol'. Johnny Marr has tried to democratise some of these songs for his Mod Hipster Audience and it works quite well on London. I can imagine other talented vocalisers such as Dionne Warwick, for instance, covering "That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore" and a few others where the lyrics have resonance beyond Morrissey's strangulating self-absorption. But lots of it is just 'Dear Diary' dreck that no-one else would ever be moved to re-interpret as the emotional landscape is frankly bizarre and dysfunctional with it's bitter recriminations and endless self-pity.

"Poor J. Marr" was responsible for 'managing' The Smiths as, seemingly, no one could be found who Morrissey could tolerate. However, his truculent self-sabotage is repackaged as a conspiracy by "the music industry" to prevent Radical Art like "Kid's A Looker" from being given lavishly expensive studio manicures and billboards across the world to alert the "clueless consumers" that Morrissey has returned to bless them with his 'intellectual' pop.

Morrissey claims to despise lowest-common denominator commercial pop music, but it's more likely that he just resents the fact that he is excluded from MTV awards and Grammys due to his lack of popularity: commerically and critically.

Unless and until he radically changes with some sort of epiphany: the last thing that's required is yet another mediocre installment. With all the resources available to him in his band and with skilled producers, Morrissey was unlikely ever to make a total turkey (other than "Kill Uncle". And "Southpaw Grammar". And "Maladjusted"....) He insists on meddling with his troubled playlist running orders and artwork on turkey projects and reacts with fury when his alleged 'genius' is challenged ("Fcuk Moz Solo.com for hosting negative feedback on his absurd demos).

I have hugely enjoyed most of his work, but it's ridiculous to keep excusing and justifying his fall from grace and his sour blame-game. Morrissey is a shrewed businessman, as his dealings with Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke exposed, not to mention his reluctance to fund transport to fulfill contractual commitments in South America. Without funds for the retinue of security and salt-grinding flunkies, Morrissey would be forced to negotiate with reality rather than act like any other pampered brat in the Hollywood Hills. He also needs to answer the question as to where he has been based for personal taxation purposes since 1984. If it was Ireland, then Lichstenstein or The Cayman Islands, it quite clearly puts his 'radical political' USP into a totally different light.

Or he could scarper and retire somewhere where The Cult Fans of The List cannot find him.

regards.
 

Playcat2000

New Member
it's no miracle. The financial largesse of the recorded music industry during the 80s and 90s allowed his absurd diva posturing to be tolerated, as with so many others. Now that the financial underpinnings of the industry have collapsed due to p2p downloading, the bean-counters have given morrissey a reality check by downsizing any likely advance which he deems inappropriate to his imagined status. We've seen this impasse before. It ended with yatq, which was blighted by several distracting and irrelevant musings about his business and personal failings. I imagine he expects a similar reprieve once the corporates 'come to their senses'.

He has become no different to any other exhausted boomer punk whose pension fund from legacy royalties went up in smoke after napster. His 'love' of touring seems slightly more likely to be explained by cash-flow needs and/or uncritical feedback from the list 'fans' in the first 10 rows.

You write well, and i agree there is a doomed diva tradition which morrissey could easily be slotted into, but there's a problem. Most of his lyrics are so solipsistic that it's hard to imagine them being widely covered by other artists in anything other than a sycophantic homage to their 'idol'. Johnny marr has tried to democratise some of these songs for his mod hipster audience and it works quite well on london. I can imagine other talented vocalisers such as dionne warwick, for instance, covering "that joke isn't funny anymore" and a few others where the lyrics have resonance beyond morrissey's strangulating self-absorption. But lots of it is just 'dear diary' dreck that no-one else would ever be moved to re-interpret as the emotional landscape is frankly bizarre and dysfunctional with it's bitter recriminations and endless self-pity.

"poor j. Marr" was responsible for 'managing' the smiths as, seemingly, no one could be found who morrissey could tolerate. However, his truculent self-sabotage is repackaged as a conspiracy by "the music industry" to prevent radical art like "kid's a looker" from being given lavishly expensive studio manicures and billboards across the world to alert the "clueless consumers" that morrissey has returned to bless them with his 'intellectual' pop.

Morrissey claims to despise lowest-common denominator commercial pop music, but it's more likely that he just resents the fact that he is excluded from mtv awards and grammys due to his lack of popularity: Commerically and critically.

Unless and until he radically changes with some sort of epiphany: The last thing that's required is yet another mediocre installment. With all the resources available to him in his band and with skilled producers, morrissey was unlikely ever to make a total turkey (other than "kill uncle". And "southpaw grammar". And "maladjusted"....) he insists on meddling with his troubled playlist running orders and artwork on turkey projects and reacts with fury when his alleged 'genius' is challenged ("fcuk moz solo.com for hosting negative feedback on his absurd demos).

I have hugely enjoyed most of his work, but it's ridiculous to keep excusing and justifying his fall from grace and his sour blame-game. Morrissey is a shrewed businessman, as his dealings with mike joyce and andy rourke exposed, not to mention his reluctance to fund transport to fulfill contractual commitments in south america. Without funds for the retinue of security and salt-grinding flunkies, morrissey would be forced to negotiate with reality rather than act like any other pampered brat in the hollywood hills. He also needs to answer the question as to where he has been based for personal taxation purposes since 1984. If it was ireland, then lichstenstein or the cayman islands, it quite clearly puts his 'radical political' usp into a totally different light.

Or he could scarper and retire somewhere where the cult fans of the list cannot find him.

Regards.

yyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn!!!
 

BrummieBoy

BrummieBoy
yyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn!!!

Yawn? If you're tired, please lie down and go to sleep. Why can't you stop yourself from replying? "All You Need Is Me": you are becoming besotted with me. It happens around here.

regards.
 

Playcat2000

New Member
Yawn? If you're tired, please lie down and go to sleep. Why can't you stop yourself from replying? "All You Need Is Me": you are becoming besotted with me. It happens around here.

regards.

Maybe I'll read some of your posts before bed time so they can put me to sleep. Besotted? No, more like watching a trashy reality show. Unf***ingbelievable!
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom