McCartney, Stones, Streisand: Few CD Sales

The numbers are in, and they are not good. Combined sales for new albums by established hitmakers of the past totaled less than a quarter million. The news should have the record business in a frenzy. But it doesn’t.

New albums by Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones, less than a month old, are already out of the Top 50.

Crushed by lack of radio play, "Chaos and Confusion in the Back Yard" and "A Bigger Bang" made little difference to fans that paid upward of $250 a ticket to see either act in concert this fall.

McCartney’s album is around the 160,000 mark. The Stones are just a little bit ahead, around 220,000.

Barbra Streisand has fared no better. Her just-released "Guilty Pleasures," a 25th anniversary nod to her Guilty and also featuring the Bee Gees' Barry Gibb, has caused little excitement even among her rabid fans. "Guilty Pleasures" is also lodged around 150,000 copies.

Another stalwart, Bonnie Raitt, is hovering around a mere 100,000 with her new "Souls Alike." And the late Ray Charles, whose "Genius Loves Company" won the Grammy only nine months ago, has racked up sales of a paltry 44,000 in the last couple of weeks.

The total for this group is a little less than 750,000.

A slightly younger group from the 1980s, Bon Jovi, is holding its own, but that seems largely attributed to an appearance on “Oprah.”

Aerosmith, dating back a decade further, is next on Oct. 25, and they’d better be planning something big. Their last album barely went gold with 580,000 copies sold.

So far, the only publicity about the new album is that drummer Joey Kramer may be too ill to tour.

One bright spot could be Stevie Wonder’s terrific new album, "A Time 2 Love." It hits stores on Oct. 18. But fans have been downloading it like crazy from all the legal servers. And Motown/Universal will be pulling out all the stops to push Stevie to No. 1 his first week out.

What’s the problem? The remaining record companies cannot get buyers into stores, that is even if they’ve communicated to them that a new CD is out. Then the companies can’t get Clear Channel to play the CDs. Even “payola” won’t work in these cases.

Maybe McCartney and the Stones, at least, should have copied Prince’s lead and included a copy of their new CD with each concert ticket sold. Considering how much money has been frittered away by releasing these albums to small sales, it wouldn’t have been such a bad idea.

Some artists,like Paul McCartney and Rolling Stones,don't really have to worry about record sales.Their tours are hugely successful,grossing over $100 million.

The days of 'Thriller'-like sales are over anyway.People just don't buy music the way they used to,and it affects every artist.

laurarichardson said:

Did you write this article?

lilgish said:

that article looks like it came from Roger Friedman of Fox News.I can always tell his writing style

All the acts brought up in this article are past their big record selling days . I mean come on, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones , Stresiand were the 70s big names. The yound record buyers of today dont buy these.

newpower99 said:

Very good point.I can't see why anyone would expect those artists to sell records like they did in their heyday.Record companies need to lower their expectations when it comes to longtime artists.I love Stevie Wonder,but I am realistic: his new CD probably won't be a big seller.

DavidEye said:

exactly. I dont see Stevie doing more than 200-300 thousand. But he's still the man.

newpower99 said:

DavidEye said:

If you can call jr. high writing ability a "style"

lilgish said:

-----
Did you really put this question on this board ??? It came from FoxNews.
Roger Friedman's column.

Tessa said:

-----
He is a gossip columnist so jr.high is about right. What do you think of his
suggestion that the older artist do like Prince and bundle the CD with the concert tickets.

laurarichardson said:

it won't count toward their sales, though, unless they list it as a seperate purchasing option, so what's the point? they changed it after Prince got away with it. and yeah, they could sell a few more CD's. but if they made it part of the purchase price for all tickets (and they could have with the prices they're charging), it would go unnoted and we'd still be reading this article.

Tessa said:

Its not only older acts which r sellin like shit just look at all the bands which get heavy rotation on mtv and vh1 they sellin like shit. I just ponted it out like 2 weeks back most have sales less then 500k which is very low considering they get so much airplay.

All of this is Crap, Im tired hearing an Industry complain and complain and then it expects its OLDER artists to pull them out. All of these artists mentioned are holding their labels together, Between Stones Catalog and Beatles Catalog, EMI is set for LIFE, the fact that both of them are able to Sell 150,000-250,000 in this Lack of Musical climate is amazing. The thing i think people forget is that these artists "have their base" and thats who buys them, So when I see these articles that bitch about how McCartney only sold 150,000 and Jovi sold 250,000 and REM sold only 125,000 and the Stones etc...U get the point, they are selling to their base that have been with them forever. McCartney isnt going to get NEW FANS now, i mean really. My main problem is the fact that these artists are doing there BEST work now and LABELS are doing nothing to get it played and seen, when they easily could. Just like they get that RIHANNA crap played they could get a Stones or Jovi track played.

