Just as some people feel that sales are hits are important the opposite is just as true. Ultimately, I think it's important for both sides of the arguments to realize that you are not going to change the other's opinions and just deal with it.

I mean has someone who is into sales and hits made a thread asking why people aren't concerned with sales and hits? I have never seen that, always just people complaining about the opposite.

[Edited 6/19/11 10:45am]

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 care more about that than QUALITY music.

I'm very concerned with hits and sales. When one of the artists I like makes a new album these days, I hope it doesn't become a hit because if it does, that means the artist will start selling out and making bullshit that sounds like today's music trying to get more hits.

People still need some sort of parameters that seem neutral enough for them to be able to judge the value of music. It's a model that is borrowed from the rest of the capitalist system and reflects its ideals. I think we tend to think in such manner rather automatically, even if we would be aware of its arbitrariness. Maybe it's not even really about the product, but that people somehow associate commercial success with how well the individual (the artist / band) has done? The images of artists and bands reflect larger cultural ideals and offer us something to identify with. So if "your kind" succeeds or fails then it sort of seems to indicate in a lot of people's minds that "your kind" is either "accepted" or "rejected". Isn't this what's at stake when an artist that has something a little bit different to offer succeeds in the charts and their fans rejoice it? (applies to Prince, Radiohead, NIN etc.).

It really seems to be me more about recognition than how much money the product made in the end. One aspect of capitalism as a cultural phenomenon is that one doesn't even really need to be that wealthy - you can just pretend to be one if you have some sort of statistics and status symbols to back up that impression. We all know that many hit albums haven't really made the artists themselves rich, yet they are considered "commercially successful" because all this money has revolved around them.

The same seems to happen on an even more elementary level in underground music circles. Even if records in many smaller genres of music won't often sell more than 500 copies people still feel the need to press that stuff on CD or LP and try to sell it to people. It would be far easier to just offer the music free for download and get more listeners that way - sales of just several hundred copies of your stuff won't bring enough money in your pocket to justify the hassle. BUT it still seems to matter to most people that are into underground music that someone running a label has gotten interested in the product and invested money for getting a physical copy pressed. Because the recording is turned into an item of transaction it seems to validate the whole process. Many people don't even consider free downloads as being comparable to "real records" (even if that's complete horseshit). People know that this type of thinking isn't really rational, but it still seems to be very common.

[Edited 6/20/11 8:00am]

Because, back in the day, they were useful in order to separate the crap music from the good/worthy music.

Of course, 1994 was the beginning of the end. Death certificate in 2004...

JoeTyler said:

Because, back in the day, they were useful in order to separate the crap music from the good/worthy music.

Going by this kind of logic, you're saying Pat Boone's remakes were better than the Little Richard originals, as Pat's versions were bigger hits and sold more.

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

Because, back in the day, they were useful in order to separate the crap music from the good/worthy music.

Going by this kind of logic, you're saying Pat Boone's remakes were better than the Little Richard originals, as Pat's versions were bigger hits and sold more.

I've said they (hits + sales) were a useful tool. Not the only tool. That's a big difference.

novabrkr said:

People still need some sort of parameters that seem neutral enough for them to be able to judge the value of music. It's a model that is borrowed from the rest of the capitalist system and reflects its ideals. I think we tend to think in such manner rather automatically, even if we would be aware of its arbitrariness. Maybe it's not even really about the product, but that people somehow associate commercial success with how well the individual (the artist / band) has done? The images of artists and bands reflect larger cultural ideals and offer us something to identify with. So if "your kind" succeeds or fails then it sort of seems to indicate in a lot of people's minds that "your kind" is either "accepted" or "rejected". Isn't this what's at stake when an artist that has something a little bit different to offer succeeds in the charts and their fans rejoice it? (applies to Prince, Radiohead, NIN etc.).

It really seems to be me more about recognition than how much money the product made in the end. One aspect of capitalism as a cultural phenomenon is that one doesn't even really need to be that wealthy - you can just pretend to be one if you have some sort of statistics and status symbols to back up that impression. We all know that many hit albums haven't really made the artists themselves rich, yet they are considered "commercially successful" because all this money has revolved around them.

The same seems to happen on an even more elementary level in underground music circles. Even if records in many smaller genres of music won't often sell more than 500 copies people still feel the need to press that stuff on CD or LP and try to sell it to people. It would be far easier to just offer the music free for download and get more listeners that way - sales of just several hundred copies of your stuff won't bring enough money in your pocket to justify the hassle. BUT it still seems to matter to most people that are into underground music that someone running a label has gotten interested in the product and invested money for getting a physical copy pressed. Because the recording is turned into an item of transaction it seems to validate the whole process. Many people don't even consider free downloads as being comparable to "real records" (even if that's complete horseshit). People know that this type of thinking isn't really rational, but it still seems to be very common.

[Edited 6/20/11 8:00am]

My replies are getting too long again. My summer vacation needs to end.

JoeTyler said:

MickyDolenz said:

Going by this kind of logic, you're saying Pat Boone's remakes were better than the Little Richard originals, as Pat's versions were bigger hits and sold more.

I've said they (hits + sales) were a useful tool. Not the only tool. That's a big difference.

Hits have always depended on on promotional money (payola). Decades ago, the DJ had more of an influence over what was played on the radio than today, but there was still money/gifts/drugs involved in many cases. No one really cared until Rock 'N Roll (aka negro music) became popular and started to "corrupt the American youth", so parents and the powers that be complained and wanted to shut it down. That began the payola trials.

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

I've said they (hits + sales) were a useful tool. Not the only tool. That's a big difference.

Hits have always depended on on promotional money (payola). Decades ago, the DJ had more of an influence over what was played on the radio than today, but there was still money/gifts/drugs involved in many cases. No one really cared until Rock 'N Roll (aka negro music) became popular and started to "corrupt the American youth", so parents and the powers that be complained and wanted to shut it down. That began the payola trials.

true, true

but I was talking about the fact that in the 60's, 70's and 80's the best bands/acts all had hit singles, at least top15 singles. The crap didn't start to dominate the top10-15 until 1994, and since 2004 the crap has dominated even the top30...

When my favorite artist has a huge hit and a sold out tour: "Obviously it is the best because everyone agrees with me!"

When my favorite artist's new album tanks and the tour is cancelled because of lack of sales: "Obviously it is the best because the IDIOTS that made Lady Gaga number one have totally turned off! You can't expect the masses to understand REAL MUSIC they are stooooooopid."

Repeat.