What makes a record sell high number?

[Immanuel]

This thread is a spin-off of Charles' Are records too loud today? Thread.
http://womb.mixerman.net/showthread.php?t=3049
I got into a discussion with Otek about why people buy the particular records that they do. I didn't want to crap the other thread, so I think it is more apropriate to make another one. First a very bried summarization:

Otek:
"People buy records for the songs first"

Immanuel:
"I think "the majority" of the hit record purchasers buy for the ... :Sad: ... adverticements first."

Otek:
"I don't dispute the fact that advertising plays into it, but I stand by my opinion (faith in humanity?) that if the song isn't there in some way, I don't care how much you advertise it, the single will tank.

Look at Paris Hilton's album, you can't blame lack of advertising for the meager sales...."


Otek, I said "the majority" :)
Oh, and by the way, the rest of this post is made with many different age groups in mind - meaning, that some of it might be more of an issue among younger or older people.

I have nothing to back this up with, but don't you think, that if there was no marketing going on, a lot of the major pop acts could have been "just yet another one in the crowd doing the same thing". I mean, when was the last time you heard a top10 hit and thought "Wow, that singer really has a message to deliver". It is not too often I experience this myself. But then, sometimes listening to music is more about aesthetics and experiencing what that does to you (or me anyway), than it is about receiving a direct emotional message. So maybe this is what it is about at the moment? Pure aesthetics? But even then, there is so much tallent out there making just as good stuff but selling very little due to lack of marketing.

Or is it like clothing. Todays ugly is tomorrows ugly (and vice versa), and to keep your image up, you have to follow the trend (mostly dictated by the commercials) - or go against the mainstream and create your own image (which often means follow the rules of a subculture :Wink: ). You are what you hear.

So maybe, if you juggle it a bit? Marketing can not do it alone (and I think Paris Hilton was ½ a year too late, as her "wave" was kind of dead by the time she released her album). But without marketing, the road is ... at least much longer. Isn't it so, that marketing is todays concerts? Instead of playing houndreds of gigs, the new megastars play houndreds of commercials? And if you don't "gig commercials", then your path to the audience is through houndreds of actual gigs? I really don't think myspace is enough in more than very rare occasions.

So anyone (not just Otek): What do you think make big groups of people buy the same records these days?
(I hope, I placed the thread right this time)

[MacGregor]

So anyone (not just Otek): What do you think make big groups of people buy the same records these days?
(I hope, I placed the thread right this time)

Airplay.

Mac

[Immanuel]

:)
I agree on that. The need for airplay (as an adverticement tool) was actually one of my points earlier in the other thread, where I argued that this (in combination with lack of knowledge) was a reason why records are smashed to shit these days.

[David Aurora]

jeez, dont people read the rules anymore.....:Roll eyes:

when a thread has logical discussion, its OUR DUTY to hijack and derail the thread. what the fuck do you think this is??? fucking hell.....

mods, id like to report this thread as offensive.....





(good thread though.....hey does anyone else here like lime chilli pickle? kidding.....)

[MGMc]

Yeah, people tend to buy what they're being sold for the most part. Plus if you look at the demographics that are being aimed at, we'll it's mostly kids who are all about following the trends. it's like shooting fish in a bucket. EZ $

The top 40 is a rigged election.

[Immanuel]

jeez, dont people read the rules anymore.....:Roll eyes:

when a thread has logical discussion, its OUR DUTY to hijack and derail the thread. what the fuck do you think this is??? fucking hell.....

mods, id like to report this thread as offensive.....





(good thread though.....hey does anyone else here like lime chilli pickle? kidding.....)

David, you are making a dilema here. If I excuse breaking the rules, I probably brake a rule just by doing so.:lol: Did I just write "a rule"? To stay with the language around here: "the fucking rules" :Wink: ... (If that created a question in your brain, I'll leave it to yourself to decide the answer). So I'll just ignore that part.:Coolio:

I haven't tried lime chilli pickles, but some day I've got to test tomato juice with crushed mint sweets.:Razz: :Wink:

[bunnerabb]

The top 40 has always been dreck with a touch of mediocrity and a few diamonds in the silt.

