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*" To: 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. > >