smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "bob" <segarini@sympatico.ca> |
| Subject | Re: audities-digest V1 #490 (10 msgs) |
| Date | Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:11:12 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (5.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Sad, but true, the aforementioned acts, (with Springsteen a close fifth),
are the best selling western, (barring Chinese), acts of the new Millenium.
There really isn't any other way to explain this other than the fact that
nothing new is even coming close to the Classics. Documentation? I got it
from good authority, (Major Label marketing people that wished it weren't
true...and Internet information that also wishes the numbers didn't skew
toward the "Dinosaurs".
More proof is on the way...witness, for starters, the astounding Eagles
single that they Independently relaeased, to be followed by an album they've
been working on for nearly 5 years. If you haven't heard "Hole In The
World", download it now from KaaZa...it is their best work in 20 years...
bob
----- Original Message -----
From: <DanAbnrml9@aol.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: audities-digest V1 #490 (10 msgs)
> In a message dated 7/14/03 12:03:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> audities-owner@smoe.org writes:
>
> > The four biggest selling Artists worldwide of The New Millenium so far?
> > Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones, and Led Zeppelin...
> > Look for a resurgence of real rock and pop in the coming 18
> > months...including on the radio and in the stores...
>
> Bob, do you have any documentation for this? While I am willing to believe
> that it's possible that three of those four are the biggest selling
worldwide
> (though I actually doubt even that), I have serious doubts that Elvis
Presley,
> whose record sales have been plummeting (even despite the #1 comp, which
> actually didn't do that well) with little signs of recovery for years.
This is
> mostly just anecdotal evidence--I have, after all, worked at a large
record store
> for most of the new millennium--and admittedly what is selling on the
North
> Shore in Massachusetts is not necessarily what is selling in the rest of
the
> world--but it seems to me that while these acts do sell, they don't sell
nearly as
> much as a lot of other, newer acts do.
>
> And as far as the resurgence in "rock"... I really think this has been
> happening since late 2001. But I'd certainly be interested to know if the
> aforementioned "dinosaur acts" really have been the biggest sellers of the
new
> millennium because that'd be surprising.
>
> << The problem is that because of the changes in
> the "above-the-radar" biz, there's now a limit to their career
> trajectory, which I don't think has ever existed before. >>
>
> Wendie does have a point here, in that I think that while, right now, it's
> quite possible to amass a following and be moderately successful, it's
hard to
> pull off the kind of transformation that, say, REM did with "Document",
where
> they shifted from successful indie darlings to massive mainstream success.
I
> can't point to many cases where established artists have done this over
the past
> 4 or 5 years.
>
> << I spent most of my career in the "adult contemporary"
> world, and I can tell you that those markets have shrunk to nearly
> nothing in "below-the-radar" land >>
>
> I think this is also true. I feel lucky because I live in Boston, which
has
> one of the few undisputably great A/C (or "AAA") stations in the
country--92.5
> the River. They'll play the stuff you know, but they'll also play, like,
the
> new Marshall Crenshaw single (he has an album coming out in a week, in
case no
> one knew) or Lucinda Williams or Glenn Tilbrook. They're also
independently
> owned and operated. They're not perfect, but I'm really glad they're here.
>
> << jam, blues, emo, alt-country), >>
>
> Adam's right about this, in particular that the jam bands and emo bands
are
> the ones who can really take off merely by association, because these are
the
> scenes that are thriving now without any mainstream support whatsoever.
Even
> the big music mags (RS, Spin, etc) don't much support these subgenres, at
least
> not in the true sense (Good Charlotte is NOT emo, btw), so they rely on
"the
> scene": word of mouth, friends making mix tapes, etc, which is very much
alive.
> The jam stuff couldn't be much more different from the audities stuff, but
> emo has a lot of similarities, and I know that some power-pop bands have
had
> some success there. Fountains of Wayne actually had a brief bit of emo
cred right
> around "Utopia Parkway" because, lyrically, something about that album
struck
> a chord. This is also the problem; a lot of power-pop is structured around
> the music and production and feel, and the lyrics tend to be sidelined.
Emo kids
> don't get this at all since they're lyrics people by definition, and this
is
> a big barrier. It's just something I've noticed when Ive tried turning
some of
> my emo-loving friends onto power-pop.
>
> << Yeah, I agree. I'm also with David Bash in that I really enjoy the
> late-seventies arena rock albums (*Sleepwalker*, *Misfits*, *Low Budget*)
> that the Kinks put out. And even their weaker 80s albums always had at
least
> a couple decent tracks. >>
>
> An update on my acquisitions: I've now picked up all the VelVel reissues,
as
> well as "Kontroversy", "Face To Face", "UK Jive", "Phobia" and "Percy" (it
was
> on sale, and you don't typically find that one on the shelf). I must say
that
> I actually love the "arena rock" period through and through, right on up
to
> and including "Word of Mouth" which I think is sort of underrated. "Good
Day"
> and "Go Solo" are beautiful songs, I think, and they perfectly encompass
what
> slick-sounding '80s production should sound like--clean, but not overdone.
I
> think that album is as catchy as anything they've done, too. I still have
their
> golden period ("Something Else" through "Lola") to buy up, so the best is
yet
> to come! --Jason
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.