The Daily Hucknall

Photobucket Today I did a terrible thing. I bought the Mail On Sunday, the one with the free copy of Simply Red's Stars.
I saw the advert on TV last night and was curious too see if the free album was the original album in its entirety. (This is a slight lie, I actually quite like the album and only have a worn out old copy on tape, so though what the hell, live a little, sometimes you just want to hear something familiar and easy on the ear).
It is, the original album, not one of those rubbish live best of affairs, that nomally come with the Sunday Papers.
After the release of the Prince's album a few months ago, I expect Hucknall shifted a few more copies of the Sunday Mail today, and it is useful promotion for his forthcoming solo album.
Do you think today was a one off ,or perhaps we will see more "classic" albums being given away with the Sundays. I'm not sure, but something got me started today and I think other acts will follow soon.

Dont know how much the Mail on Sunday costs

But it is more than 'Stars' is worth. Correct me if i am wrong but wasnt Stars the biggest selling of all Simply Red albums? If this is the case I assume all serious Simply Red fans will have the album already - why would the MOS think that anyone else is remotely interested in acquiring said piece of crap.
Oh i forgot, its a reactionary piece of Tory drivel whose headlines very rarely coincide with reality in which case its a perfect giveaway.

Steve Turner | 20 April 2008 - 7:32pm

The Daily Stars

One in three people in the land must have a copy of Stars in one form or another and yes it was their biggest selling album. I wouldn't go as far to say that the album is a piece of crap but the the majority of content in The Mail On Sunday certainly is. Surely Dire Strait's Brother In Arms or Tango In The Night by Fleetwood Mac will be next.

David Wright | 20 April 2008 - 7:52pm

I'd want the entire EMI and Columbia back catalogues free

before I'd contemplate shelling out for the Mail, in any of its putrid incarnations, I'm afraid.

Vulpes Vulpes | 20 April 2008 - 7:59pm

I would guess...

...that the reason Stars was free with the MOS is that they paid Simply Red a lot of money for the rights so to do. In the last few years people like Prince, Madness and Mike Oldfield have made big money doing the same. It's just another way of distributing a record and it probably won't make any difference to the sales of the artist but it might give a ten per cent boost to the paper's circulation on one weekend. The newspapers consider this worth paying for.

David Hepworth | 20 April 2008 - 8:35pm

I disagree

Yes, the idea is to boost sales for the newspapers, but bear in mind that most of the acts who have taken advantage of this are - shall we say - not as high-profile as they used to be, and are looking to regain a little of their former glory. And isn't it odd that many of them have released albums (or singles) in the normal way not too long after that?

spikeyboy | 20 April 2008 - 9:35pm

I know for a fact that...

...some of these acts have been paid six figure sums for allowing their records to be used in this way, which is way more than they're going to make out of selling any new release.

David Hepworth | 21 April 2008 - 5:51am

Tubular Sells

Just to clarify, Mike Oldfield probably didn't get as much in the Mail promotion as you might expect seeing as it was done just before the rights to Tubular Bells reverted back to him. EMI would have received most of the money (for all the difference that would make to them just now).

Mike would have still got the publishing, mind, and there may have been people buying other albums after hearing that one. At least, that was EMI's argument when Mike complained about it.

Anyway, yes... it's good for the record companies because they can get a lot of money for a bit of back catalogue that has probably sold most of what it's likely to sell and it's good for the paper because sometimes people will buy one to get a free CD.

matt_cochr | 20 April 2008 - 10:59pm

Oldfield was annoyed

at the giveaway apparently. Something along the lines of it devaluing music...

kidpresentable | 26 April 2008 - 6:56pm

Visited my Parents Today

Aged 80+ - standard MOS demographic I would guess
- and had a look at the Simply Red freebie. The back of the CD cover had adverts for Mick Hucknell's next album and lists of his tour dates.

Guess that's another reason for doing it - as has been said above, those who want the album probably have it already and I guess his revenue from sales of the album are pretty low by now. I think I read that he's out of contract now and has this has probably generated a hefty chnk of revenue from the album, albeit indirectly.

