Record sales as success? What's your take?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I was interested by some of the answers in the Madonna-Album failing thread from kate and others regarding album sales, especially from those in bands.

What do you consider to be a success, independant of financial matters? How many copies sold verifies your artistic vision?

― Xii (Xii), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

This is a corny answer, but as a musician, I think of a "successful" album as one that I am happy with. Second most important is whether people I respect like it. Third is whether other people like it. Sales don't factor into it. This may be a psychological defense mechanism, as sales are nonexistent.

― NA. (Nick A.), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I think sales only REALLY matter in the realm of the superstars like Madonna and Jacko. Otherwise, I mean, ESPECIALLY with all the fire-sharing going on, but even in days of yore, only a sucker would measure "success" by album sales.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Speaking about other peoples' records, I know there is absolutley no correlation between sales and quality.

If I had my own records for sale though, if one person bought it and came back and genuinely told me they really liked it, that would be great.

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I think there is a broad correlation between sales and quality within a music's target audience.

That said if I'm doing something vaguely creative I have very limited ambitions - if a handful of people really enjoy it I'm a happy man.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

there is no connection between sales and quality. sometimes quality may sell a lot and sometimes not, but one does not definitively equate the other.

― jack cole (jackcole), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

For example, what's Bruce Springsteen's BEST album?
What's his BEST-SELLING album?

Case closed. Thank you.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

This is what I've always paid lip service to too Jack but looking at my record collection I obviously don't actually believe it.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

And I'd never say the relationship is absolute - that's not what 'correlation' means.

Bruce Springsteen's best-selling album I'd presume is Born In The USA, no? That's hardly a bad record, from what I know of it.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not saying it's a bad record, and personally, I think it's one of his best, maybe even THE BEST (which would disprove my point), but generally, Nebraska or Born To Run are considered much "better" in terms of all that unquantifiable bull-hooey.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

That's sort of what I'm arguing. My theory is (maybe we should have another thread to test it) that if you take any given artist and listen to their highest selling record, that record will probably be in the top half or even quarter of their output, quality-wise. It's not neccessarily their best - cos the sales:quality relationship is a correlation not a rule - but it's likely to be good (for them).

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

i know, tom -- but i had to put my 2 cents in -- though I would argue that your record collections sez more about you than the premise of sales = quality. but then again, the idea or correlation you are suggesting is somewhat different than a broader scale chartpop argument originally presented initially by Xii.

then again, i would argue that greater sales many times does equal a band consciouslly making their music more accessible (accessible defined here as making the music more inviting or whatever to as broad of an audience as possible for said band). but i'm wandering away from the subject . . . sorry.

― jack cole (jackcole), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)

The Rolling Stones' best selling albums (excluding comps) in order:

1. Some Girls
2. Tattoo You
3. Goat's Head Soup
4. Sticky Fingers
5. Emotional Rescue
6. Voodoo Lounge

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, I think Yanc3y has proven my point. I mean, Voodoo Lounge is so obviously the best thing they ever did (other than demand $10 million for a benefit show), and if sales = quality, it would be #1.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

"excluding comps" = cheating, Yancey!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I think there is a broad correlation between sales and quality within a music's target audience

The Eagles

VU + MBV + KJ + Shellac + DK + Aphex + Slits + Radiohead +...

FITE!

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Since the general public may or may not be tasteless but they're no mugs!

Mei the key is "within a music's target audience"!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

What do you consider to be a success, independant of financial matters?
That you make a record that does all of the above:
1) Is viscerally fun to listen to the first time you hear it. (The "Slam Dance Facta")
2) Has hidden depths that reward repeated listens. (The "Chin-stroker Facta")
3) Gives you insight into other music (The "Historial Signifigance Facta")

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

(I refuse to acknowledge the 'target audience' that's like saying "records that sell small numbers sell small numbers"*)

(I know the fancy word for that is 'tautology'!)

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I think your item 3 is a sham.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

It ain't cheating, Tom! It's just more interesting to consider official albums only, but yeah, the first Hot Rocks has sold almost as many copies as those six records put together. The Stones really were a singles band!

