If their success is so dependent on EMI's marketing strategies, perhaps someone could explain to me why EMI chose to sign them in the first place? Could it be because of Adrian McNally's (persisently villified for some bizarre reason...) 'vicious marketing'. I don't think so. Unless sitting at the kitchen table printing their own posters and leaflets is 'vicious'. It really makes no sense why anyone would raise an eyebrow in any way at the job Adrian does as a manager looking after his band. What's so 'vicious' about that?!

As for Rachel and Becky's singing, I have to agree with GUEST Robert and ask all you moaners what the evidence is. Were they flat.. sharp? Maybe you just don't 'get' dissonant hamonies? I've seen them sing a lot and their tuning is fine. And if it wasn't at a few gigs in the past for whatever reason, who cares? They are creative and daring musicians and the odd off-key note doesn't detract from that. Singing is different from playing an instrument - it's not just about learning the technique and playing. I can always play piano no matter how I'm feeling, but I can't sing if I'm ill or feeling bad. Those people who've witnessed these supposed out of tune gigs, which I haven't seen might be a little less cold and consider the fact that the voice is sensitive to a person's whole state of being. Some singers cancel gigs if they're a bit down and have a funny throat. The Unthanks just get on with it because they're tough and they work hard.

One thing that does amuse me is the lofty authority lots of people seem to be adopting on this thread. GUESTnot a geordie for example: discussing Jackie Oates and EMI's corporate strategy with such superiority. Do you work for EMI? Were you there when the band and Jackie parted ways??