I think another problem is the Video outlets, remember in the Later 80's when MTV played alot of Videos, but not only that, they Played Classic Videos so everyone got what they wanted and also the Music Public got MUSIC. Not just MTV is to blame VH1 is right behind them.

I recently discovered this channel called IMT, its the International Music Transfer, basically its videos from all over the place, in a half hour i saw, COLDPLAY,DWELE,LYFE,PAULINA RUBIO,COMMON and some others, the better thing was NO VJS!!

My point is that everything is so commercialized and all BOTTOM LINE, I had a Convo with JOHN CRAWFORD last week, he is the founding member of the Group BERLIN and recently put out a solo cd from his website. I asked him how he felt about the industry NOW and THEN. He told me that BERLIN would never make it today because they were NEW, the things that People thing are NEW today arent NEW, bands like the KILLERS, BRAVERY, FRANZ are all re-created 80's bands. But also the problem is its all BottomLine, when BERLIN put out their first EP it sold around 180,000, mainly because they played shows and promoted it,he also said the Label was happy with 180,000 mainly because all that had to get paid were a few people, today there are about 3000 different people that want their cut, but the Label also WORKED it for them too, and also DJ's had their own minds, they would get a new album and decide what Cut they wanted to play, they didnt care what the single was, they wanted to discover an album.
He also went on to say that doesnt mean "ALL IS SHIT" today, he said U just really have to Dig through the Piles of SHIT to find something worth a listen.
[Edited 10/14/05 9:54am]

lastdecember pretty much nailed it.

the market is skewed to younger buyers, 18 and under-25, that will spend their money on the hot artist of the week. nothing against them, many of us thirtysomethings did that too.

but the 26-50 market, which has more disposable income, and GENERALLY features more discriminating tastes in music, are not marketed at all. We're essentially left to our own devices, relying on word of mouth, Starbucks, the internet, and our own sense of direction at Tower Records to find music. Two major symptoms:

1. A sanctioned payola system. It has none of the variety of music we used to hear played on the radio backinaday.

2. Co-opted flagship video networks. Neither MTV nor VH-1 (which used to be THE network to hear music geared towards older crowds) have moved towards reality shows, nostalgia programming, etc. There is no room in the schedule to fit a Bonnie Raitt video anymore, so why should she bother making one? And the spinoff stations are criminally underpromoted (VH-1 Soul, etc.)


Trickle-down economics don't work in music. Kanye's rising tide is not going to lift Eric Clapton's boat. They are different markets. But the industry is ignoring it altogether. Some would say it always has. But oh well.

namepeace said:

Talk about Nailing it!!! You hit the nail on the head many times in this post. When i talk about music some may call me a "Snob" but hey Im not saying artists like Rihanna and Pop clones like Natalie and Jojo and Ahslee and Hilary shouldnt have there time, my point is to stop complaining and blaming artists like McCartney, the Stones, Clapton, and Im sure in a few weeks they will be talking how Stevie's album didnt "do the Numbers", oh god if i hear "the numbers" again or hear about Soundscan Im going to shoot myself. Heres the deal, Numbers are useless, the ones complaining about numbers had nothing to do with MUSIC, i dont hear Clapton or McCartney crying about selling 150,000 in the USA, i hear accountants and executives worrying about their jobs though.

You are totally right about the whole VH1 thing, a few months ago i was SHOCKED when I saw DURAN's "What happens tomorrow" video on my Tv, i thought maybe there was some hope but NO WAY, VH1 has become the same "Shit" in a different can. BET lets not even talk about this Sell out Network, MTV well that ship sailed long ago, and mTV2 well it was cool but its going the same way. I expect these networks to be diverse like myself, I can listen to new music from Shakira,McCartney,CLapton,A-ha,Stevie etc U get the point, Just play videos Just play Music, forget the numbers, oh well i guess that will never happen

thats why i support artist selling their concerts the night of the event.....

its a great way of increasing sales and it would help support "true" artist since aint nobody gonna buy a britney or nsync lipsynched show.

sosgemini said:

Actually the deal they have with Korn is goin to be the new model to sign artists.

Becasue CDs aint bringing in the money its seems the music industry is goin to force all their music acts to sign to contracts which include revenues from clothing lines to concerts.

Basically they will be making alot less money then they do right now!!!

i recently watched an interview with Todd Rungren and he said something like "the idea of making an album and sitting back and collecting millions from it is a relatively new phenomenon and also and outrageous expectation. Musicians should make their money from performing music not from an album of songs." That's one of the wisest things i've ever heard regarding the industry and so so true.

Lower the damn prices.....