As for how it came to be in my parents house. Well, having had 30 years of arguments I think we'll draw a veil there.

muttnjeff | 20 April 2008 - 8:47pm

Mail Hate

Same here, although my parents buy the Express on a Sunday and The Mail on weekdays. There's not much difference, but both burn well. The magazines in these papers are terrible too.
Incidentally, if you go to table top or car boot sale, I can guarantee that there will be somebody trying to sell all the free cds they have collected over the years with the Sunday papers.
I expect more people will buy The Mail On Sunday than will putchase Hucknall's next solo album. As mentioned, a nice promotional plug for Mr Hucknall.

David Wright | 20 April 2008 - 9:10pm

One of my clients

is a certain well-known high-street books & newspapers retailer.

At their head office, they have a little charity shop, which sells off all the gack that the buyers get sent by publishing companies and so on. It's run by volunteers, and all the dosh goes to a local charity.

One of the most popular lines is Daily Fail cover-mount CDs at 10p a pop, and they have ZILLIONS of them in great piles.

Vulpes Vulpes | 21 April 2008 - 8:59am

Five bob

It is worth noting that second-hand copies of Stars (complete with jewel case etc.) can be bought on Amazon for as little as 24p. I do believe that that is less than the cover price of the Mail on Sunday.

However, in hindsight, the quid-and-a-half (or whatever the Mail costs nowadays) is a small price to pay in order to celebrate the union of a now thoroughly discredited bogus pinko champagne socialist and his new paymasters, the Bring-Back-Hanging goose-stepping MOS.

All so long as I don't have to listen to the awful CD or read the inflammatory tosh that passes for journalism...

Here's some more albums that the Express or Mail may wish to consider for future promotions: -

The F*cking C*nts Treat Us Like Pricks - A Flux Of Pink Indians
Only Stupid Bastards Sign To EMI - Conflict
Yes Sir, I Will - Crass
Levelling The Land - The Levellers
Death Or Glory - Combat 84 (shome mishtake?)

kinkywolfgang | 21 April 2008 - 7:40am

But.......

I have to admit to a real crisis cocerning the ginger warbler, who I don't really like, despite a grudging acceptance that he can indeed sing rather well. Not, I should add, not thru' the organ of the Hell on Sunday, but I have noted he is touring a tribute to Bobby "Blue" Bland. Am I alone in thinking, if he can get some good backing musicians, that it could be quite a worthwhile show.
What should I do?

Retropath2 | 21 April 2008 - 8:00am

Personally, I've been boycotting them

since "Money's Too Tight To Mention", the release of which annoyed me no end, as I own and love the 12 inch single of The Valentine Brother's infinitely superior original version.

Vulpes Vulpes | 21 April 2008 - 9:54am

As far as I'm aware...

...Mike Oldfield took exception to 'Tubular Bells' being given away in a newspaper. Don't see the problem- surely they've made enough money from these albums in the first place? I must admit I don't own this particular album, though...there was a 2-disc 'deluxe' edition last year of it, I recall.

JJ | 21 April 2008 - 9:02am

Ahem...

The Word also gives away a free CD with every issue - is that not intended to boost sale as well?

Niks | 21 April 2008 - 9:26am

I think there's a difference...

... between a compilation of (in the main) album tracks and a complete album. Several times - more than ten - I've bought full albums as a result of hearing a song on a Word magazine CD, but how many people do you think will go off and buy Stars after getting it free with their Sunday paper?

matt_cochr | 21 April 2008 - 12:45pm

But...

they may well go off and buy some other turds from the Ginger One's depressing back-catalogue. Which amounts to the same thing.

Paul Vincent | 22 April 2008 - 12:19pm

Hucknell now re-Branded?

Hands up time. I bought the Mail to get the free copy of Matter Of Life and Death that came with it a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, so did one of my sons, because he knew it's a favourite film hereabouts. So, we had two copies of the rag in the house. Bad enough, but the real problem came on bin day. We have to put papers in a blue bag in the street for collection. The potential social stigma of someone spotting a bag full of Mails almost outweighed the pleasure of getting the CDs.
On the subject of Mick Hucknall, surely his former position as the UK's premier annoying twat has now been taken by the endlessly shag-bragging Russell Brand?

