Simple. Direct. Not pretentious.

That's all this video has to be if it wants to stand out.

yes please

me too

I would like it if the video were set in the street, and Craig was literally running into people we wanted at first, and they'd just kind of tag along. And for the chorus, the street actually started spinning and they'd all have to hold onto the nearest lamppost to keep themselves from falling. Then everything would just stop and they'd just walk off, Craig with his hands in his pockets and he'd start bumping into people that seemed hostile, and then the street would start spinning again.
And it should be colourful.
Yep, that's basically it.
I have no idea how that would actually be feasible, but that isn't my job to figure out.

LOL well shit. that sounds good to me

Wind and destruction would be very awesome.

I can seriously picture that! it's a pretty great idea there could be this dull and depressing colour palette untill the chorus which could look all trippy and 60's beatlesque like. That would be awesome

way cool. =D

when's the single actually out?

If a merrygoround features anywhere in the video.... there will be blood, for lack of any creativity.

I can see it now... The Vines all just sitting on a merrgoround, whistling along to the song....

Yes, let's throw something entirely unrelated in the video, just for the sake of it. I propose goats and umbrellas, you with me, people?

Perhaps the focus of the video can be the dude from the start of HaR riding a goat with an umbrella? Perhaps chasing down the band. lol.

Haha, that would be downright epic. I don't think there even is an 'EPIC WIN' macro on the whole of Internet that would do this epic win justice.

I'm with ya. I can handle ~metaphoric~ merry-go-rounds, but to have a real one in there is just...horribly predictable and boring.

Think about how awful the video would have been for "Dope Train" if they had gone literal in that depiction

Lmfao! yes! goats and umbrellas chassing the band. sounds great.what if they got ideas from the fans on here and they just desided fuck it, we are going with the idea about the goats chaseing the band. imagine craig in a video like that.

I vote in favour of this motion. *hand shoots into air*

YAY11

the vid just has to be kinda exploding. with alot of energy in it. then I don't think alot can go wrong. If you make some chill video with a vines song.. it just doesnt work

i think..

triple j are, according to their website, already starting to play merrygoround... any news of a video yet?

yeh I've heard it played number of times. Manger is also played quite alot. Also heard Orange Amber a couple times. No news of any videos though

Well, in Channel [V]'s newsletter there's a photo of The Vines under 'New Stock', which is a category for new videos, so I thought that could be a clue that they would play the MerryGoRound video, but I'm getting more and more convinced that was just wishful thinking. Oh well.

I don't think so, because I saw that exact "new stock" picture saying on a channel [V] Ad in some magazine like a week or so before the He's a Rocker video was to be played (which is probably still considered "new").

I was watching Channel V just before and i saw the same thing.. it had "new stock" with the 'He's a rocker' music video playing behind it.

So when it coming out?
I'm dying for this video

I don't think they're going to film one

The Melodia era has quickly lost its steam

I'm not so sure.

The Vines will know their fans will want a video.

And The Vines arent one of those uber corporate controlled bands that just care about money.

So I think there will be one.

Or atleast I hope.

Ermmm have u listened to the New album or read any of Craigs interviews??

This era of The Vines is ALOT about the money!

They made bugger all with Vision Valley and needed this one to be a success.

Not saying its a bad thing, they need to earn a living. But you can tell that at the moment for them it is about earning some money! Hence why this album was soo poliashed and poppy, because they were hoping for commercial success!

I'm sure they've just got trouble with finding the goat for the Frenchman to ride. Good goats are hard to find these days.

^^^^ Yeah probably.

Yeah. I know it's about money. But they wont just go ahead and ditch their fans.

That would just be shallow and pedantic. (Sorry, I've been watching Family Guy.)

Surely they'd settle for a mix between making money and pleasing fans.

I agree that The Vines wouldn't do anything on purpose that ditches their fans.
but by the way Craig talks about stuff in interviews, I get the feeling that Craig doesnt actually really know or understand what the fans want.

He seems quite disconnected from the fans, not in a snobbish way, more in a musical sense.
For instance, Craig always comes across as thinking the fans want highly polished music, when Im pretty sure most of us just want themt o return to their rawer H.E days.

I duno, its difficult to describe. But when asked about the fans, he tends to come across like he doesnt really know. And just says "I hope they like the album".

