lastdecember said:

good point

lastdecember said:

By any chance you are talking about Rhianna? I actually have to question that. I looked it up recently and Rhianna's "Don't Stop The Music", which is easily my favorite song on the album since it's a proper dance track more in the vein of "SOS", which is her strong suit, peaked at a not close to the Top Ten, number 94. Sometimes they are off when it comes to new releases but since they have her next single even higher than that, I doubt they are that off. And a if you're syaing itw as a number one dance, you are talking about a very limited audience. Most number one dance songs tend to get little love from the mainstream. And in reverse, dancey songs that hit high on the main chart often rank low on the dance chart.

VinnyM27 said:

I think mostly what im saying is that there are so many charts now, 3times as many as in the 80's (ex..Top 40,crossover,digital downloads,ringtones,etc..) that you can have a Top 10 hit and it really doesnt translate to album sales, which i really attribute to the fact that from day one of a release that every track is available to purchase seperately, that idea is the death of ANY real future album artist, so in retrospect taking all of Rihanna's video costs for this album and non stop promotion for it, its only translated to 800,000 (which im not knocking) but in terms of cost to result its not wise, I mean Britney brought in 500,000 in 4 weeks with nothing but a video, true shes more of a name than Rihanna at this point, but its just something for labels to look at if they wanna stop losing money like they say they are.

considering all the hype and singles they released,not to mention the world tours i expected justin and beyonce's numbers to be much bigger, it seem like in this day and age big 1st week numbers is all that matters. artists put out 5 singles in a 2 month period, shoot videos for every song and shove it all down our throats in a very short time span.

Funny how the tides turn.

Yesterday, it seems so far away.

how anyone is going to try to rationalize britney's album as being anything but a flop is beyond me...

folks all up and down this forum take pride in MJ's Invisible being a flop and yet it sold how many albums?

My point is, selling 500K when you are one of the top selling female artists of all time is a flop.

There was a recent article posted here that talked about the biggest flops in history and one of the disclaimers up front was that previous album sales factor into what is considered a flop.

sosgemini said:

But thats the point, its not about rationalizing it, it is what it is. If someone spends 20 million on album and it sells 800,000 to someone in business that is something that gets you fired no exceptions, regardless of how "the business" is now, to throw 20 million at a project and not even sell a million, i dont care who you are that is dumb, that is like the album version of waterworld. Compared to Britneys other albums is this a flop? well yeah if sales of previous work is the gauge, but this goes for anyone that a few big albums and then dies off, i mean we all went through this debate when everyone was crying over "planet earth" and its sales, but when you look at Prince take away 4-5 albums and the guy really has never been a strong seller and that goes for tons of other artists. True Britney is not a musician or an album artist that will be able to rely on touring and things like that for the rest of her career, but did we really think she was going to be? I mean there is no one coming out now that i can say will be able to survive if all that had to do is tour.

lastdecember said:

and britney didn't write a single note on this beast...you are seriously going to tell me that lining up all these producers and writers and musicians came cheap? "insiders" can spin this dead goose any way they want but it still smells like rotten carcass.

sosgemini said:

exactly, britney may have gotten tons of free promotion but they had to have spent millions on the production alone. britney dont get a pass from being called a flop, im sure other artists who have had flop albums may have had legit excuses why the record didnt sell well but they are still called a flop.

sosgemini said:

Well who knows what they got paid, but we are talking about "Danja' and not Timbaland and there is a huge difference in them as far as what they charge im sure, just ask Sony and the Duran Duran fiasco, i wonder how much it cost to get Timbaland and Justin to produce and have the record sell under 50,000 after almost a month. And its not about spinning this a certain way, who knows what this cost to make and in the end thats what is on a labels mind, did they make back their investment, i mean why do you think all these artists nowadays have perfume and clothing lines, theres no profit in music at all. At the end of a fiscal year (feb 08) the labels will look at profit and loss, they arent looking at chart numbers, they look at what they put in and what they got out, and then whatever is loss they look to safe it by cutting loose any artists that they feel they cant turn a profit with (this usually means real musicians)
[Edited 12/9/07 20:51pm]

i would say Duran Duran's new album Red Carpet Massacre is considered a flop because they used Timbaland and Timberlake and it only debut'd at #36 and is now sitting at #158 after only 3 weeks

VikFoxx said:

I would have to agree mainly because Timbaland is rumoured to get 250,000 a track or beat or hook whatever the hell he does. But im guessing this is Duran Duran's final record with SONY and possibly last with a label, it just was a big gamble and didnt pay off by a long shot, and i still question Sony's release of it in November when so many things are coming out, did they really think this record would find an audience? not only that it seems this album is losing their old audience too.

lastdecember said:

I never really got into their last album (bought it, it collected dust, sold it) but I loved the first single and it sounded like Duran Duran but not dated. With this album, and I heard a lot of it on Sirius, it sounds like they are attempting to change their sound and go JT lite....I hardly like when JT tries to be earnest, so it really failed here.

VinnyM27 said:

I enjoyed the last album alot more, because it was really spread out and sounded like them, this album, though, not bad is just not a Duran Duran record to me for the most part. It was a huge gamble to take this late in their career, though Duran have often gambled at times (working with Nile Rodgers was considered a huge gamble) but i think this was a bigger risk mainly because of their age.

VinnyM27 said:

I am not a huge Britney fan(I like a few songs), but I was actually digging "Blackout". It is a shame that the drama in her life is killing her career. I hope she gets her shit together. I don't want her next news headline to read "Britney Spears found dead of overdose in hotel".

damn... duran durans bunked...


hell i see an album that are over 14 months old and beating that album by damn near fifty slots... yikes!
[Edited 12/10/07 19:09pm]

sosgemini said:

The stinch is so bad it could make a blind man see.