Guardian has been refused copy of "California Son" for review

@guardianmusic
Might be tricky to review the new Morrissey album. Been refused a copy because we wrote this piece about him. "Afraid management are not keen to provide advance music to the Guardian for this release".

 

[ACTON]

Bit silly of his management - The Guardian has a decent amount of readers who won't get to hear about the album?

Print PAMCo Reach Adults 741,000 Daily
15-34 126,000 Daily
35+ 610,000 Daily
PC PAMCo Reach Adults 1,492,000 Daily
15-34 426,000 Daily
35+ 1,059,000 Daily
Mobile PAMCo Reach Adults 3,347,000 Daily
15-34 1,042,000 Daily
35+ 2,270,000 Daily
Multiplatform PAMCo Reach Adults 5,391,000 Daily
15-34 1,560,000 Daily
35+ 3,787,000 Daily
comScore uses TheGuardian.com

Last updated: 20/03/2019

But surely these days people find out about music for themselves. Reviews are a waste of time. Besides, who other than committed Moz fans are going to spend money on a covers album?

 

[Anonymous]

This is why Moz looks so f***ing old. Bitterness eats the soul...and the body. Forgiveness would take years off him.

 

[Alexi]

No, not at all but this weekend is the Alderley Edge MayFair and I Reckon I can convince Peter to play here next year which will be f***ing ace.[/QUOTE


He’s playing “Long Division” near to me in 2 weeks, looking forward to going

 

[gordyboy9]

give them f*** all ,the scumbags.poor us not getting a free copy,go and buy it next Friday like the rest of us.

 

[gordyboy9]

This is why Moz looks so f***ing old. Bitterness eats the soul...and the body. Forgiveness would take years off him.

aye you would know,make an account ya lazy toerag.

 

[gordyboy9]

This is a very petty move by Moz - or his mgmt - probably Moz tho.

Guardian run stories about him because their readership were his fans in the 80s.

What difference does it make? It makes none

why,they wont review it honestly the way it should be.it will be a 1 out of 5 job.

 

[Anonymous]

This is why Moz looks so f***ing old. Bitterness eats the soul...and the body. Forgiveness would take years off him.

quite the opposite. morrissey is still vital and effective. you have been misguided if you really believe the statement you have made. when you believe the opposite of what is true then it is a real problem.

 

[Anonymous]

They know Morrissey sells and they are financially on their last feet. Moz is their go-to bogeyman so they need to review it. Go to their website and you will literally be begged for money to keep their biased publication alive.

Actually, they're now in profit. Researching the facts isn't your forte, as the last few days have clearly shown.

 

[Anonymous]

They know Morrissey sells and they are financially on their last feet. Moz is their go-to bogeyman so they need to review it. Go to their website and you will literally be begged for money to keep their biased publication alive.

Not at all good with your handling of the facts, it seems. You've a backside very much like a hermit crabs - very sensitive, and all so very susceptible to getting kicked hard consistently as a result. Is it any wonder the tinfoil crown you wear gets torn regularly, eh? https://www.ft.com/content/e8b745b6-6bee-11e9-a9a5-351eeaef6d84


