smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "bob" <segarini@sympatico.ca> |
| Subject | Re: Bob says it's OK (formerly some RE:Digest #) |
| Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:08:35 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (5.8 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I'll address this missive in detail tomorrow...too tired to rant, and it's a
shame audities doesn't allow HTML Rich Text posts...it's way easier to
address these things when you can answer in color and typeface point by
point...
bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "*Bill Holmes*" <bholmes_fm@msn.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 10:06 PM
Subject: Bob says it's OK (formerly some RE:Digest #)
> Not to be a curmudgeon, Bob, but I doubted your claim that
> Elvis-Beatles-Stones-Zep are the four biggest sellers of the New
Millennium
> (more than Eminem? More than Shania Twain? More than _____?) and I asked
> where the numbers were from. Also asked what you based you rclaim that a
> resurgence of real rock and pop was coming in the next 18 months on radio
> and in stores". Your reply? One to me and one to another Doubting
> Auditeer...
>
> > Based on the truth...watch and learn. ...and yes, they are sales of
> > re-issues, comps, and remixes...which is even MORE astounding...like
> reruns
> > of Friends kicking Scrubs's ass...
>
>
> "Based on the truth"?? Waiter, more facts please!
>
> > 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".
>
> Slightly better, but it's a good thing you're not in court. I was hoping
for
> something like Soundscan figures, an article in a respected trade
> (Billboard), etc. Unless you can be a little more specific, I'll remain
> Doubting Thomas on this one, thanks. I would expect that if the acts you
> mention did dominate sales that dramatically this would be a huge story
that
> _SOMEONE_ would be using (say...a classic rock station?) more widely. If
you
> do have tangible proof, I _am_ interested to know.
>
>
> > 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...
>
> I don't know what this proves. "Independent" Eagles cut a deal with Best
Buy
> to promote the single/ep/dvd, milked the publicity machine and got press
> coverage everywhere...as one of the biggest selling bands of all time
should
> probably deserve. And as far as the timeline, since this is the ONLY work
> they've done as The Eagles in 20 years (HFO excepted), I would hope that
> compliment were true. And yes, Eagle-heads will rush out and buy it
> (regardless of quality). If your point is that the Eagles are still a
viable
> and talented group, I have no argument...isn't that why VH-1 and certain
> radio formats exist? If you're trying to make the point that they can sell
> records, I don't doubt that either.
>
> But if you're suggesting that kids are clamoring for the Eagles, I don't
buy
> it (no pun). Nor the Stones or Springsteen. Not even Zep. Maybe the
Beatles.
> It's just you and me, buying the bands we feel safe with after all these
> years. And hey, after being asked to buy the same song twenty times over,
> it's nice to have something NEW to buy. Or at least the option.
>
> I'm not a "glass is half-empty" guy, but this "the good music of my youth
> will rise from the ashes" speech is tired and stale. Yes, much great music
> was made. Yes, much stands the test of time (hence those formats on radio
> and TV). But every generation has its own disease...don't you remember, as
a
> kid, older people telling you how Frank and Dino would come back to kick
the
> Beatles off the charts? You think this approach, with Eagles in tow,
sounds
> any different to someone grooving to 50-Cent? The Eagles mean NOTHING to
> them.
>
> Bob, I admire your enthusiasm, but I think all you're posting is wishful
> thinking.
>
> b
>
> PS - I'm grateful that I can still have the opportunity to hear and see
many
> artists from my Wonder Years, as well as the ability to discover new
artists
> and contemporary music. The fact that many acts past their milk carton
date
> can still sell tickets and records is a mixed blessing, many can barely
> survive. The most recent Ian Hunter and Graham Parker albums were almost
the
> best of their careers (and unlike The Eagles, they continued to record and
> tour all along). But because they were never at the height of the Eagles,
> the promotional and press opportunities that the Eagles are riding right
now
> were never available to them. And I'll put RANT and DEEPCUT TO NOWHERE
> against the new Eagles record sight unseen. The Eagles, if they want, can
> tour until they die (like CSN, Stones, Neil Young, Dylan, Dead, etc.)
> because they earned a large following that will continue to support them.
> They came of age in The Golden Age Of Touring, and their following is
> conditioned to see them that way. And when we're too old, we'll play the
> live DVD.
>
> But I don't delude myself into thinking that the planet is just going to
> snap to attention and start getting credible. I know what I like, and as
> long as I can find it, that's all I need. The industry is all about
$$$$$$,
> and if the Eagles will help generate some dollars (ratings, ticket sales,
> advertising, merch, etc.) this year, they'll get the help. One needs look
no
> further than Beyonce turning up on tributes to Jack Nicholson and dancing
on
> historical monuments (along with her BILLION other promotional
appearances)
> to know whose bread is being buttered at the moment. Someone else is next.
> As it should be.
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.