BorisFishpaw said:

hhhhdmt said:

Why did Sign of the times sell so poorly?

Easy... it didn't.

Sign O' The Times actually sold very well

as double albums usually don't sell as well as single albums do. So you would normally expect to see a dip in sales for double albums, but Sign O' The Times actually sold virtually as well as it's predecessor Parade and much better than it's follow-up Lovesexy.

As I've said before, the proper question is "Why wasn't SOTT the best-selling album of 1987?"

JoeTyler said:

BorisFishpaw said:

Easy... it didn't.

Sign O' The Times actually sold very well

as double albums usually don't sell as well as single albums do. So you would normally expect to see a dip in sales for double albums, but Sign O' The Times actually sold virtually as well as it's predecessor Parade and much better than it's follow-up Lovesexy.

As I've said before, the proper question is "Why wasn't SOTT the best-selling album of 1987?"

Or why didn't it sell as well as 1999 (a double album)?

ufoclub said:

JoeTyler said:

As I've said before, the proper question is "Why wasn't SOTT the best-selling album of 1987?"

Or why didn't it sell as well as 1999 (a double album)?

1999's sales piggybacked Purple Rain's. Unfair comparison.

Easy answer...

Because Warner made Prince cut his triple lp to a double lp. They should have let him release his complete artistic statement, his one chance to be recognized with the "album of the year" grammy. Surely they could have cut a deal... let Prince release his triple album, while Warner controlled what singles were released. Prince lost the album of the year award because Warner did not release the best possible album prince could provide. The Joshua Tree was thus voted "best album" while the true best album was unreleased.

There's a reason Prince released a triple album as his "first" album being freed from Warner...

It actually sold well, but it did not sell as well as Purple Rain because opinions about Prince's new music had already begun to diverge.

It ended up being a long lasting album because people started digging deeper and finding songs beyond the singles like Housequake & Adore (which I used to hear on the radio all the time, even though I'm not sure it was as single.

[Edited 9/7/10 12:07pm]

ufoclub said:

JoeTyler said:

As I've said before, the proper question is "Why wasn't SOTT the best-selling album of 1987?"

Or why didn't it sell as well as 1999 (a double album)?

Because 1999 & LRC are more enduring Prince songs than anything on Sign o the Times?

Spinlight said:

ufoclub said:

Or why didn't it sell as well as 1999 (a double album)?

1999's sales piggybacked Purple Rain's. Unfair comparison.

I remember lot of peeps buying 1999 before Purple Rain came out, and liking the album... playing it a lot. They stopped buying albums after Purple Rain.

ufoclub said:

Spinlight said:

1999's sales piggybacked Purple Rain's. Unfair comparison.

I remember lot of peeps buying 1999 before Purple Rain came out, and liking the album... playing it a lot. They stopped buying albums after Purple Rain.

While that might be true, 1999 still piggybacked on Purple Rain as did the rest of his catalog for the most part.

Spinlight said:

ufoclub said:

I remember lot of peeps buying 1999 before Purple Rain came out, and liking the album... playing it a lot. They stopped buying albums after Purple Rain.

While that might be true, 1999 still piggybacked on Purple Rain as did the rest of his catalog for the most part.

including Sign of the Times? So maybe it's a valid comparison?

Very simple reason. People wanted Prince's old sound and he wasn't delivering it anymore.

They were also tired of the tricks like "Around The World In A Day" sounding like nothing he had ever made before and being released without a lead single to warn them. Also, the misleading lead single "Kiss", only to buy and receive an album that sounded nothing like the single and was even "further out there" than the previous album. Then, it was leaked before "Sign O The Times" was released that Prince had fired The Revolution and was going back to making albums all by himself like he had previously done. A lot of people blamed The Revolution's influence for his style change, including myself at the time, so they were happy to hear they had been fired. However, people had been tricked twice but a lot of them weren't going to be tricked a third time so people just waited to see if the "Old Prince" was back before they went out to buy this album. When some songs started playing on the radio, it was obvious that he wasn't back so they dropped him. I remember at the time, I couldn't beg anyone to go to the theater with me to see the "Sign O The Times" concert film so I went alone and only around 12 people were in the theater.

.

.

.

[Edited 9/7/10 14:46pm]

vainandy said:

Very simple reason. People wanted Prince's old sound and he wasn't delivering it anymore.