Paul | 21 April 2008 - 10:54am

Ginger Works Sometimes

Think Hucknall is settled down now but it's amazing the amount of girlfriends he's had over the years. Brand is very annoying, I used to listen to his radio show but cannot tolerate him anymore!

David Wright | 21 April 2008 - 9:26pm

I've never

liked RB right from the start - him and his irritating biography title. (Plus the assumption that every woman breathing fancies the pants off this unfunny, hyped up loud-mouth just rankles with me..) As for MH - disappointing that he's chummed up with the Mail, all in the name of profit (surely money's not so tight to mention with him that he has to stoop so low?!) Mind you, I'm not much of a fan to be honest.

JoanneC | 25 April 2008 - 10:45am

Hucknall

Don't know what on earth possessed the arch champagne socialist to sell his best/most popular work to Thatcher's second favourite newspaper. The snotty nosed loud mouth nephew of the Daily Telegraph.

I do hope he is using the acquisition of Associated Newspapers wonga to fund his very good record company. Whilst never a fan of his music post the rather good Picture Book, I retained a lot of respect for Hucknall as a principled human being.

Nodge1970 | 21 April 2008 - 11:34am

Is anyone

going to speak out in defense of the Daily Hate and say that they buy it for its own merit? No? Good.
Incidentally, I always opick up these freebies for 15p from the local charity shops a couple of weeks after they hasve been issued.

Gatz | 21 April 2008 - 11:43am

Oh go on then

I don't hate the Daily Mail. It knows what its demographic is and it aims its coverage towards them - and does a bloody good job of it.

I don't agree with its politics but I am fully aware of what it's bias is therefore i can read it and enjoy it without coming over all pious and self righteously indignant. One of the positive things about the British press is there are newspapers for people from across the politcal spectrum and they don't hide their allegiances. Read what you want to read, be aware of its source and leave the rest.

Saying the Daily Mail is a crap newspaper just because you happen to be a liberal minded muesli eater is just as stupid as saying Jay Z is crap because you don't like hip hop or Thelonious Monk is crap because you don't like jazz.

Niks | 21 April 2008 - 12:57pm

But knowing what its bias is...

...doesn't make it any more palatable.

Paul Waring | 21 April 2008 - 1:27pm

The thing is al lot of people don't know

My in-laws read it, for example, and they don't know what its bias is - they think it reflects reality. So they sincerely tell me we need to do something about immigration because the Government gives them all houses in Hampstead etc etc, Tony Blair has put up council tax etc. Maybe newspapers should have a health warning on the cover so everyone is clear - "crypto facist bigot bias", "pinko lefty concerned bias" "the world is going to hell in a handcart bias" bias etc?

Twangothan | 21 April 2008 - 1:37pm

Likewise

My in-laws buy the Daily Mail, and believe everything they read in it - how they still kept on watching and enjoying last year's "Strictly Come Dancing" after the regular hatchet jobs they were doing on it (courtesy of 'a show insider'), I'll never know.

I usually have a flick through if we're there on a Sunday just to see who they're disapproving of this week - that's mostly what it does - disapprove. Of everything. One week (some months ago) there was a disapproving article about how dreadful Heather Mills was which then concluded with a few paragraphs along the lines of "what on earth was Paul McCartney thinking of getting together with her in the first place ??!!" - somehow managing to disapprove of both parties within the same article, which is quite some going.

This is a few months after they'd concluded an article disapproving about his latest world tour and attendant landmine campaigning with a paragraph each for "what would Linda have thought ?? what would John Lennon have to say about it ??!! Hmm ??!!" (purse lips, fold arms and lean on garden fence)

Simon Hoyle | 21 April 2008 - 3:09pm

Hmmmm

Although I agree with you generally, let us not forget how scarily influential and potentially damaging the tabloids in particular can be. Not everyone is clued up enough to filter out the nonsense. (By the way, not all liberal-minded people eat muesli - I can't stand the stuff).

JoanneC | 25 April 2008 - 10:56am

Niks

Although I agree with you generally, let us not forget how scarily influential and potentially damaging the tabloids in particular can be. Not everyone is clued up enough to filter out the nonsense. (By the way, not all liberal-minded people eat muesli - I can't stand the stuff).