Can anyone think of a popular band that released a flop album during their heydey, only to have the disc be reclassified as a classic after the fact? The closest I can come to this offhand is Pinkerton, which has sold well the last few years...

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:10 (twenty-two years ago)

If you can afford to cruise in a limo demanding your driver to find the nearest Taco Bell, you are successful.

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Mei that's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm saying is that if you define a group of record buyers - "10-12 year old girls", say, or "the population of Jamaica" - then a sales:quality relationship will exist among record aimed at that group. i.e. if you want to hear a good boy band single you should pick the one that 90 young girls bought not the one that 10 bought. If you want to hear a good dancehall single you should pick the #1 in the JA charts not the #50, and so on.

In market research terms what happens if you take absolute sales - the Eagles vs Aphex, for instance - is that the majority of your sample ("target audience") simply aren't familiar with enough records to be useful; you've spread the net too wide.

Yancey - Pet Sounds duh!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:14 (twenty-two years ago)

If you are giving out $500K necklaces to hot chicks in the audience you are successful. Unless even that won't get you laid.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Even with the Eagles etc. I'd guess that within the set "albums with promotional budgets of over $10 million" [or some other large figure, I don't know what promo budgets are these days] some kind of sales:quality correlation exists. (cf Michael Jackson's 1983 and 2001 albums).

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, it's like this...

Let It Be by The Replacements- 52,000 copies since released in 1985
Funhouse by The Stooges- 89,000 copies since released in 1970

The Clash by The Clash- 500,000+ copies since released in 1977
Nevermind by Nirvana- 10 million+ copies since released in 1991

DEVIL WITHOUT A CAUSE by KID ROCK- CERTIFIED DIAMOND (10 MILLION+ COPIES) ONLY A YEAR AFTER BEING RELEASED

THE END

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:26 (twenty-two years ago)

then a sales:quality relationship will exist among record aimed at that group

That's a bit disengenuous, isn't it? It's an interesting ex post facto judgment I suppose but that's the equivalent of retrospective vs. of-the-now criticism it seems, given some of the discussion last week.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Let It Be by The Replacements- 52,000 copies since released in 1985
that's terrible. shame on humanity.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure I understand Ned - remember we're talking about a relationship not a rule.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I know Horace - those 52,000 souls, could nothing have been done to save them?!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:35 (twenty-two years ago)

*stabs Tico Tico repeatedly with rubber knife*

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

i sold less than a hundred copies of the last cd i put out. but maybe in 40 years....

― j fail (cenotaph), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

remember we're talking about a relationship not a rule

Fair, but the examples you're suggesting seem to imply a more locked-down one-to-one equivalent (though I suppose 'should' is the word that makes things murky).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Bottom line is... people will be people (a.k.a. stupid), despite the circumstances. Anything good is beneath them.

I mean, eating at McDonalds is cheap and convenient, but is it better than good ol' fashioned home cookin'?

(You don't have to answer that.)

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmm, well they weren't meant to! But I see what you mean. I suppose what I'm saying is that you are more likely to hear a good song if you pick the higher seller. But it's not an absolute.

Francis, like Soylent Green, is people.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

The audience matters and sales factor into how a record sounds. They don't change the notes that are played, but when you have a relationship with a song or an album, that relationship changes when more and more people buy it. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, probably. Thriller sounded different in 1982 than it did in 1984. In '82 it was an amazingly solid and innovative and catchy r&b record. By '84 it was an inescapable part of the atmosphere, and "Billie Jean" sounded different. Part of the excitement of pop in these situations is seeing how well something holds up under this sort of pressure (which Thriller did very very well).

― scott woods (s woods), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Is there any online database of record sales I could search? Maybe Soundscan has a site that does this?

― David Allen, Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry David. Soundscan access costs mad $$$. You can check RIAA.com to see which albums have been certified platinum, gold, etc., however.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Tico: I am not of this... EARTH you call home. :)

And David, check out the RIAA homepage, under Gold And Platinum.

