It seems that many people put a lot of importance into whether a song or album fares high on Billboard, Cashbox, etc. If the song doesn't hit the Top 10 or #1, then it is no good. I've heard people say that if a song or act is not on the radio or shown on a video channel, then they must not have any talent. Some cheer when an act they don't like "flops" and don't debut at the top of the chart. Even within the chart system, the "pop" chart is considered more important than all the others. People argue over who sold more than someone else and who's the "King/Queen/Godfather/etc." of such and such. What does any of that has to do with listening to music or enjoying it? It's more like baseball card statistics to me.

It IS like baseball. When your favorite is competing in a commercial arena against other acts, they become like a "team" to root for. You want them to be successful and to win. You become apart of their journey, so when they win (in hit songs and album sales) you feel like you won too. It makes you feel good to know that this artist who has touched you is successful. When your favorite artists flops, it's disheartening to see who you adopted and rooted for weren't accepted and 'failed.' It takes a lot to get pass that mentality to just enjoying the music, despite how well it is or isn't received, especially if you became a fan at a time when they were peaking.

[Edited 6/18/11 13:54pm]

MickyDolenz said:

It seems that many people put a lot of importance into whether a song or album fares high on Billboard, Cashbox, etc. If the song doesn't hit the Top 10 or #1, then it is no good. I've heard people say that if a song or act is not on the radio or shown on a video channel, then they must not have any talent. Some cheer when an act they don't like "flops" and don't debut at the top of the chart. Even within the chart system, the "pop" chart is considered more important than all the others. People argue over who sold more than someone else and who's the "King/Queen/Godfather/etc." of such and such. What does any of that has to do with listening to music or enjoying it? It's more like baseball card statistics to me.

Because people have nothing better to do.

It's not as simple and cut and dried as you are all making it. I'm not saying an artist has to get to #1 and sell millions of copies, but an artist has to achieve a certain level of commercial success to keep on making music. It costs money to record and tour so you have to sell a certain amount to continue on.

There are many artists who I really liked who didn't do well commercially and then you never hear from them again or only rarely. I want some of my favorite artists to do well so there is more chance I get to hear music from them more often.

People want it to be all about art, but music is a business just like any other. No matter what field you are in, you have to achieve a certain level of sales and monetary success if you want to survive and continue doing what you do. That is just the way the world works. People want the music business to have different rules than the rest of the world, but it doesn't work that way.

Hits and sales used to really mean something. But the early 90s put that notion to death, as well as the folly of real artists making good songs.

Glindathegood said:

It's not as simple and cut and dried as you are all making it. I'm not saying an artist has to get to #1 and sell millions of copies, but an artist has to achieve a certain level of commercial success to keep on making music. It costs money to record and tour so you have to sell a certain amount to continue on.

There are many artists who I really liked who didn't do well commercially and then you never hear from them again or only rarely. I want some of my favorite artists to do well so there is more chance I get to hear music from them more often.

People want it to be all about art, but music is a business just like any other. No matter what field you are in, you have to achieve a certain level of sales and monetary success if you want to survive and continue doing what you do. That is just the way the world works. People want the music business to have different rules than the rest of the world, but it doesn't work that way.

I just saw Meshell Ndegeocello at the Highline last week and am going to see J'Davey at Southpaw this week. These acts are not chart toppers and they manage to tour and please their fanbases. I've seen J'Davey here in NYC going on 3 times in under one year. Meshell twice in the same amount of time. The charts have nothing to do with the artists being able to do anything. It's for the labels to move product and get their money. Most artists get literal pennies per CD sold and nobody actually buys CD's now anyway. It's all downloads and illegal torrents. If an artist really wants to makemusic they will continue to do so and become accustomed to the level they are at. Not everyone is in it for the millions. Only someone with no identity needs the charts to tell them what's good.

HonestMan13 said:

Glindathegood said:

It's not as simple and cut and dried as you are all making it. I'm not saying an artist has to get to #1 and sell millions of copies, but an artist has to achieve a certain level of commercial success to keep on making music. It costs money to record and tour so you have to sell a certain amount to continue on.

There are many artists who I really liked who didn't do well commercially and then you never hear from them again or only rarely. I want some of my favorite artists to do well so there is more chance I get to hear music from them more often.

People want it to be all about art, but music is a business just like any other. No matter what field you are in, you have to achieve a certain level of sales and monetary success if you want to survive and continue doing what you do. That is just the way the world works. People want the music business to have different rules than the rest of the world, but it doesn't work that way.