JoanneC | 25 April 2008 - 11:02am

whoops

was s'posed to press edit last time. Have now replied to myself with my edit. (Maybe I should just go and eat some muesli...)

JoanneC | 25 April 2008 - 11:10am

OK, so run that past me again...

So, because it is seemingly racist, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted and God else also what, if it appeals to the like minded, that is fine and we should applaud our freedom of speech? And ignore the minds of the young and impressionable who may take those views as appropriate and balanced. Come off it, Niks, surely you wind us up. I'm all for tolerance of political stance, and believe the Telegraph and Guardian to be of equal merit, journalistically. But I am also tolerant of the truth, something that occasinally feels as if it has not been included within the brief of the Daily Hell and the Hell on Sunday.
No muesli was harmed (or eaten) in the writing of this blog.

Retropath2 | 21 April 2008 - 1:28pm

A muesli eater writes

Much as it might make you or I feel uncomfortable there are people with right wing views in this country, a hell of a lot of them actually. And they have a right to a newspaper which reflects their views.
Truth is a subjective thing, one man's 'carefully controlled cultural enrichment' is another man's 'deluge of immigration'.

And whilst we're here (I realise this is the second time I've raised the definition of the term 'racist' on this forum in recent days so I don't want to come across as a stuck record) being opposed to immigration does not make you a racist any more than hating Graham Norton makes you a homophobe. Personally I think immigration has done this nation nothing but good, but it's not fair to brand Daily Mail readers racist simply because they are concerned about an influx of people to these shores.

It should be pointed out however that while I am prepared to play Devil's Advocate for the Daily Mail, the Daily Express is simply a rubbish newspaper and no amount of polishing is going to shine that steaming turd.

Niks | 21 April 2008 - 2:21pm

Circulation

The Express is not without merit. What about the campaign for the truth about the Diana murder? Or the tireless work to help find poor little Maddie?

I'll, er, get me coat.

kinkywolfgang | 22 April 2008 - 5:42pm

It is quite a scary read

We have to keep buying it for all the DVDs of the 1st and 2nd World War documentaries, plus currently the greatest war films ever made, for my other half. If I buy something I feel obliged to read it and it really is a contrast to my usual Guardian take on events. They are paranoid about everything and absolutely obsessed with Kate Middleton !
Fortunately we didn't have to buy the Sunday version with the execrable Simply Red - that would have been going a bit too far.

Janice | 21 April 2008 - 1:55pm

Nothing as enjoyable as a

Nothing as enjoyable as a bunch of angry liberals shouting about how tolerant they are whilst dismissing anyone or anything that doesn't share their tolerant views. You've much more in common with the readership of the Mail than you realise.

Dave Lee Travis... | 21 April 2008 - 1:57pm

it's that age old contradiction, innit...

I can tolerate anything apart from bloody intolerance...

ivan | 21 April 2008 - 2:14pm

Can It Be True!

Are you the real Dave Lee Travis, what station are you on now please?

David Wright | 21 April 2008 - 9:28pm

Nor, DLT (any relation?),

......in a bunch of bigots righteously justifying themselves. That statement is a bit like stating the pursued are as bad as the chased, as the prey are just as equivalently eager not to be devoured as pack are to devour them.

Retropath2 | 21 April 2008 - 2:16pm

Banal, blinkered, narrow-minded, truth-distorting orthodoxy

Pretty much sums up the school of though that rails against the Mail and Simply Red.
Don't have much of an axe to grind either way about either of these institutions. But: Mick Hucknall's a good singer and does his bit for the music he loves. Craig Brown's Book of the Week column in the Mail on Sunday is, I'd say, page for page, the most interesting and amusing cultural commentary around.
As for the Mail being "racist": who ran the campaign for Stephen Lawrence's killers to be brought to justice? And "misogynistic"? It is, to all intents and purposes, a women's magazine. So, judging by its sales figures, there must be an awful lot of misogynistic women around.
The demonisation of the Mail is interesting: in terms of what it says about those doing the demonising.