Again its not a criticism of Craig or trying to say hes snobbish, just something I feel. Its why i think they havent got it right with Melodia, because Craig thinks the fans want something, when a lot of us were expecting something completely different.

I don't think he realises what made H.E so great, and why H.E was such a success

Eh? Why should he write his music for us? I'm pretty sure he doesn't think of whether we'll like this or that verse when he writes it and I don't think he should, either. Writing music is a form of expression, not a wish granting ...thing.

Craig writes/makes music for himself.

Not the critics and not the fans.

SlashNX - I think its silly saying Craig is confused and thinks the fans want a polished sound. The polished sound comes from Craig being a perfectionist himself, do you think comments that every album (even HE) were over produced didnt get back to him? He has stuck with the sound he wanted and hasnt changed.
The only reason he wants this record to be a commercial success is because to keep recording albums he gets told by others they need to sell a certain amount.
I doubt Craig could spend the money he would have made from HE though, remember when they were playing glasto, V, Coachella BDO etc etc. remember sync deals? I know from speaking to people money definitely isn't an issue. When a can of coke costs $100 you should worry about Craigs finances.

Couldn't have said it better.

I think Craig's mention of money a lot is honestly a sarcastic jab at himself - he cares about it, he wants commercial success so he can keep doing his thing, but he knows that it's fucked up to be so focused on it, as far as being an ~artist~ goes. So he handles it like he does other tough subjects/moral qualms - he self deprecates himself and jokes about it as much as he can. He treats the money issue the same as he does when it comes to his mental health or artistic integrity; he goes on and on sarcastically about how much of a crazy fucker he is or how much of a sell out he is. The fact that he speaks so sarcastic and flippantly to me speaks volumes to how he REALLY feels.

I think your in dissillusion to how much money Craig has, or earned with The Vines.

They didnt play high up at Glasto, Reading, V or Coachella.... and wouldnt have been paid that much.

And they only toured properly till 2004. Since then, theyve done verrrrryyy little touring. So your expecting a few thousand pounds they made back 4 years ago is still going to have lasted!??? Unless Craig has become an investment banker during their time out, it will have gone.

H.E sold a lot yes, but 1.5 million albums isnt enough to keep an artists going for 6 years.

Considering the amount of money which was spent on the album and their videos, after paying that all back they wouldnt have earnt much at all; considering they would have been paid about 40p per album sold.

2nd of all Craig will probably be concerned about his poor band mates.

Hamish has already admitted he earnt more in his previous cover band than he ever did with The Vines, and hes moved into a smaller house and sold off one of his drum kits.

This album Craig wanted to be a commercial success because they needed to start earning money again. Craig and Hamish has stated this in a previous interview, because with the previous 2 albums they earnt vitrually zilch money for sales. and seeing as they stopped touring from 2004.
Yes it allows them to keep making records, but money is the bigger factor for the hopes of success with this record.


And not every album was criticised for being over produced. VV was far from it.

Would you please take the time to check your facts before you claim something that's based on hot air?
It wasn't a 'few thousand', far from it. "The Vines' songwriter, Craig Nicholls has probably earnt $2 million from Vines' album sales," as reported by news.com.au. That was in 2005, before VV and Melodia. This took two seconds to find, by the way. Research is not your enemy.
Also, I think Craig's father is/was an accountant. If Craig needs help with finances, his father is right there.

Link please.


H.E has sold what, about 1.6 million?
50p per album lets say if the record company was feeling generous, and thats only after paying back the thousands that was spent on the album.....

W.D sold 500,000 and considering what they spent on the album, Craig would have earned practically zilch for it.

Ride was used in 2 promos, and they received zilch money for it.

VV sold a few 10's of thousands... again probably earned zilch with.

so yeh, link please!

It's from news.com.au. The file has since expired, but I may have it on my computer, will have to check. It was an article about Hamish's advert in a local newspaper about looking for work.
What source of information do you use, if I may ask? I haven't seen a single thing supporting anything you've said, and frankly, you need something damn reliable for such bold statements.

Well what about my facts are you contesting?!