I was in the record store and the new Sean Paul album had a big sticker 18.99 reduced to 13.99

Imagine paying 20 bucks for a sean paul album

lilgish said:

I think that the biggest irony (or oxymoron, if you want to call it that) is that while Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Barbara Streisand and Elton John have all released new albums which barely made a blip on the sales charts, they are all on very succesful tours which are selling out arenas and stadiums at premium ticket prices of at least $100 a seat. Meanwhile, the so-called top-of-the-charts musical acts are struggling to sell out small venues or are only playing to half-filled arenas, even after heavily discounting their tickets or offering free giveaways. Or else they are banding together on various package tours (Vans Warped Tour, Anger Management) in order to sell more tickets. So I wouldn't cry over the tepid CD sales of the legendary artists listed above. If anything, the record companies are probably pissed because the Stones, Sir Paul and Sir Elton are making tons more money touring than the record companies will ever see from theie latest CD releases.

728huey said:

Well this is true to a degree, Springsteen sold around 600,000 on a CD that had no single, no video, no airplay. Elton despite doing his Best work once again sold in 300,000 range, but to be honest Elton was selling that amount throughout the 80's when he was putting out a record a year. The difference that is occuring is that THIS generation could care less about going to a show. I have seen some of the Attendance by top acts like Nickelback, Usher, and other top acts in their Genre that sell a Million Plus of an album, they cant get people to go see them regardless of Low ticket prices. Some may say lower CD prices, well I work in retail and thats not really the answer, Labels mainly charge a store about 10-11 dollars a CD, if your running a business u have no choice but to sell it for 13-14, unless u want to close down. Sure Best Buy and others may sell it for 9-10 but they also can get u to buy other crap that they will overcharge u for. The main point is Labels have to start eliminating EMPLOYEES, mainly accountants, executives etc...all these middle men suck up the money. Do U think Elton John or Springsteen are sitting home now wondering DAMN "i only sold 300,000, what am i gonna do.

so what i'm getting from reading all these very good comments is that maybe the record companies are going for the wrong demographics..if a Bon Jovi album,Paul McCartney or Rolling Stones album could sell over 150,000 copies in the 1st week with the no radio airplay no video exposure and yet still have one of the biggest grossing tours around then just think what they could do with some exposure..i remember in the 80's it wasn't uncommon for a new artist to have their 1st hit in their early 30's (Cyndi Lauper is a good example of this) and it seemed like the average age of a top 40 star in the 80's was around 28 now it seems the average age would be about 20..it seems to me this isn't working very well because record sales drop every year..it's time the record companies change course and start promoting things people want to see and not what they want people to see..but that'll probably never happen

The problem is that since last year ppl have started gettin singles so they end up not buyin the album.

In the late 90s record companies noticed that if they released singles the sales of thier CD was lower they got the retail single removed from being counted but the problem is now u can get a single instead of album ppl end up buying a single which is hot rather then an album.

Sales are down 10% this year alone and about 50% since 2000

stringsteens previous album sold 2million and the current one is only around 1/2mil after being out so long.

and u see all the new acts gettin tons of rotations on mtv aint doin any better
in this day and age sellin 1 million albums is quite tuff for a brand new act.

Just couples of week back we had a #1 album by just sellin above 100k CDs
i rember Rave in 1999 opened at #16 after sellin 85k copies.
The other factor is that older acts no longer get any airplay at all previously it was possible to get some. Remeber the rollings stones tour maybe a decade back and they also had a hit song on radio despite thier age.

clear channel has forced the list of songs to be narrowed down but it has started to hurt thier ad revenue and they aint doin any good right now.

the problem is radio. Radio is so screwed up. An album can debut in the top 10 and radio doesn't care. It can stay in the top 10 for 6 months, like musicology, and radio still doesn't care. What'd he do, win two grammys, but only have 1 minor hit - Call My Name - which was a hit for months, but only in the narrow Urban AC market. You would think radio would say, hey, people are paying money to hear this music, maybe I should play some of it. But instead, so few people have the power to put a song on the radio anymore - DJs can't say, hey, I think people should hear this new track. Instead, national program directors dictate what can be played.

And without airplay, 10s of thousands of people who would buy the album if they only knew about it, only they don't find out unless they just happen to watch the right tv show at the right time - not to mention the 10s of thousands of others who would buy it if they only heard the songs enough.