"Guardian News and Media, which publishes The Guardian and The Observer, has hit a key profit milestone* after decades of losses, following a three-year restructuring plan aimed at saving the news outlet. The UK group swung to earnings of £800,000 in the year ending April 1, before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation, highlighting “good growth” in digital advertising and reader contributions. Losses on the same metric were £19m a year earlier and £57m in the year ending April 2016, when the company embarked on its restructuring plan. It is the first time in two decades that The Guardian has recorded positive ebitda. Revenues were up 3 per cent in the year, reaching £223m, which the company said was the highest level in a decade. The Guardian has refused to follow most of its peers and introduce a paywall to generate money from its journalism amid falling advertising revenues, instead relying on voluntary contributions from its readers. The company said it had reached more than 655,000 monthly paying “supporters” and had received an additional 300,000 one-off contributions in the last year. By 2022, The Guardian said it aimed to nearly double that number and attract 2m supporters that would contribute through “regular or one-off payments or subscriptions”. The profit did not take into account “exceptionalised items” of £29m, which included capital expenditures on technology as well as costs related to redundancies and management of the nearly £1bn Scott Trust Endowment Fund that the company relies on for funding. Embedded in the company’s next three-year plan is a commitment to ensure that these excluded items remain within the expected £25m-£30m annual yield of the Scott Trust, said David Pemsel, chief executive. Mr Pemsel said he was optimistic about the company’s “very healthy balance sheet”. “We have no debt, an operating profit and £1bn in the bank,” he said, even though he warned that “the significant turbulence in the global media sector shows no sign of abating any time soon”. “When we set out the plan in 2016 we were realistic about what advertising was to become,” he said, pointing to the growing chunk of advertising revenues gobbled up by Google and Facebook. “There are some pretty terrible practices within the programmatic advertising space, and it is unclear how much money is lost in the flow between the client paying for an ad and the news outlet that has created the audience.” The news comes after The Guardian has slashed costs by a fifth over the past three years, resulting in a loss of 450 roles and vacancies, including 120 in the editorial department. “It has definitely been a very difficult three years,” said Katharine Viner, editor of The Guardian, adding that the newspaper had cut the volume of output by a third. She nevertheless remained confident readers had not noticed the austerity, pointing to the paper’s coverage of “some of the biggest stories in Britain and the world”, including Cambridge Analytica and the Windrush scandal. Douglas McCabe, chief executive of Enders Analysis, said: “The leadership team has done very well to bring this phase over the line, but the next phase, covering both the sustainability of the business and a core audience retention, will be more complex and challenging.”

 

[Anonymous]

This is why Moz looks so f***ing old. Bitterness eats the soul...and the body. Forgiveness would take years off him.

Have a look at your own words and apply them to yourself.
The irony.

 

[Anonymous]

What a petulant arsehole

The irony. Lol

 

[Anonymous]

@guardianmusic
Might be tricky to review the new Morrissey album. Been refused a copy because we wrote this piece about him. "Afraid management are not keen to provide advance music to the Guardian for this release".

They seem to be under the impression we need them to tell us what to think. I paid for a copy and can judge it for myself thanks. The guardian s album review would be an impartial subjective opinion of just the music I'm sure.

 

[NealCassidy]

Skinny hates Morrissey for many years and loads lot of shit on him here in every Thread. You don‘t have to tell me I have to respect such a person. He has no right to call Morrissey an arsehole. For sure not on a Morrissey Fansite.

Truly, he is one of the biggest fans of the artist/performer ‘Morrissey’ which is why he has such agile views and must state them frequently. It’s not like any other love. He is the one still infatuated after the divorce.

 

[Eldritch]

But surely these days people find out about music for themselves. Reviews are a waste of time. Besides, who other than committed Moz fans are going to spend money on a covers album?

I disagree, because I love reading insightful reviews about bands, books and films that I love. A well-written review can help you realize things that you would have otherwise missed.

It's petty of Morrissey to not send a review copy and also his loss, because surely there are less ardent Morrissey fans who might not know about this release. But it's also petty of The Guardian to protest about this, because it's Morrissey's right to not send them a copy. The newspaper has the option of either ignoring the release or streaming it on Spotify for reviewing purposes.

 

[Anonymous]

I disagree, because I love reading insightful reviews about bands, books and films that I love. A well-written review can help you realize things that you would have otherwise missed.

It's petty of Morrissey to not send a review copy and also his loss, because surely there are less ardent Morrissey fans who might not know about this release. But it's also petty of The Guardian to protest about this, because it's Morrissey's right to not send them a copy. The newspaper has the option of either ignoring the release or streaming it on Spotify for reviewing purposes.

I guess they'll have to wait for a bootleg to copy to be leaked, then give a review. Moz will be incensed, but hey...that's life, innit?

 

[marred]

Will this refusal go on for can we say years? I guess they can go and buy a copy like us consumers do when it's released.

 

[Thewlis]

Yes, years of refusal, if not decades.

 

[Eldritch]

I guess they'll have to wait for a bootleg to copy to be leaked, then give a review. Moz will be incensed, but hey...that's life, innit?

They can easily wait for the official release date, since most reviews are released after the film/record/book/play is out anyway.

 

[ninetimesfined]

Fair enough, I think. Any review would contain a massive subtext anyway, which not everyone wants to read

 

[Uncleskinny]

Fair enough, I think. Any review would contain a massive subtext anyway, which not everyone wants to read

Which would also apply to any other outlet reviewing it, not just the Guardian.