I just saw Meshell Ndegeocello at the Highline last week and am going to see J'Davey at Southpaw this week. These acts are not chart toppers and they manage to tour and please their fanbases. I've seen J'Davey here in NYC going on 3 times in under one year. Meshell twice in the same amount of time. The charts have nothing to do with the artists being able to do anything. It's for the labels to move product and get their money. Most artists get literal pennies per CD sold and nobody actually buys CD's now anyway. It's all downloads and illegal torrents. If an artist really wants to makemusic they will continue to do so and become accustomed to the level they are at. Not everyone is in it for the millions. Only someone with no identity needs the charts to tell them what's good.

Well thats a good point to make BUT but you also have to understand that there is some form of money happening, Meshell has made some cash in her moments and put them to good use. Alot of artists do that, there alot that ARENT making millions, i dont know where this whole making millions came from, maybe because all we talk about on this forum are MJ JJ and Prince and they are millionaires, but there arent many others out there so i dont know what people are thinking these artists are making that have deals or even hits. HIT does not equal BANK. Norah Jones when i first saw her and got into her was opening for Joan Rivers at Joe's Pub in NYC, and playing colleges opening for marching bands, but she was selling her demo cd for 5 bucks plus she had money saved up, all these artists indie doing it their way have some cash saved, no one is dead ass broke losing money losing money losing money every night every day and still doing it, and if they are they have a 9-5 job to fund them. You have to have some form of cash somewhere (not millions) but something saved, something earned, something you hocked, whatever to get in and give it your best shot. I do theatre in NYC off off broadway stuff and i have done 21 different projects to date, and the only reason i can do them is not because i LOVE it its because i put a certain amount from my 9-5 paycheck each week to allow me to LOSE money on this investment, cause few make money on it.

HonestMan13 said:

I just saw Meshell Ndegeocello at the Highline last week and am going to see J'Davey at Southpaw this week. These acts are not chart toppers and they manage to tour and please their fanbases. I've seen J'Davey here in NYC going on 3 times in under one year. Meshell twice in the same amount of time. The charts have nothing to do with the artists being able to do anything. It's for the labels to move product and get their money. Most artists get literal pennies per CD sold and nobody actually buys CD's now anyway. It's all downloads and illegal torrents. If an artist really wants to makemusic they will continue to do so and become accustomed to the level they are at. Not everyone is in it for the millions. Only someone with no identity needs the charts to tell them what's good.

I'm not familiar with J'Davey, but I'm a fan of MeShell. No she's not a chart topper, but her records have charted, maybe not in the Top 10, but they have charted which has allowed her to maintain a certain audience. My point was not that you have to be #1 or Top 10, but you have to achieve a certain level of success to maintain an audience. You can't do a tour if only two people show up at each of your gigs. Maybe there is too much emphasis on charts, but you have to have some type of success to keep people aware of your music. I don't think artists care about charts to tell them their music is good, but they do care to the extent it shows there is an audience for them out there who want to see them live and who are affected by their music.

MickyDolenz said:

It seems that many people put a lot of importance into whether a song or album fares high on Billboard, Cashbox, etc. If the song doesn't hit the Top 10 or #1, then it is no good. I've heard people say that if a song or act is not on the radio or shown on a video channel, then they must not have any talent. Some cheer when an act they don't like "flops" and don't debut at the top of the chart. Even within the chart system, the "pop" chart is considered more important than all the others. People argue over who sold more than someone else and who's the "King/Queen/Godfather/etc." of such and such. What does any of that has to do with listening to music or enjoying it? It's more like baseball card statistics to me.

Very true, i really think it has gotten over the top these days. But the media is a big part of it. They play artist out to each other, like it's some kind of soccer game.

My god is better than your god. My country is better than your country. My bomb is bigger than your bomb. My dick is bigger than your dick. My diva is better than your diva (and gatdammit I got the sales figures to prove it). And on and on and on... Humans like to feel superior to other humans. Welcome to Earth. It's how we humans do.

It's not called Show business for nothing.

It's as Gildathegood said, "You have to have a certain amount of success to maintain an audience". I think artist and fans of music understand this. I have upteem albums and 45's of bands/singer/ musicians who I thought were exceptional only to have them fall off the radar because they didn't sale. It's a bit of a catch 22. Why are people concerned with hits and sales? Most artist are concerned with hits and sales. Prince, I don't think was interested in playing locally in Minneapolis for the rest of his life. I'm sure he compared his success inpart to his musical idols and peers; that's not a bad thing because that ambition pushed him artistically and musically.

Are records sales some sort of validation of what's good or bad, no. But......

==========================================

[Edited 6/18/11 16:10pm]

yanowha said:

My god is better than your god. My country is better than your country. My bomb is bigger than your bomb. My dick is bigger than your dick. My diva is better than your diva (and gatdammit I got the sales figures to prove it). And on and on and on... Humans like to feel superior to other humans. Welcome to Earth. It's how we humans do.