Richard Lowe | 21 April 2008 - 2:22pm

We'll agree to differ.

I think there actually are a vast number of female apologists for misogyny.
And the equivalent argument for other 'phobes.
But bee careful, as will I, as to how much thou protestest.
Anyhow, I'm saying no more.

Retropath2 | 21 April 2008 - 2:53pm

how much thou protestest

Not protesting at all. Just pointing out that the Mail represents a body of opinion that is perfectly valid, whether you agree with it or not. That it's probably the most well-executed "product" in terms of printed media I've ever come across. And that there seems to be an awful lot of people who profess to have never even let it line their cat litter tray yet seem to know so much about it that they feel free to pontificate on what it "says". And what "it" "says" is not really a party line: don't suppose the likes of Keith Waterhouse, Roy Hattersley, Alison Pearson, Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, William Rees Mogg, Dylan Jones and Suzanne Moore agree about much.
Just as all "indie" bands should be locked into a room and forced to listen to stuff that isn't indie rock, so all Guardian readers should learn that there is a different take on the world and it isn't necessarily evil.

Richard Lowe | 21 April 2008 - 3:13pm

I don't read the Grauniad anymore

and I can't get access to enough Prozac to risk the Independent.

I wouldn't line my cat's tray with the Mail though, and it's nothing to do with their feature writers, some of whom, as you point out, are well worth reading. It's the editorial line that sucks, as I suspect you know.

Having read enough of their editorials in abandoned copies on First Great Western's er, finest, to know that while not actually evil, it does spout a lot of little England bollocks, and a lot of frankly loopy fervent old-school Tory codswallop which seems to be aimed squarely at "angry of Tunbridge Wells", I'm afraid I have nothing but disdain for it.

In many respects, I should think it's not that different from Socialist Worker.

Vulpes Vulpes | 21 April 2008 - 7:18pm

"Political" differences on railways

Hard to judge who's right and who's wrong in this scenario.
But Vulpes, if I fell in love with you, I'd promise to be true

http://uk.

(and that's "world-class" shoehorning. Come on Thommo fans, let's see what you've got.)

Richard Lowe | 21 April 2008 - 7:53pm

Can I just say

That this is the first time I've had the last word in a political argument?

muttnjeff | 21 April 2008 - 4:04pm

Don't...

... think so.

Nicodemus | 21 April 2008 - 5:34pm

So,

do you think Exchange and Mart will be enclosing copies of 'No Parlez' anytime soon?

Paul | 21 April 2008 - 5:43pm

I always thought..

..that certain songs on Stars were thinly veiled attacks on the Tories. Isn't "Wonderland" a song about looking forward to living in the UK after the Tories have gone? Funny how this is given away in The Mail. Mind you, the Tories are probably a bit left wing for your average Tory voter, these days, what with Mr Cameron's love of Radiohead and his concern over global warming.

Free next week in the Mail On Sunday? "Turning Rebellion Into Money" by Conflict, followed by Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" the following week

Futurenoir | 21 April 2008 - 9:14pm

Poor Mick!

Is it true Mick Hucknall sacked most of his band? Guess there will be a lot of Word readers buyin his new album then!

David Wright | 21 April 2008 - 9:31pm

I remember...

...none other than David Hepworth doing a retrospective link to 'Holding Back The Years' on the first OGWT DVD, recalling (I think it was) Mick Hucknall telling the cameraman not to film the bass player because 'we're firing him next Monday'!!

JJ | 22 April 2008 - 10:14am

AM I THE ONLY

Word reader who will admit to having a soft spot for Simply Red? Mick Hucknall can sing, he backs himself with musicians who can play, he writes tunes... good luck to the guy. As with the also-much-maligned Phil Collins, he makes bloody good, entertaining pop rock.

Mark JF | 23 April 2008 - 4:14pm

I'm indifferent to Hucknall's crew...

...couldn't stand 'Fairground' but most of their other stuff passes me by without filling me either with ire or a compulsion to go out and buy everything they've done.

Have a lot of respect for Phil Collins though, even if (again) most of his actual solo stuff doesn't really do it for me either way save the debut.

JJ | 27 April 2008 - 6:56pm