And of course, some of that dreck is there because people support it because to them, it's not shit, it's the nazz.

God bless the diamond cutters.

[lebouche]

I think we are on the edge of a new age where we are about to find out how big records can get by word of mouth. If somebody releases another 'Grace' from a small studio somewhere or even a bedroom I believe it will grow to the same popularity. It's just waiting to happen.

I would definately say that marketing/exposure has a direct relation to sales. Major labels have become more or less marketing and sales companies with no development involved.
I have sat in a meeting where a major presents its records to Tesco supermarket and the supermarket people decide which they are going to give shelve space too. Tesco hold the largest sales portion at the moment at 24% (if my memory serves me well) and they are driving prices down and in the position to call the shots.

Majors will shrink to a size that is manageble unless they work out this whole raising advertising revenue for free downloads thing. At that point even fewer artists will be on their rosters and perhaps public will have to choose more independent records.

IMHO.

[MacGregor]

I think we are on the edge of a new age where we are about to find out how big records can get by word of mouth.


That could be. A decade ago 'word of mouth' meant a couple of
friends, some colleagues and your significant other's mother.

Today it means a couple of thousand people depending of the
popularity of your homepage/blog/whatever.

Let's wait...

Mac

[Bob Olhsson]

When's the last time you bought a record because of marketing? I consider it outrageously elitist to assume others have any different motivation to buy records than the rest of us.

Certainly lack of marketing can stop a record dead in its tracks but when push comes to shove, a majority of the folks involved in selling, reviewing and promoting the record need to like it (or the artist) more than the other ten new releases that hit their wastebaskets this morning. Sometimes it takes payola to get a record into their pile but records still need to develop legs in order to survive and get exposed enough that lots of people are motivated to buy them.

Word of mouth is what its always been about. First inside the label, then inside the industry and finally on the street.

[Immanuel]

When's the last time you bought a record because of marketing? I consider it outrageously elitist to assume others have any different motivation to buy records than the rest of us.

I appreciate your big thoughts and underlying respect for humanity in your point of view Bob. However, in that case I will just have to wear the sticker "outrageously elitist", cause I stand by my writing in this case.

Today, I see youngsters walk around in 200$ t-shirts which and getting a lot of credits for their good taste. Had someone worn the same t-shirt 10 years ago, then they would have been laughed at. How is it with jeans where you are located? Here a lot of guys from 13-2x wear jeans which literally shows "crack". They have to walk in strange ways not to drop the jeans, because their belts are tied below their bums. Again, just a few years ago, they would have been laughed at (well, I still laugh of them now, but I recon that they find me very uncool anyway).

Sure, they wear these clothes because they like it. Yes! They think it is cool, and they are proud of it. But why do they like it now, when they didn't like it a few years ago? I have only one available explanation: Fashion ... mostly dictated by people in the adverticement bussiness.

I find it to be the same thing with music. Actually, someone here from Womb a few weeks ago talked about a kid being laughed at, because he didn't listen to the latest hit by some pop artist - he listened to the hit before that, and therefor he was so outdated and uncool.

I guess, I just don't have your trust in the human brain being so very independent. I strongly believe we often are much easyer to manipulate, than we would like to think. Why do we still see plain stupid commercials for washing powder and such? Sure, noone falls for that crap? Oh yes they/we do. It works, and it works big time, and that is why these people keep on paying big time feeding us with stupid adds.

About the record people needing to like the stuff ... why shouldn't their taste be just as much into main stream as the rest of us? And why shouldn't they want to pick main stream acts?

You know so much about the industry, and I know nothing, so I might be really off here. My ex-girlfriend is a sociologist though, and she is not the only person I know from that proffession and I have had friends more or less in the adverticement bussiness.