You spell stupidity wrong.

yanowha said:

My god is better than your god. My country is better than your country. My bomb is bigger than your bomb. My dick is bigger than your dick. My diva is better than your diva (and gatdammit I got the sales figures to prove it). And on and on and on... Humans like to feel superior to other humans. Welcome to Earth. It's how we humans do.

Good point. But a lot of over-emphasis and misplaced emphasis on album sales and chart position has skewed the perception of what is considered quality music. Sure, Thriller may be the best selling album of all time, but what makes it one of the best albums of all time is the fact that nearly every song on the album is excellently wrtitten and crafted and was accessible to everyone. But ...Baby One More Time by Britney Spears also sold a gazillion records, yet no one claims it's one of the greatest quality albums of all time. Classic songs like "I Will Always Love You" and "We Belong Together" spent a total of 14 weeks each at number one on the Billboard Hot 100, but so did "The Macarena", and no one is comparing that song to "Hey Jude", "Stairway To Heaven" or "Smells Like Teen Spirit". In fact, quality-wise, it's a lot closer to Rececca Black's "Friday" than anything by Bob Dylan.

While this emphasis on sales has botched music appreciation, it's even worse with movies. There's so much emphasis on the opening weekend box office gross that even great movies with excellent writing, impeccable acting, and a 98% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes will be considered a low quality flop if it doesn't open at number one and make $100 dollars by the second or third weekend, yet crap like the last Transformers movie or Paul Blart: Mall Cop are considered overwhelming successes because a lot of people paid money to see it, even if they regretted wasting their money afterward.

I think it's all because of status and money. I don't know, for some reason, people who go over it just to feel better usually look for that so they don't focus on anything else. Even if the record turns out to be crap, it can still sell 22 million and be considered a masterpiece by some. But if it's no one's personal cup of tea, than that'll give them reasons to post an argument about it. Can't please people.

People need affirmation, the security that comes with knowing that their choice has been justified and merited. If left to their own decisions, and the act of experiencing music is a singular one after all, they might begin have doubts as to what they are projecting about themselves through their choice, be it music, clothing, etc. It's the central promise and illusion of capitalism at play -that owning something changes you, that by purchasing a product you somehow absorb its beauty or its power or its dynamism into yourself.

^ So basically, money.

Wow, life isn't fair uh?

TD3 said:

Wow, life isn't fair uh?

My mama told me it wasn't when I was 5.

Timmy84 said:

TD3 said:

Wow, life isn't fair uh?

My mama told me it wasn't when I was 5.

You know and I know your mommy is and wise.

Glindathegood said:

There are many artists who I really liked who didn't do well commercially and then you never hear from them again or only rarely. I want some of my favorite artists to do well so there is more chance I get to hear music from them more often.

I went to school with some people who were the opposite of this. They wanted their favorite acts to be as obscure as possible, and if the act started to get commercial success, they would claim the act sold out and stop listening to them.

MickyDolenz said:

Glindathegood said:

There are many artists who I really liked who didn't do well commercially and then you never hear from them again or only rarely. I want some of my favorite artists to do well so there is more chance I get to hear music from them more often.

I went to school with some people who were the opposite of this. They wanted their favorite acts to be as obscure as possible, and if the act started to get commercial success, they would claim the act sold out and stop listening to them.

You sure you and vainandy didn't go to school together?

But seriously yeah sometimes some acts probably will be best in the underground than mainstream. I always think if you're an artist that started off underground, once you become mainstream, your heart gets sold to any label that chooses to profit off of you and then you never get any real money to come for you, just a paycheck for that tour or proceeds from writing profits just to pat you on the back with.

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

My mama told me it wasn't when I was 5.

You know and I know your mommy is and wise.

Thanks. She sure is.

728huey said:

While this emphasis on sales has botched music appreciation, it's even worse with movies. There's so much emphasis on the opening weekend box office gross that even great movies with excellent writing, impeccable acting, and a 98% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes will be considered a low quality flop if it doesn't open at number one and make $100 dollars by the second or third weekend, yet crap like the last Transformers movie or Paul Blart: Mall Cop are considered overwhelming successes because a lot of people paid money to see it, even if they regretted wasting their money afterward.

But the emphasis on sales only concerns revenue, we know that going to see the latest Transformers movie is what could be called "Assumption of Risk" but we also know that the appeal of such movies lies in the frightful amount of explosions and diehardish daring do. That, and how they influence industry trends, are the only success such movies will lay claim to in posterity.

Timmy84 said:

But seriously yeah sometimes some acts probably will be best in the underground than mainstream. I always think if you're an artist that started off underground, once you become mainstream, your heart gets sold to any label that chooses to profit off of you and then you never get any real money to come for you, just a paycheck for that tour or proceeds from writing profits just to pat you on the back with.

But aren't the majors where the real money is/was for promotion and all the help necessary in shifting large numbers of records?