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

the counter-argument to Tom's point is this:
you can always instantly tell what artist/group X's worst records are, just look at the ones which sold the most*

where X is everyone (even Person Z)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

re anything below megastar level, never underestimate the crapitude of labels when it comes to actually getting the fucking stuff out there either

― dave q, Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure what Tom's saying is as complicated as everyone's making it out to be. Surely all he means is that if you make a record that's generally aimed at, say, indie fans, or death metal freaks, then it certainly indicates something about quality to see whether indie fans or death metal freaks turned out to like that record. That's who was supposed to like the record.

Obviously there are a lot of variations and gaps and exceptions to that -- most notably that it's just a vague indicator of a certain type of quality (i.e., the band's generally accomplishing what they were probably shooting for in the first place). And I tend to be unconvinced that a lot of artists have much idea who their "target audiences" are, and are constantly getting it wrong in fascinating ways. Not to mention that we're not nearly close enough to figuring out what "quality" means to start correlating it to anything else. All that said, though, I think Tom's point is basically a kernel of useful common sense.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Although funnily I think Mark would call the idea that Jamaicans know which Jamaican hits are the hottest rockism of the highest order!

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

yes cz the very idea of quality is rockist nabisco!

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:32 (twenty-two years ago)

But Mark, I think Tom is getting around that by redefining "quality" as both personal and sort of trust-able. At the core it seems like he's imagining two songs, A and B, both with a common audience that's equally aware of both. If that audience enjoys song A and does not enjoy song B, he's saying, then it's not exactly insane to conclude that (a) song A is the more enjoyable song, and (b) it's not unlikely that you, too, will enjoy song A and not song B. (This sort of agrees that "quality" does not exist; instead it works from the premise that music is meant to be enjoyed -- so if people who share your tastes and interests enjoy something, you probably will, too.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:39 (twenty-two years ago)

IF PEOPLE LIKE IT CAN'T BE QUALITY! < / my personal strawman army >

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

(anyway that wz a joke abt quality and rockism, btw, b4 anyone builts it into their defn)

(it might be true, i haven't work it out yet, but i said it as a joke)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.boydorchards.com/images/scarecrows.jpg

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

The grammarians will skewer you for that one!

The problem with the above theory, by the way, comes when you inject "sales" into it as a way of charting who enjoys what -- there are so many factors beyond enjoyment wrapped up in sales numbers, and I think it's pretty rare that you can adequately carve out a demographic that has equal access to both song A and song B and makes honest "enjoyment" decisions about them that are reflected in the sales numbers.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

^ = mark's strawman army -> they hate the black crowes -> black crowes = quality -> universe collapses -> no more corn

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:44 (twenty-two years ago)

no more korn!! no more korn!!

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:46 (twenty-two years ago)

wait i like korn

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:46 (twenty-two years ago)

when did ironic irony get to be so complicated?

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Shut up, Avril sucks too.

― NA. (Nick A.), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:48 (twenty-two years ago)

::bump:

I'll answer this later, just wanted to push it up to somewhere I'd see it.

― kate (kate), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 08:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Mei the key is "within a music's target audience"!

-- Tico Tico (@hotmail.com), June 24th, 2003.

I take your point and I misread your initial post, sorry.

But I still have problems with 'target audience'. I don't think most bands have one and record companies would be satisfied with 'whoever it sells to'.

It's true that targetting does take place, eg a metla album will be advertised in Kerrang not The Source, but when an album gets really successful it has done so by transcending it's niche. There simply aren't (or weren't) enough metal fans to account for the sales of their breakthrough, retrospectively renamed Black album.

The Eagles album I was referring to was a compilation and probably not the favourite most Eagles fans would choose, but as Nabisco has said defining quality is very hard. I think your reasoning (accidentally) equates the idea of quality with sales.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:07 (twenty-two years ago)

And some bands whose best selling album is not their best:

Metallica
The Beatles
Killing Joke
Radiohead
Slayer
Missy Elliot
Sepultura
Big Black
.
.
.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:09 (twenty-two years ago)

There simply aren't (or weren't) enough metal fans to account for the sales of their breakthrough, retrospectively renamed Black album.