They were also tired of the tricks like "Around The World In A Day" sounding like nothing he had ever made before and being released without a lead single to warn them. Also, the misleading lead single "Kiss", only to buy and receive an album that sounded nothing like the single and was even "further out there" than the previous album. Then, it was leaked before "Sign O The Times" was released that Prince had fired The Revolution and was going back to making albums all by himself like he had previously done. A lot of people blamed The Revolution's influence for his style change, including myself at the time, so they were happy to hear they had been fired. However, people had been tricked twice but a lot of them weren't going to be tricked a third time so people just waited to see if the "Old Prince" was back before they went out to buy this album. When some songs started playing on the radio, it was obvious that he wasn't back so they dropped him. I remember at the time, I couldn't beg anyone to go to the theater with me to see the "Sign O The Times" concert film so I went alone and only around 12 people were in the theater.

.

.

.

[Edited 9/7/10 14:46pm]

yep, that's why (if I remember right) the album was a slow grower rather than a big hit. Because as you said Kiss was a huge hit but the album probably disappointed many who heard it, and they were not going to buy the next one.

Plus, I remember quite a few bad or average reviews of Sign when it came out. It was not hailed as a masterpiece by all who heard it.

vainandy said:

Very simple reason. People wanted Prince's old sound and he wasn't delivering it anymore.

They were also tired of the tricks like "Around The World In A Day" sounding like nothing he had ever made before and being released without a lead single to warn them. Also, the misleading lead single "Kiss", only to buy and receive an album that sounded nothing like the single and was even "further out there" than the previous album. Then, it was leaked before "Sign O The Times" was released that Prince had fired The Revolution and was going back to making albums all by himself like he had previously done. A lot of people blamed The Revolution's influence for his style change, including myself at the time, so they were happy to hear they had been fired. However, people had been tricked twice but a lot of them weren't going to be tricked a third time so people just waited to see if the "Old Prince" was back before they went out to buy this album. When some songs started playing on the radio, it was obvious that he wasn't back so they dropped him. I remember at the time, I couldn't beg anyone to go to the theater with me to see the "Sign O The Times" concert film so I went alone and only around 12 people were in the theater.

Frightening story. And then came Lovesexy, which was a real and complete flop.

Thank God for Batman. It was his first funk/rock album since the Controvery/1999 years. Partyman and Batdance were perfect singles...

Strangely, I loved those low-selling "disappointing" albums and disliked the "comebacks" Batman, Diamonds & Pearls, Musicology

^Same with me!

NDRU said:

Strangely, I loved those low-selling "disappointing" albums and disliked the "comebacks" Batman, Diamonds & Pearls, Musicology

I love Parade and SOTT because they feel like alternative albums, full of visionary music that only achieved recognition decades after their original release (like some Stevie albums, Bowie, Roxy, etc.). As someone has said before, both albums have stood the test of time.

But I also love his mainstream albums, specially D&P...

JoeTyler said:

NDRU said:

Strangely, I loved those low-selling "disappointing" albums and disliked the "comebacks" Batman, Diamonds & Pearls, Musicology

I love Parade and SOTT because they feel like alternative albums, full of visionary music that only achieved recognition decades after their original release (like some Stevie albums, Bowie, Roxy, etc.). As someone has said before, both albums have stood the test of time.

But I also love his mainstream albums, specially D&P...

yes, they were like nothing else at that time or any other time.

I don't exactly dislike Batman or the others, I just found them a little disappointing after the creativity of the albums before it. Even Graffiti Bridge seemed a lot more creative than the albums surrounding it (at least, at the time it seemed that way to me)

NDRU said:

JoeTyler said:

I love Parade and SOTT because they feel like alternative albums, full of visionary music that only achieved recognition decades after their original release (like some Stevie albums, Bowie, Roxy, etc.). As someone has said before, both albums have stood the test of time.

But I also love his mainstream albums, specially D&P...

yes, they were like nothing else at that time or any other time.

I don't exactly dislike Batman or the others, I just found them a little disappointing after the creativity of the albums before it. Even Graffiti Bridge seemed a lot more creative than the albums surrounding it (at least, at the time it seemed that way to me)

Oh yeah, absolutely. Question of U singlehandely turns GB into a much more adventurous album than both Batman and D&P...