So yes, I too believe people buy records 'cause the like them. I just question the mechanisms that make us like something.

[Johnny]

It's word of mouth. Also, the average Joe doesn't spend a significant amount of time and/or attention on music. Thus, whatever is the most available through airplay and marketing is what is going to be talked about. Most people are too busy with other things to seek out and peruse better music.

[DaveC]

What's wrong with trends and fashions?

It's the 11-16 year olds who put their pocket money into the music business and made Bill Hayley a smash, who invested heavily in the beat groups and the Beatles, who bought the Who's singles, and the Stones, who bought Bowie records and bought punk records.

All these bands are now classics and revered, but at the time they were the fashions of the day just the same. It would seem to show that fashions can have taste too. Respect the kidz!

[Immanuel]

You are right Dave, sometimes fashion brings out something which lasts. And even if it doesn't last, people will be happy with what they've got thinking/believing/feeling it is the best thing around.

Still, (IMO) a lot of these things these days doesn't have the quality to last - which in my view more or less equals that it didn't have the quality in the first place.

With some of the stuff I have heard in the "unsigned madness", I really think that if this is just as good or better than the noise comming out of the radio around here.

About The Stones, The Who, The Beatles, The Bowie and all the other Thes from back then. Didn't these people actually play gigs before entering the studio? I might be fooling myself, but I think there often is a sound difference between recording pop acts with no strong stage experience and people who played loads of gigs. The gig playing musicians will often have a higher "to hit" (deliver the message) rate than the non-giggers. And often they will be more convincing. I write 'often' - not always. There are "giggers" with less projection, and there are bedroom artists with plenty of guts. The guts just often seam to settle more after a bunch of gigs ... IMO.

[Bob Olhsson]

Fashion is also all about word of mouth and peer pressure. Everybody wants to feel that they are part of a community and this includes uniforms and anthems.

It still doesn't mean we buy things because of how they are marketed. If this were true, every single new major label release would be a hit rather than selling an average of 800 units.

[vocalnick]

I'm really unconvinced that advertising can have that much impact. I think the tired old "lead a horse to water...." axiom holds true here. The Paris Hilton example is a prescient one, and Bob's "800 units" statistic really hammers it home for me. If advertising could make people like music (or any other product), then there should be zero incidence of commercial failure, and it's abundantly clear that is not the case.

I think fashions today are pretty stupid too, but I don't see kids walking around with their arses hanging out because some mogul cooked up the idea for them. People in large groups can come up with dumb ideas quite organically, no corporate intervention required ;)

[jimmy v]

Think back to the school yard.This is a microcosm of society.The school yard breaks into groups.Those who fail to fit into a group become an other group. Each of these groups can be sub-divided into groups....The leaders .....The sub leaders/super followers.....The followers...The ambivalent....The loosers....The brains...The rest.................Each group will adopt a style/fashion to identify with..... The leaders of each group will generally determin which "badge" they will wear. The prevailing stye/fashion is determined by the groups with the widest influence. The "falling down pants" style comes from prison culture(the pants never fit in prison)...moved into the rap culture...then into the mainstream..It's a byproduct of the popularity or rap/hiphop in the mainstream........All one needs to do to sell large numbers is connect with the leadership of the most influential groups..Seems so simple....yet these leaders are people,and as such are individuals...soooo...How do you figure out what they want?....Short answer...you cant...thats what maketing is all about..expose the product and hope it catches....If something catches then what follows?...Yep,more of the same untill sales fall off and something else catches..Sometimes an artist actually has some sort of artistic vision that they are ALLOWED to pursue.In these increasingly rare circumstances The artist may resonate with large numbers(be it the music,the personality,the story,the look, or anything else that connects them) and that artist will create a long term "brand loyality". The kids will always determine whats gonna do well cause if it works for the parents it won't work for the kids..Of course this almost always begins with a song.........EVERY PRODUCT EVER SOLD WAS SOLD DUE TO MARKETING...............No maketing=no availability....No availability=no sale... Marketing is bringing a product to the marketplace,advertising is exposing that product to the market.....Sales figures are determined primarally by exposure to your marketplace,providing that product is available.If you sell a specality product then mass marketing may not be the best bet for you,but if your product is designed to have some sort of universal apeal then going big is likely the ticket...Then it becomes a question of what that exposure and placement costs.You could pick up a rock ,put it in a box and sell millions if the exposure and placement are there..There is a market for most anything,the only question is what it costs to gain that exposure..

