There's been a lot of discourse recently about an interview Simon Cowell has recently done with Dragons' Den entrepreneur Steven Bartlett, particularly comments on the ownership of the One Direction name (which is owned by the boys):

 

@1800985072872374756

 

@1800364836213395834

 

Watch the clip here:

 

@1800175247473402080

 

Ashton Irwin of 5SOS, who supported 1D on tour, has spoken in support of the boys:

 

@1800960517101752808

 

What are your thoughts? I don't think it reflects well on Simon especially with the amount of X Factor contestants who have spoken about how poorly they were treated on the show, such as Katie Waissel (above), Rebecca Ferguson and Jedward, and Simon wasn't exactly viewed in a positive light in the context of One Direction before this. It's a bit tone deaf and very much reeks of how pop groups were treated in the 90s/00s.

In a way it surprises me that he didn't think to put that into the contract at the time! He'd had years of experience by that point. Although I suppose it was his first experience of a band on his label being *that* big worldwide.

 

I can't work out if Simon is entirely oblivious to how he'll come across when he says something like this, or if he knows exactly how it'll sound but he doesn't care. :drama:

I don't really see the issue with what he is saying to be totally honest. At the end of the day it's not like the guys really have any ownership of the group, they were literally put together on a TV show and handed everything on a plate. It's not like a band who wrote their own material (although I know they did a few songs tbf), or even put the group together like JLS they literally could not be any more manufactured.

 

I don't think that is a bad thing btw, I love plenty of 100% manufactured bands like Steps and S Club 7, but I don't understand why people think they deserve any ownership of something they were literally paid to perform in... no performer in a Broadway show has any ownership over that show, or the recordings that come out of it, same as any actor on a TV show etc.

 

Simon being a twat to his acts is a whole other matter.

I don't really see the issue with what he is saying to be totally honest. At the end of the day it's not like the guys really have any ownership of the group, they were literally put together on a TV show and handed everything on a plate. It's not like a band who wrote their own material (although I know they did a few songs tbf), or even put the group together like JLS they literally could not be any more manufactured.

 

I don't think that is a bad thing btw, I love plenty of 100% manufactured bands like Steps and S Club 7, but I don't understand why people think they deserve any ownership of something they were literally paid to perform in... no performer in a Broadway show has any ownership over that show, or the recordings that come out of it, same as any actor on a TV show etc.

 

Simon being a twat to his acts is a whole other matter.

I don't think anyone's denying that they're manufactured or claiming otherwise, it's entirely about how Simon treated them (and others)! And how him owning the name would take away the one bit of control they currently do have, and that's whether they reform, when it would happen, who takes part, etc. Instead of Simon cobbling together three of them to stage a half-arsed reunion, it'll only happen if/when the four they finished with, or even all five, are ready and willing.

 

Worth noting that at least one band member (usually more than one) was involved in writing 15 songs out of 18 on Midnight Memories, 12 out of 16 on FOUR 14 out of 18 on Made in the A.M., so it was only really those first couple of albums where they had little control over the music.

I don't think anyone's denying that they're manufactured or claiming otherwise, it's entirely about how Simon treated them (and others)! And how him owning the name would take away the one bit of control they currently do have, and that's whether they reform, when it would happen, who takes part, etc. Instead of Simon cobbling together three of them to stage a half-arsed reunion, it'll only happen if/when the four they finished with, or even all five, are ready and willing.

 

Worth noting that at least one band member (usually more than one) was involved in writing 15 songs out of 18 on Midnight Memories, 12 out of 16 on FOUR 14 out of 18 on Made in the A.M., so it was only really those first couple of albums where they had little control over the music.

 

 

Yeah but is that a good thing? What if 3 of them want to do a reunion, why shouldn't they? It's only like the other 4 Spice Girls doing it without Victoria or the two Mels and Emma wanting to continue without the other two?

 

Maybe I'd feel differently if I were a bigger fan of the group but I don't really see what the issue is with Simon releasing things in their name or the some members deciding to tour / make new music together etc?

 

Again, Simon being a twat to his acts and an all round asshole is another matter entirely, this I don't really associate as that big of a deal, if anything I think he was stupid not to take full ownership of the group you think he would have looked at other managers like Simon Fuller and realised how they got shafted.

Yeah but is that a good thing? What if 3 of them want to do a reunion, why shouldn't they? It's only like the other 4 Spice Girls doing it without Victoria or the two Mels and Emma wanting to continue without the other two?

 

Maybe I'd feel differently if I were a bigger fan of the group but I don't really see what the issue is with Simon releasing things in their name or the some members deciding to tour / make new music together etc?

 

Again, Simon being a twat to his acts and an all round asshole is another matter entirely, this I don't really associate as that big of a deal, if anything I think he was stupid not to take full ownership of the group you think he would have looked at other managers like Simon Fuller and realised how they got shafted.

They still could, but again, it would be in their own time and with the approval of all of them, rather than hurried along by Simon when he decides he wants a cash injection. Them owning the name doesn't mean it *has* to be all of them, but it means that they can each decide what they do and don't take part in, and whether it's worth doing something that doesn't involve all members.

 

The 1D fans are viewing this in the context of how Simon treated them, because it's just another area where he'd have had control, so they really are one and the same. I don't think you can really separate the two things in this discussion when he'd be the one benefiting from, for example, a One Direction animation that they don't actually want as part of the legacy of *their* hard work (and I mean that as more than just songwriting, but performing, recording, touring, interviews, promotion, etc).

In a way it surprises me that he didn't think to put that into the contract at the time! He'd had years of experience by that point. Although I suppose it was his first experience of a band on his label being *that* big worldwide.

 

I can't work out if Simon is entirely oblivious to how he'll come across when he says something like this, or if he knows exactly how it'll sound but he doesn't care. :drama:

I think it's a mix. He's not on social media himself so he's probably not taking in all the comments from 1D fans blaming him for the boys developing an eating disorder or whatever.

 

Broadly it makes sense but I think he didn't put it across in the best way. That said, 1D fans get wound up if he as much as opens his mouth so he might as well just do his own thing.