Yeah but all the metal fans bought it too!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:10 (twenty-two years ago)

mei unless for all of those bands their best-selling lp is by their own lights their worst (second best-selling their second worst etc), yr crit of tom's argt fails

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:14 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I'm just saying that usually the best selling isn't the best. That's different from saying it's their worst.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

yes but you're also not disagreeing with the point tom's actually making (to disagree with Tom, or refute him, in the form of argt you're currently taking, you would have to *be* arguing that high sales was an irrefutable sign of low quality in the eyes of the ppl making the record)

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

The best-selling album need only be among the best they've done for there to be a positive sales:quality correlation

(actually this isn't strictly true - the best-selling one could always be the worst and if the others sold in quality order the relationship would still exist, for instance)

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:51 (twenty-two years ago)

high sales was an irrefutable sign of low quality in the eyes of the ppl making the record

I definitely don't hink that so you're probably right, but I'm confused because I've just realised I don't know who 'Tom' is. Is it Tico Tico?

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:53 (twenty-two years ago)

haha sorry i meant tico tico NOT TOM AT ALL FORGET I SAID THAT!! *looks around at sudden scary small noise*

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Aaargghh so you're talking matheatic correlation.

I think I know what that is but have you got a link with your def?

I still think there are probs defining 'quality'.

Also and in any case I think for there to be such a correlation by anything more than chance then the artist/album has to be well known enough so that a very large number of people get to know about it and hear stuff from it, or know people who have.

And that has to be tru for all the albums you're plotting, so Eg Metallica can't be on the graph because they were too small around MOP and AJFA, but you can plot (maybe) the black album which had enough buzz and promo for lots of people to get to know of it and certainly their subsequent inferior (until the latest, in my opinion) albums.

I think what you're suggesting probably does work for long term, big artists, after their first few releases and their audience has settled down, eg Madonna, Michael Jackson.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Forget who's who now?

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 11:59 (twenty-two years ago)

No you can do it with small samples too, you just need a sample which is familiar with the choices on offer - that's why I talked about target audiences upthread (tho target is maybe the wrong word, 'informed' is better)

I don't know my maths from my elbow but I've used correlations plenty in my day job!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I think familiarity is the key, but with music there are a lot of other things that get in the way too eg

-current trends/fashionability
-how good the _previous_ album was
-things the atrists has done outside music (NB Michael Jackson)
-changing size of audience/number of record buyers

It's probably like a lot of statistical mahs, an interesting tool to look at existing data but very tricky to use to make specific future predictions.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Record sales only means good advertising and a nice image (uhh..look at her pretty ass or that guys spotless t-shirt) or maybe the "rebel I don't care about image" image. Most of the better bands were never that good on sales, hell take bands like Yo La Tengo, Pavement,The Replacements, Cat Power, The Pixies, The Jam (just to name a few of the better known bands) and compare their sales rates with Kid Rock, Sum 41, Madonna, Britney Spears, Ricky Martin, Limp Bizkit, Creed, Blink 182, Puff Daddy...*** shit I think am gonna be sick..too much evil and disgust in one line ****------------------------. Ok, now compare... is this second group better musicians just because they got better sales, Ricky Martin sold more than The Jam...could you compare?. Since when has art being a thing measured by sales?. Art is eccentric and selfish..hell that´s why I fucking love My Bloody Valentine or Jesus and Mary Chain, they simply don´t give a f***k, even if that´s part of their image. You do music because you like it, because it means something, it your god damn creation, it's not a means to an end ($$$$). Damn you MTV, damn you capitalism , damn you God and you too Texas!!.
Such angst..but all for the love.

― Siñor N.K. Loveless (Siñor N.K. Loveless), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:13 (twenty-two years ago)

ricky martin is better than the jam

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I think you've just made the same mistake I did, Siñor.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Ricky Martin Versus the Jam

AKA

Are record sales inversely proportional to level of suckiness (or not)?

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Not necessarily, but usually the case.

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Monday, 30 June 2003 03:03 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.