[sowhoso]

You could pick up a rock ,put it in a box and sell millions if the exposure and placement are there..There is a market for most anything,the only question is what it costs to gain that exposure..

NOT!

[Johnny]

http://msnbc.com/modules/take3/may/img/rewind/petRock.jpg

[jimmy v]

NOT!

Your kidding right? Or perhaps you are young. They called it the "PET ROCK" it sold millions of units worldwide.....millions....

[sowhoso]

Your kidding right? Or perhaps you are young. They called it the "PET ROCK" it sold millions of units worldwide.....millions....

within the context of this thread i'm not kidding. I thought you were implying the same can be done with music. are you?

[Johnny]

The music industry sells rock all the time.

[jimmy v]

within the context of this thread i'm not kidding. I thought you were implying the same can be done with music. are you?

Yep......I'm not sayin it works every time,or even most times but it works often enough to make sure it continues......Does it not seem to you that there is a never ending stream of "rocks" comming at you with the occasional gem mixed in? If a jewel is discovered then all the other rocks get painted that color.This isnt whats happening? ............................... My girl wants to party all the time,party all the time.....Eddie Murphy rocks man!

[Bob Olhsson]

From what I've seen it very rarely works when it comes to music. And when it does, it frequently cost more to push the record to number one than anybody can possibly earn from it being number one. It's not even a case of working often enough.

[sowhoso]

word of mouth and marketing accomplish the same thing. One is free, the other not. whatever...bottom line people buy what they like. That shit song you hate is somebody else's sound track to life.

and never mind aesthetics, leave that to the ivory tower types or nights when there's nothing to do. i'd rather write it than write about it. whether I listen to stravinsky or santana i want the music to be emotional (not merely intellectual) and memorable (hooks, melodic or otherwise). in the end what the hell do I care about cluster chords or blues scales when i'm enjoying a piece of music. even less how many millions were spent to get me exposed to a song or who currently has it on their ipod.

i'll bet the average person, particuarly the non-musician, responds the same way. too often we musicians get caught up in stuff that really has nothing to do with the music we like (or don't like).

[Bob Olhsson]

The only way I've ever seen any money made was principally exposure that was the result of word of mouth.

One reason many in the industry detested Motown has turned out to be the fact that we could be so successful without paying off the jocks. That's not to say Berry wouldn't have but he didn't have enough money for much of that kind of promotion. I've had some amazing chats with former distributors who had just assumed the jocks were being paid off in every other town but their own.

[sowhoso]

now that most jocks have the same boss why any payola at all?!

[bunnerabb]

A corporation is recognised as a person.

They don't really make anything so much as they, rather, co-opt things that are already in place and try to make money with them in new ways. Or with different shell games with how the money is moved or the value of their product is perceived.

Sometimes...

occasionally...

once in a blue, blue moon...

This works out OK.

For radio, it was disastrous.

The second you tell the corporation that it's first duty, and only duty is to the providing of investor profit, that corporation becomes a sociopathic prick.

Chrysler US went tits up, this morning. Ford is closing plants in Cleveland.

We don't make ANYTHING here, anymore, kids. So we better have some damn good entertainment and food.

[Cosmic Pig]

The music industry sells rock all the time.

Haha good one Johnny.