What's seen as weird and obscure is only a short distance from being in and marketable: look at Nirvana and the big Seattle buyout that took place after Nevermind. It had huge consequences for the industry, but were the bands involved previously "underground" by virtue of being "alternative" or because they weren't signed to a major label? The latter.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

I went to school with some people who were the opposite of this. They wanted their favorite acts to be as obscure as possible, and if the act started to get commercial success, they would claim the act sold out and stop listening to them.

You sure you and vainandy didn't go to school together?

But seriously yeah sometimes some acts probably will be best in the underground than mainstream. I always think if you're an artist that started off underground, once you become mainstream, your heart gets sold to any label that chooses to profit off of you and then you never get any real money to come for you, just a paycheck for that tour or proceeds from writing profits just to pat you on the back with.

Talk to Bob Dylan and jazz musicians (born before 1960) about this. Fans can get stuck too....

I forgot who said something to this affect, 'It's kinda hard to cry the blues, speak of alienation

/ hardtimes/ injusitce when you own a private jet, serveral cars, homes, have thousands of people kissing or willing to kiss your ass, and millions in the bank.'

I've spoken with many jazz musicians who were envious if not downright bitter about the amount of money R&B/Soul/Rock musicians made. Most of those cats were living hand to mouth and they knew how good they were yet, they could barely support themselves let alone a family.

====================================================

[Edited 6/18/11 18:47pm]

elmer said:

But aren't the majors where the real money is/was for promotion and all the help necessary in shifting large numbers of records?

The majors mostly promote certain types of music to the mainstream. I don't think they spend much money on polka or spoken word albums. Many genres have never depended on huge sales or radio play. Some musicians/singers don't release records or CDs at all, and make their living from performing in clubs, bars, festivals, dances, etc. As far as making money, many acts that sell a lot don't make their money from their records, but from touring. Some didn't even get money from that if their label was their "manager" (ie. 1960's Motown, Total Experience).

MickyDolenz said:

elmer said:

But aren't the majors where the real money is/was for promotion and all the help necessary in shifting large numbers of records?

The majors mostly promote certain types of music to the mainstream. I don't think they spend much money on polka or spoken word albums. Many genres have never depended on huge sales or radio play. Some musicians/singers don't release records or CDs at all, and make their living from performing in clubs, bars, festivals, dances, etc. As far as making money, many acts that sell a lot don't make their money from their records, but from touring. Some didn't even get money from that if their label was their "manager" (ie. 1960's Motown, Total Experience).

I refered to real money, the high end of the ladder, not just enough to make a living playing bars that reek of piss every other night. There'd usually be a correlation between the money garnered from tours and from record sales, Timmy suggested some acts would be better off not entering the mainstream, and I was rhetorically posing the question as to how successful you can become without "selling out".

MickyDolenz said:

It seems that many people put a lot of importance into whether a song or album fares high on Billboard, Cashbox, etc. If the song doesn't hit the Top 10 or #1, then it is no good. I've heard people say that if a song or act is not on the radio or shown on a video channel, then they must not have any talent. Some cheer when an act they don't like "flops" and don't debut at the top of the chart. Even within the chart system, the "pop" chart is considered more important than all the others. People argue over who sold more than someone else and who's the "King/Queen/Godfather/etc." of such and such. What does any of that has to do with listening to music or enjoying it? It's more like baseball card statistics to me.

I don't get that either. I think it's stupid.

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

You sure you and vainandy didn't go to school together?

But seriously yeah sometimes some acts probably will be best in the underground than mainstream. I always think if you're an artist that started off underground, once you become mainstream, your heart gets sold to any label that chooses to profit off of you and then you never get any real money to come for you, just a paycheck for that tour or proceeds from writing profits just to pat you on the back with.

Talk to Bob Dylan and jazz musicians (born before 1960) about this. Fans can get stuck too....

I forgot who said something to this affect, 'It's kinda hard to cry the blues, speak of alienation

/ hardtimes/ injusitce when you own a private jet, serveral cars, homes, have thousands of people kissing or willing to kiss your ass, and millions in the bank.'

I've spoken with many jazz musicians who were envious if not downright bitter about the amount of money R&B/Soul/Rock musicians made. Most of those cats were living hand to mouth and they knew how good they were yet, they could barely support themselves let alone a family.

====================================================

[Edited 6/18/11 18:47pm]

Not surprised. I'm more surprised at those who DO make the money but foolishly spend it all as if it's coming back.

TD3 said:

I've spoken with many jazz musicians who were envious if not downright bitter about the amount of money R&B/Soul/Rock musicians made. Most of those cats were living hand to mouth and they knew how good they were yet, they could barely support themselves let alone a family.

The reason is that most people don't dig jazz, so it doesn't sell much. You can't have top 40 hit singles with it. Maybe a few "smooth jazz" acts have managed to become popular.