NeoGeo24bit said:

Easy answer...

Because Warner made Prince cut his triple lp to a double lp. They should have let him release his complete artistic statement, his one chance to be recognized with the "album of the year" grammy. Surely they could have cut a deal... let Prince release his triple album, while Warner controlled what singles were released. Prince lost the album of the year award because Warner did not release the best possible album prince could provide. The Joshua Tree was thus voted "best album" while the true best album was unreleased.

There's a reason Prince released a triple album as his "first" album being freed from Warner...

Come on now, don't act like the Grammy voters are wise men, they vote for what's popular. Had SOTT been a triple album, it would have been probably ignored from the nominations even, because it would have been a frightening amount of music for them to check out. It was U2's commercial peak in terms of hits, there was no stopping them.

Also, the fact that Warner got Prince cut SOTT to a double LP and it still included something like "It's Gonna Be A Beautiful Night" kinda implies there wouldn't have been MORE single worthy tracks on the triple LP. What's the point about controlling single releases if there's no radio hit material included?

Good point by vainandy about people not tricked into buying another Prince album that sounds nothing like the hit single, I forgot about that, that is really a big part of his commercial demise, back then huge albums meant at least half of it consisting of huge hits. Hence why Lovesexy was even a bigger drop, even the lead off single was not hit material enough, the subsequent singles failed to chart etc. He's lucky he could change that for D&P but that's probably due to the CD format starting to become popular at the time and by then 1-2 hits started to carry albums (as opposed to the big 80s albums).

ufoclub said:

JoeTyler said:

As I've said before, the proper question is "Why wasn't SOTT the best-selling album of 1987?"

Or why didn't it sell as well as 1999 (a double album)?

a few reasons as i have said....around the world in a day.....got rid of the casual fan he picked up with purple rains massive sales.....market saturation....releasing an album every year isnt normal for major artists in the 80s and since.....people had trouble keeping up with prince because he was soo prolific.....1999 sold well because it was his breakthrough album ....most people in the us discovered him with 1999 so it sold well...sign didnt sell as many because he was too diverse for most people's taste...it still sold well enough as i have said but your normal pop fan is very fickle and had moved on to the next big thing by 1987......had prince waited a few years after purple rain then released another album in a similar vein to purple.....it would have sold massively but thats not what he was about...he released atwiad NINE months after purple and most fans who had bought purple said....WHAT THE F**K IS THIS ?.....prince became a true artist and its been some journey ever since....he has been the biggest selling pop star on the planet ( purple rain..20 million sales)and he has been a indie act barely selling any albums at all ( rainbow children...news ...)....

LiveToTell86 said:

NeoGeo24bit said:

Easy answer...

Because Warner made Prince cut his triple lp to a double lp. They should have let him release his complete artistic statement, his one chance to be recognized with the "album of the year" grammy. Surely they could have cut a deal... let Prince release his triple album, while Warner controlled what singles were released. Prince lost the album of the year award because Warner did not release the best possible album prince could provide. The Joshua Tree was thus voted "best album" while the true best album was unreleased.

There's a reason Prince released a triple album as his "first" album being freed from Warner...

Come on now, don't act like the Grammy voters are wise men, they vote for what's popular. Had SOTT been a triple album, it would have been probably ignored from the nominations even, because it would have been a frightening amount of music for them to check out. It was U2's commercial peak in terms of hits, there was no stopping them.

Also, the fact that Warner got Prince cut SOTT to a double LP and it still included something like "It's Gonna Be A Beautiful Night" kinda implies there wouldn't have been MORE single worthy tracks on the triple LP. What's the point about controlling single releases if there's no radio hit material included?

Good point by vainandy about people not tricked into buying another Prince album that sounds nothing like the hit single, I forgot about that, that is really a big part of his commercial demise, back then huge albums meant at least half of it consisting of huge hits. Hence why Lovesexy was even a bigger drop, even the lead off single was not hit material enough, the subsequent singles failed to chart etc. He's lucky he could change that for D&P but that's probably due to the CD format starting to become popular at the time and by then 1-2 hits started to carry albums (as opposed to the big 80s albums).