Something completely unrelated that might have everything to do with it... I don't think we as old farts get what the kids are hearing. How many CD's you sell hasn't much to do with success in a lot of ways. I hate to pull out the old "its all about the music man", but really thats what its all about. A good CD with a small push will still take off.

A kid walking home from his first girlfriend's house after his first kiss will connect any crappy tune on the radio with that moment. They'll connect with a tune if they got shot down by the girl too. Kids have a lot of those moments.

I remember the line "little willy willy won't, go home, try tellin everybody but, oh no." from walking home from an unrequited love fest with an older girl when I was 11 or so. I have a whole soundtrack that goes along with my misspent youth. I don't have that soundtrack these days.

When was the last time we as old farts listened to a tune and connected it to anything?

I dunno wtf that has to do with anything, but basically, if you want to sell a high number record a good CD. Sell them cheap off the stage and they might become part of a kids moments. That's a successful CD. Then if a record company sees that they might be interested. blah blah.

The trouble is most of the CD's floating around out there are too flawed to do that. Kids don't listen to radio near as much as they used to. ipods and walkmans don't have radios. That leaves a hole in the sytem for small bands to get in, but usually they can't because the material is not good enough. Then they bitch about the industry.

It's about the music man.

Cos.

[bunnerabb]

When was the last time we as old farts listened to a tune and connected it to anything?

*raises hand*

[Spock]

*raises hand*

[sowhoso]

When was the last time we as old farts listened to a tune and connected it to anything?
Cos.

I think this is only true of ppl who don't listen to new music from new(er) artists. I think the greater majority of ppl just keep listening to the music of their youth or stop listening altogether.

I can't say how tired I am of hearing or reading about how "music ain't what it used to be" or "everything is just crap today." I used to hear that when I was a teenager too.

some of the songs i've connected with in the last couple years:
Snow Patrol - Run
Copeland - Sleep
The Postal Service - Such Great Heights
Keane - Everybody's Changing
Greenday - Boulevard Of Broken Dreams
Hoobastank - The Reason

every bit as good as the stuff I grew up with in the 70s.

[Cosmic Pig]

*raises hand*

It's possible in my literary flailings I didn't get my theory across.

My point is we as old farts don't connect with music the same way kids do. Sure we connect with tunes and they can affect us profoundly, but I don't think those tunes will connect us to the emotions and memories for the rest of our lives like they do when you're discovering those emotions for the first time.

Hence the term "music ain't what it used to be". It literally isn't and can never be because of the stronger connection to time and place and emotion we experience as kids. It has to do with the connection more than the quality of tunes.

You guys with your hands still raised; can you tell us what tune you connected with and what it will mean to you forever?

Cos.

[Spock]

....but I don't think those tunes will connect us to the emotions and memories for the rest of our lives like they do when you're discovering those emotions for the first time.

......

You guys with your hands still raised; can you tell us what tune you connected with and what it will mean to you forever?


No, sorry.

[sowhoso]

You guys with your hands still raised; can you tell us what tune you connected with and what it will mean to you forever?
Cos.

no, I can't tell you cuz it's more profound than my first kiss or whatever I went through at 15. In other words, not stuff I care to share on the www. As it should be. so I only shared the tunes.

Why should my adult experiences in music equate those of adolecense?! on the contrary.

btw, I do think the quality of tunes does have something to do with it too, as the end of my last post implies.

[bunnerabb]

"The Blood of Eden" Peter Gabriel and Paula Cole from Secret World Live

Getting together, after 16 years, for a lunch date with a woman I was with in the late 80's and talking about the good the bad, sharing laughter, tears, drinking whiskey from a flask on Euclid Ave. by the House of Blues, snow falling all around... Forgiveness, re-acquaintance, finding something that moved and attracted us both that never went away because it was what happened when we were ourselves together.

Etched.

Astounding.

Not exactly a first kiss, but... it proves sowhso's take on it.

If you see life the same way at 50 as you did at 20, you have wasted 30 years of your life.

The music is eternal, though and it can still benchmark the moments of our lives.