Those are not facts, those are silly estimates by you.
But, since you asked ...
For starters, the amount of money they got per unit sold.
Then you can move to, let's say, how much of promotion costs was paid by the label.
Then, you can perhaps try to justify this statement: "thats only after paying back the thousands that was spent on the album....." by explaining what business model the label used with them, since you seem to imply The Vines paid for absolutely everything.
Maybe, if you don't get tired, you can explain this: "Ride was used in 2 promos, and they received zilch money for it."
And oh, links please.

amount of units sold

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/mar/05/popandrock

per unit sold, a quick google search will show you that artists earn bugger all from their records!
Out of interest, how much do u think artists make on records?
If your a huge artist with an extensive back catalogue at best you can expect to earn 10% - 15% of the earnings, but generally for artists its less than that. especially for new artists (such as The Vines back in 2002).
Artists don't make any money till all the money spent on the album is repaid, so Craig nicholls wont be getting his 50ps till H.E had sold alot!!

I know its not an official source, its a bit hard to find but here is a forum where posters can basically confirm what ive been saying, because if you know anything about the record industry you know what a bitch of an industry it is to work in!

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gea...-radiohead.html

Here explains the royalties system better!
Although they are being generous with their 12% royalties. No starting artist would get that. And remember The Vines videos were very expensive! Get Free had a bugest of $500 million, and I think Outtatheway was even more expensive according to a poster on this forum!

Don't be misleaded... the bands pay basically pay for EVERYTHING!

And im working on finding the video interview with hamish about the ride promos. It was posted on DTI a few months ago.

You do realise none of this directly answers ANY of my questions?
Furthermore, you have offered NO official or semi-reliable sources to support ANY of your claims - the Guardian link only talks about the number of albums sold, which is pretty much common knowledge.
You have offered NO information about what terms the Capitol contract was signed under, whether and how much they were paid, how big the Capitol investment was and so on.
You have offered NO information under what terms the contract was terminated and whether The Vines had to pay off their entire debt.
You have offered NO information about Craig's or the band's financial state.
You have offered NO information about the amount of money they have made with touring.
You have offered NO facts that would in any way prove anything that you've said.

Basically, you're just as clueless about their fiscal matters as any and selling your opinion as to how much they have made and how much money they're sitting on as facts, no less, is a pretty damn arrogant, not to mention vastly untrue thing to claim.

Sorry one of the links didnt paste

http://www.mzeus.com/Education/mZeus_Getti...ties_Page_4.htm
was meant to be posted after "this explains the royalties sytem better".

But anyways, ive given you substantial evidence on how the business is run. If you really beleive differently, find me any proof to proove the contrary! So far youve found nothing.
Its impossible to know the complete contract, because its not going to be anywhere online is it??
But do you honestly think Capital wrote a contract where they said they would spend a lot of money on the band and don't want it paid back?

Ive given you the evidence ive used to make the an informed judgement, u so far have made a radical claim that Craig has earnt $2million and so far given no evidence, but ill let you off.

You never asked about touring, but we know that artists earn their main money by touring. And we know that Craig and co havent toured properly for 4 years.... so they're main money has come from only 2 years of touring 4 years ago. Thats not going to last.

The Vines WOULD of had to pay off their entire debt. I dont understand why you think they wouldnt??? Its how the music industry works, especially with Major labels. Ive given you websites to prove my point on how labels work.
The labels give them a special loan, in which they pay off with record sales. If their record flops, and they get dropped or something, then they don't have to pay it back, but for the time that theyre working for the record company, the company will take a huge portion of the profits to pay off the loan!

I think it frustrates you that ive proved you wrong and thats why your getting angry.


What exactly is your view on how the record industry works???

Salsh you keep linking sales with earnings and saying they would have earned zilch. You really have no idea do you!

The Vines signed what was probably one of the the most lucrative deals ever for an Australian band. They were paid a massive advance (which is not refundable by the way - its the punt a label takes). In any multi record deal the label has the rights for the next few albums - for, in the case of the Vines, another significant up front non-refundable fee. Capitol paid these significant advances 3 times. They had touring income, sync deals, merch etc.

I acknowledge Hamish has probably earnt little (would still be in excess of $250k IMO). This was about Craig, who would be sitting on some serious cash. Royalties - they would be still pouring in thanks to Ride and Get Free, not that he would need them

any proof behind these claims?


I struggle to see why they would give the Vines a massive advance for the third album, when they were ont he verge of being dropped anyways!
And where is Ride and Get Free being played??

And ive already said, touring income only works if you tour full time, they havent toured properly for 4 years.

What. A link to an online forum is not substantial evidence, I think we can agree on that. Also, there is no standard deal and royalties aren't the only thing that the artist pockets, there are far more factors to it than you even cared to mention.