If Prince had released a triple-album set in 1987,it would have sold even less than 'SOTT' did.Three records is ALOT of music for record buyers to digest,not to mention the high retail price of a set like that.

blackbob said:

ufoclub said:

Or why didn't it sell as well as 1999 (a double album)?

a few reasons as i have said....around the world in a day.....got rid of the casual fan he picked up with purple rains massive sales.....market saturation....releasing an album every year isnt normal for major artists in the 80s and since.....people had trouble keeping up with prince because he was soo prolific.....1999 sold well because it was his breakthrough album ....most people in the us discovered him with 1999 so it sold well...sign didnt sell as many because he was too diverse for most people's taste...it still sold well enough as i have said but your normal pop fan is very fickle and had moved on to the next big thing by 1987......had prince waited a few years after purple rain then released another album in a similar vein to purple.....it would have sold massively but thats not what he was about...he released atwiad NINE months after purple and most fans who had bought purple said....WHAT THE F**K IS THIS ?.....prince became a true artist and its been some journey ever since....he has been the biggest selling pop star on the planet ( purple rain..20 million sales)and he has been a indie act barely selling any albums at all ( rainbow children...news ...)....

Or... could it be that people like 1999 better as an album? I think that's the real reason!

ufoclub said:

blackbob said:

a few reasons as i have said....around the world in a day.....got rid of the casual fan he picked up with purple rains massive sales.....market saturation....releasing an album every year isnt normal for major artists in the 80s and since.....people had trouble keeping up with prince because he was soo prolific.....1999 sold well because it was his breakthrough album ....most people in the us discovered him with 1999 so it sold well...sign didnt sell as many because he was too diverse for most people's taste...it still sold well enough as i have said but your normal pop fan is very fickle and had moved on to the next big thing by 1987......had prince waited a few years after purple rain then released another album in a similar vein to purple.....it would have sold massively but thats not what he was about...he released atwiad NINE months after purple and most fans who had bought purple said....WHAT THE F**K IS THIS ?.....prince became a true artist and its been some journey ever since....he has been the biggest selling pop star on the planet ( purple rain..20 million sales)and he has been a indie act barely selling any albums at all ( rainbow children...news ...)....

Or... could it be that people like 1999 better as an album? I think that's the real reason!

well not for me it isnt....sign is my favourite album by any artist...and sign o the times is considered prince's greatest album by general consent....anyway sales are never the most important thing.....some of the best albums ever released hardly sold when first released.....

.

astral weeks-van morrison

forever changes-love

village green-kinks

the velvet underground

.

.

sales have nothing to do with quality...its how the album is seen in the years to come and these are all classics...

blackbob said:

ufoclub said:

Or... could it be that people like 1999 better as an album? I think that's the real reason!

...and sign o the times is considered prince's greatest album by general consent....

I would say, amongst hardcore Prince fans, Sign is considered prince's greatest album. Not the general public though.

[Edited 9/8/10 5:40am]

NDRU said:

Spinlight said:

While that might be true, 1999 still piggybacked on Purple Rain as did the rest of his catalog for the most part.

including Sign of the Times? So maybe it's a valid comparison?

Not including Sign o the Times.

Sign o the Times was released in 1987. Initial Prince-related fervor lent sales to his previous albums. Purple Rain had no visible effect on the sales of Sign o the Times, obviously, as it was released 3 years prior.

Marrk said:

I didn't think that was the case at all. I was just being a cuntish bastard.

LOve it

ufoclub said:

Or... could it be that people like 1999 better as an album? I think that's the real reason!

People buy albums based on the singles they hear (at least in the past, nowadays not many invest), so it's because "1999" and "Little Red Corvette" are so enduring that made people go back and buy it, so it could rack up catalog sales until the hits set came out. And unlike the post-PR albums, if you liked the hits, you'd enjoy more on the LP so that helped word of mouth.

JoeTyler said:

Frightening story. And then came Lovesexy, which was a real and complete flop.

Thank God for Batman. It was his first funk/rock album since the Controvery/1999 years. Partyman and Batdance were perfect singles...

True. A lot of people seem to forget that, saleswise in the US, Prince was doing poorly in the late 80's and that Batman was a "comeback" of sorts.

^^ Afaik, the masterpiece Lovesexy was a flop in US but very successful in Europe. (UK #1).....

I can't believe that people think the singles were poor choices, i think they were perfect choices and probably the most commercial on the album. IWNTTPOYM, UGTL, IIWYG and SOTT were catchy pop songs, it would have worked as well as the others.