[Johnny]

That's a great rendition of a great song, Bun.

I'm glad that I don't associate songs with experiences the way I did as a kid. I'm not a kid, and I don't want to be. I'm more than content to simply listen to music for what it is, and not attach my baggage/fun/whatever to it.

We try to sell music as a "soundtrack to life" and in so doing, diminish it IMESHO. I think there are better ways to connect with it.

[Cosmic Pig]

I'm glad that I don't associate songs with experiences the way I did as a kid. I'm not a kid, and I don't want to be. I'm more than content to simply listen to music for what it is, and not attach my baggage/fun/whatever to it.


Me too. But that's maybe what I'm getting at, I've lost track actually. It's the connection thats needed to sell lots of CDs?

btw, I do think the quality of tunes does have something to do with it too, as the end of my last post implies.

I thought I implied agreement with that.

I still think you guys are missing the point. I'm not suggesting you don't connect with music any less than you did as a kid, just that the connection made as a kid does become the soundtrack of life. And there are many more connection made as a kid.

The decline of radio via ipod and the record industry via piracy has caused the soundtrack to be more localized. In my kid's high school there are emo's, stoners, ballers, wiggers, and jocks. Each have their own music and it's very localized to the area because a good tune gets passed around from computer to computer and on to ipods.

When a tune is great it makes it out of the area to other schools and onwards. But even then it's pretty rare for a stoner's tune to make it onto a wigger's ipod. It's splintered and localized. When we were kids the sound track was the same for everyone, whatever connection you made with it. Now it's different for each small group.

So wtf does that have to do with old farts connecting with tunes? Well I don't know but I'm sure it's something.

I have no real point so you guys can all go fuck your hats.

If you were part of an ancient alien extremely advanced civilization that discovered the key to eternal life what would you do?

I'll tell ya later.

Cos.

[bunnerabb]

If you were part of an ancient alien extremely advanced civilization that discovered the key to eternal life what would you do?

I am.

Rock.

Teach.

[bunnerabb]

I'm glad that I don't associate songs with experiences the way I did as a kid. I'm not a kid, and I don't want to be

Neither childhood, nor adulthood, are curses.

We simply bought the marketing and stopped believing in the things we believed in for the reasons we believed, when we did or did not, because we didn't want to appear to young or too old to a bunch of cocksuckers who wouldn't give a toss either way.

What's killing music is what's killing America.

Lack of invention.

Lack of passion.

Lack of the NEED to make something greater than the parts with your own two hands.

Everybody is looking for a nest and nobody is looking for a mountain.

[Cosmic Pig]

What's killing music is what's killing America.

Lack of invention.

Lack of passion.

Lack of the NEED to make something greater than the parts with your own two hands.

Everybody is looking for a nest and nobody is looking for a mountain.

Naw, what's killing America, and Canada too, is hemorrhaging money to China and money ruling the world. There's lots of passion, invention, and need out there. I don't think the actual quality of music is down....

Or maybe it is. Maybe the next Beatles got sidetracked making loops and scratching records.

Musicians are out of fashion, so as we shuffle off stage to join the ranks of the jazz and symphonic players we bitch all the way about the damn kids.

However, that has no effect on my own music. I was never gonna be the next Beatles for even a second. I've had two drunk people start crying while telling me how much my only finished original tune affected them, so I'm happy. I'm part of two people's sound tracks that I know of. That's success to me. I've knocked a bar flat with my band, that's success too.

I've run out of time to explain the alien theory, I'll get to it next time. Mind you, its stupid.

Cos.

[sowhoso]

what's killing america is complacency. It's what killed all empires before this. Like being content to have a greedy warmonger for a leader, one who will lie to your face in order to justify attacking another country. peace and out on that one...

about china...if we're smart and we do it right america can have 1.5 billion ppl buying our cars, computers, corn, songs, whatever. A whole new market with lots of disposable income. They like to save over there.

back to music: not that every song should be, but what's wrong with a sound track to life? is there no life after 30?