Look, that's just the thing. I'm hardly trying to prove anything about the amount of money they've made. You, on the other hand, are. The burden of evidence and 'prooving' is on you. As you said, you don't know and can't possibly know the details of their contract, therefore you have no idea what terms they were signed under, and you can't possibly know just how much they were paid.


I don't think these words mean what you think they mean.

That wasn't my claim, it was featured in an article about Hamish and his advert. I put it in quotation marks because it is a direct quote from a 2005 article. And if I had to choose whether to believe you or an article in an actual newspaper, written by a person that probably did more than typed 'royalties' into Google, or so I'd like to think, I'd choose the latter. I WONDER WHY.

You haven't proven anything so far. Also, I'm not getting angry. If I got angry for every time someone claimed something ridiculously uninformed on the Internet, I'd be well mental.

hahaha "I doubt they would pay a massive advance when they were on the verge on being dropped anyway"

Yeah, because in contracts you get the choice!

Capitol - "you know how we all signed that deal a couple of years ago that for each album we would pay you XXX" if we exercise our rights, well we DO want to exercise our right to the third album, because one has gone good and ones gone crap, BUT we only want to pay you "Y" amount"

Vines - "yeah no worries, hey dont even pay us"

As if...you fool!

You havent responded to my last link, the one that didnt copy and paste properly.
That explains everything of how it works.

And it is your job to prove the contrary if you decide to take it upon yourself to challenge a statement i made.
We are having a debate, and therefore it's your job to back up your arguement with evidence.
I made a statement, you challeneged the statement on a basis of an "article" which conveniently isnt around anymore.
So far neither you or matterz have produced any links or evidence to support your claims, where as I have.
So I dont see how im the unreliable one.

The Vines contract will be the same as every other contract in the music business.
Unless you have any reason to think otherwise, this must be assumed.
Therefore if thats the case, The Vines wouldnt have made much money because theyre riding on one big seller album, which was also a very costly album so most of the money would have gone into paying the loan back.

The Vines toured for 2 years straight, then after that sunk into obscurity. 2 years of touring money wont last for 6 years! And merchandise will have fallen due to them falling into obscurity.

What evidence do you have to suggest that The Vines got paid anything more than what a starting band would get paid?
What evidence do you have to suggest that The Vines didnt have to pay back all the money loaned to them, just like every other band has to?

I dont see why you are contesting it, Ive stated how the industry works, shown you webpages prooving that i didnt just make it up off the top of my head. And using that knowledge, plus the amount of units sold and their touring activities, its easy to see that Craig and Co arent rolling in money!

Oh and btw I know perectly well what the word informed judgement mean.
Maybe you need a dictionary if your confused?

They wouldnt have worked out the advances for all future albums.
Advances flux with the success of the artist.
But I think your conusing advances with the loan. Because The Vines didnt get huge amounts of free money, they got a lot of money put into their recordings and videos.
If you have proof of to contradict this, i will happily read it, and admit im wrong, but I do think you may be getting confused.

Actually, I did, but I didn't indicate it properly, for which I apologise.And to explain it further: see, it doesn't explain how the music industry works or covers everything regarding artists' paychecks - it just explains how royalties are paid, and it also says that the deals vary quite a lot from band to band. It proves nothing and it isn't even relevant because here we deal with a specific deal for a specific band, and your link only lists possibilities you may have and shows an example (AN example. That's right, ONE example). Maybe you should read your links before you post, eh?If I told you that there was an undetectable pink doughnut travelling around the Earth in a heart-shaped orbit, would it be your job to disprove my statement? No.
When you claim that The Vines are broke and even involve concrete numbers in it (e.g. "considering they would have been paid about 40p per album sold.") it isn't my job to disprove it, simply because I can't - I have no access to their fiscal matters, and neither have you. If you want anyone to take your "expert estimates" seriously and not wave them off, you need to have evidence.
I am not claiming anything other than that what you've said isn't backed by any sort of actual data. So far, it seems I'm right. My argument is that you don't have an argument.Not all contracts are the same. Even the forum link that proves EVERYTHING you provided says that, I quote, "There are really no "standard" contracts." Again, I'm waiting for concrete details of their contract that would support what you've said.you're =/= your.
I'm not the one in need for a dictionary, but thanks for asking. What I was getting at is that you misused the term. What you've shown so far is by no means informed, it's a bunch of claims you are unable to prove with actual information.