Take Barbra Streisand for example. She's considered to have one of the best voices of the last 50 years. Her new album is brilliant, written and produced by Barry Gibb, one of the best songwriter/producers ever - and the only songwritter/producer to ever have 5 of the top 10 songs in the hot 100 in the same week. Their last collaboration sold 12 million copies. The new album debuted at #5 on the strength of a few TV appearances. But it's getting almost no airplay. 3 weeks later, if you look at the billboard singles charts, the only sign of Barbra is, surprisingly enough, on the club dance charts, where she's at #15 with Night of My Life - the club mix is here.

http://www.sonymusic.com/...ll_100.asx

I wonder how many people who hear that song in the clubs even realize who it is.
[Edited 10/15/05 6:59am]

I don't know if those reports on those artists should be the signal that the end is near. Older artists tend to debut high and then fall off. I would partially blame the media, who takes more interest in the Stones and McCartney as a touring act rather than as music makers ("A Bigger Bang" isn't a bad disc and deserved a little press).

Now Babs got quite a bit of press for her new disc but better promotion in the form of doing more shows could have helped sales as well.

Consider the fact that these artists, along with Neil Young, Bonnie Rait and Aerosmith (btw, I think their upcoming CD is live....they've released quite a few of those and they have little to no sales expectations) do not get any radio play! NOw that is the major problem! Radio needs a rehaul! Why isn't there a station for older rock acts (hell, even old pop acts like Barbara).

lastdecember said:

Natalie and Jojo...Pop clones! HOw dare you!

I couldn't agree more. I like Hilary Duff (BTW, she really doesn't get radio play....at least I rarely hear her stuff) but why the fuck aren't artists like McCartney given a shot on radio. I mean, the Stones still rock but they are only known for their tours now. The public probably doesn't even know they have a new disc out!

I think there are a few factors that help contribute to all of this, they would mainly be.

RADIO: Formats are so restricted its already decided what will be played and what wont be. I can remember back in 1984 when I can honestly say was the last time i listened to Radio, I mean actaully turned it on and thought something useful would come out of it. You could go one hour and hear Kool and the Gang, The Police, The Eurythmics, and the Mary Jane Girls, on top of hearing Madonna, Prince and Michael. Now if this were today U would never hear these artists together, Prince would be on an RB station, The Police and the Eurythmics wouldnt get played, Kool and the Gang would be on a LITE station and Madonna,Michael, and MJG might be POP. Formats have killed Radio, there isnt even a ROCK station anymore, and Im not talking Good Charolette or Linkin Park or talking Rock for people over 21.


VIDEO: well heres yet another big problem, VIDEO tends to dictate sales, which was a worry WAY BACK in 1984 when QUEEN did the SOng "RadioGAGA", everything they preached came true. If u look at the Top singles, they are all artists with Strong video play. MTV has a format of about 20 videos, these Videos will get played everytime they arent showing REAL WORLD or Some SImpson Show. So really there are people roaming around that dont know anything but these 20 videos, but this goes for BET and VH1 which are a little more expansive with their playlists but no better. If u want to catch a VIDEO on VH1 that U really want set your TiVo to record between 3am-6am cause thats when they might take a chance. And also dont expect Videos on the Weekend, you get 24 hour marathons of REAL WORLD or Surreal Life or Breaking Bonaduce u know my point. So thats problem number 2. NOW the big one!!!

LABELS and BOTTOM LINE: Numbers Numbers Numbers, its all about FIRST week numbers seond week numbers , soundscan etc. Never do I remember these articles about First week sales and stuff like that, there is so much focus on these things that its insane. Even Soundscan which people swear by is nothing more than a Shipping Record, has nothing to do with sales. How can this be sworn by when so many factors arent FACTORED in, some chains dont report to soundscan, Smaller owned Cd shops arent counted, Artists websites arent counted as a sale, there are so many things that arent counted. Then there are the Articles that are written that talk about SAGGING sales, well the industry usually cries and Blames the artists as usual, but they caused all of this by appealing to a demographic that is NOT built on loyality and Longevity. I remember way back in 2002 when I saw Norah Jones in NYC at a club where she was opening for JOAN RIVERS playing to about 150 people, this was about one week after her first CD came out, I remember thinking how much this Reminded me of Elton John playing the Troubador way back in 1970, it was all word of Mouth, you would tell someone about some great new thing u heard and then they would get into it. Well of course Norah BLEW UP, but she did exactly what I prayed she would, layed low and didnt change. Her new CD is due next year and I cant wait to hear about how its not selling like the other 2, u know its gonna happen. But NORAH was a fluke as she even said she was.

So there you have the Factors that have Contributed to the SALES decline, which honestly I only see in the Artists that Labels are banking on, the younger ones.

VinnyM27 said:

radio doesnt need a rehaul...it needs RUPAUL!!!





seriously though....i am loving babs new album...i bought the original Guilty to see if it holds up to it and it does....both have great duets (that in my mind are each equal to the other in quality)...both have clunkers too but not to many....this album deserves more attention then its getting..