How is it not even relevent?!?!! The business modal used by all Major Labels for paying their bands, isnt relevent for my case that The Vines didnt earn much?!?
Contracts do vary.... but not to the extent that you would be hoping for with The Vines.

Contracts vary between the percentage in which they earn. that is around 8 - 15% usually depending on the successfulness of the artist. The really huuuugeee oens may be able to barter some more.

The way the contracts work though are the same throughout with major labels, you don't earn you money till you've paid it all back. Untill you find me a major label contract which differs from this, there is absolutely no reason what so ever to assume The Vines were treated different.

again heres another link stating the way contracts with companies work.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm

This also explains how their so called "huge advances" that matthez was suggesting they lived off, don't work in their favour because this is the money they have to pay back. They get a nice fat cheque to go recrod an album and live off basically for 6 months. Then the rest of their days are spent paying back the money.
THIS IS HOW THE INDUSTRY WORKS! why you feel so strongly that The Vines would have got a different deal, some magical deal which makes them richer I don't know? You simply have nothing to suggest it, other than hope.

Now as for their back catalgoue being played. Well for one, Vines music isn't played that often, or not often enough, because again the amount earned from that is pennies!!

Ill try and find the axl rose radio interview, where he admitted every time a GNR song is played on the radio he gets a whopping 2 cents!

Apart from your mysterious article, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Craig is loaded.



The Vines will earn there money like just about all bands through touring and merchandise, however like ive said before The Vines haven't toured properly for 4 years, so both touring money and merch will be down.

I dont understand why you are fighting my claims that The Vines earn pennies for every album sold. What do you have to make you beleive otherwise???
Ive given you the business modal which is used for basically EVERY band out there on a major label, that atleast suggests the Vines would be in financial hardship
.
Your yet to back up your claim that Craig's rich! And yes it is your responsibility to do that, just like you've made it mine to proove hes poor. You've claimed to read it in an article, but we have no proof this article existed. Atleast with the reasons im using to suggest The Vines are poor, I have proof of the information I used to come to the conclusion!


Again though, how much do you honestly think the Vines make per album???

oh and when THe Vines contract was terminated, they wouldnt have to pay off the rest of their loan. Its a loan they only have to pay back while working for the record label, when the contract is terminated, The Vines aren't under any contract aggreement to return the money.

It isn't the whole model, it is the frame that explains how royalties work in general. And, uh, royalties only.
"The royalty is a portion of money from record sales paid to the artist for his/her music. The record contract which is a negotiated legal agreement between the record label and artist will state how much royalty an artist is entitled to among other things." So, even according to your source, one that you handpicked, royalties=/=entire contract.


Um, Maths 101?

0.5 pounds × 1 500 000 copies = 750 000 pounds = roughly 1 600 000 Australian dollars on Highly Evolved album sales alone.
Winning Days sold, what, 600 000 copies? × 0.5 pounds = 300 000 pounds = roughly 640 000 Australian dollars on WD album sales alone.
Yes, there are other expenses, but there are also other sources of money, which one of your divine internet sources actually lists, namely:
Record Clubs, Compilation CDs, Samplers (low-priced albums in which a few artists are featured), Premiums (albums sold with other products, such as cereal), Film Soundtrack Album, Music Video Sales, Greatest Hit’s[sic] Album, Foreign Royalties (song played in some foreign country radio stations pay royalties, unlike the US), Master Use License (music used in a movie, television, commercial, the Internet, CD-ROM and DVD), etc.
And you wave them off as unimportant when in fact, they add up to lots of 'pennies'.

Basically, "my radial claim" that Craig earned 2 million with album sales is actually quite feasible, even by your standards. I'm not suggesting a very large part of that wasn't spent on paying off other expenses, either, but yeah, about $2 million of starting profit (that is, before everything else was paid) sounds quite plausible, as opposed to your very precise estimate of 'pennies'.

I don't like when people make stuff up and expect to be hailed for it without actually having anything but their gut feeling and excessive use of question marks to support their claims.
You could easily be right and they could be completely broke, but I'm not going to be convinced you're right just because you said you were and added a ?!?!! behind it. I asked you to prove it, you can either do just that or accept that I'm not going to just take your word for it and move on.