[Johnny]

I don't use music as a personal soundtrack because I like to pay attention to it. When I'm otherwise occupied, silence is fine by me. Most of what I listen to on my iPod is spoken word. When I have time to really listen to artists making music, then I give them the respect of my full attention.

Not everybody wants that, so it's cool. The Thomas Kinkades of the world need to eat, too.

[Cosmic Pig]

Haha. Well it's been fun, but really we're just circle babbling around one sentence said by Bob that sums up everything:

The only way I've ever seen any money made was principally exposure that was the result of word of mouth.

It's always fun to see if there's one little missed detail that will circumvent the bottom line of good music and sell a shitload. There never is, but it's fun trying.

Cos.

[sowhoso]

I don't use music as a personal soundtrack...

why does "soundtrack to life" have such a negative connotation for you? you also imply it precludes total immersion. I think not.

[Starfucker]

about china...if we're smart and we do it right america can have 1.5 billion ppl buying our cars, computers, corn, songs, whatever. A whole new market with lots of disposable income. They like to save over there.

yay! imperialism! wooohoooo! USA! USA! we're #1! If you're smart and you do it right, you BUY some chinese stuff so they can grow.


But back on topic:
I think marketing sells some records, I think quality sells some records, and I think marketing of quality songs sells a decent amount of records. I also think turning dogshit into fashion sells shitloads of records. I think flashing phones, cars and shoes in a video helps to pay for marketing of said shit.

And we are making music, but we are selling "cool". and sometimes, for some reason, shit becomes cool, while quality becomes uncool for other reasons.

[sowhoso]

yay! imperialism! wooohoooo! USA! USA! we're #1! If you're smart and you do it right, you BUY some chinese stuff so they can grow.

imperialism?! wtf?

[Starfucker]

I don't wanna go into this because it's wayyyy off topic. but yeah... you seem to think of the world population as if they were usa's customers, thus creating a world that looks like the usa. While you most probably don't buy anything chinese except for some rice and an SE reflection filter.

But what makes a record sell high number. good marketing by people who believe that the record has potential to sell high number... and something that makes anything sell high number: T&A (something paris hilton couldn't provide)

[sowhoso]

you seem to think...

that's the key phrase. You jump to a lot of conclusions about what I think and you're not even close. But, no biggie. Life ain't black and white just like it ain't left or right, liberal vs. conservative, or any other duality we may want to impose on each other.

cheers!

[Starfucker]

Let's never fight again... and let's take over China together :Roll eyes:

I'll get me coat...

[bunnerabb]

Do it.

Mean it.

Go home.

If they like you, they'll clap.

[Bob Olhsson]

I think quality makes marketing a LOT less expensive.

[DaveC]

regards quality and marketing -

a few years back, some great old songs have been made into new hits by jeans TV adverts - Levi ads featured various great tunes from Hendrix, and buesy & soul numbers, 'I heard it through the grapevine' etc, previous hits from the 50s and 60s. These became new hits.

These quality songs were already in the shops, often in bargain bin racks at CD shops, which everyone who might have liked that sort of music could have already purchased. But they hadn't.

The jeans adverts weren't (at first) even trying to promote the songs, they were trying to use the old songs to create a cool image for the jeans.

So how did that happen?

Well - we are talking about records selling 'in high numbers'. And usually 'in high numbers in a short space of time'. If you want to sell 100,000 copies of your music, 1,000,000 people have to hear it first (not everyone is going to like it, however good it is - and even those who like it, not all will buy it) (oh and yes - I just made up those figures. Feel free to make up your own, or to do some market research and find the real figures). The adverts gave the songs mass exposure, to some people who hadn't heard the old songs before. All at the same time.

But a lot of these songs were so famous that in this case a lot of the people had already heard these songs. The adverts provided a polished and moody pop/rock video for these songs, which gave a current context for the songs to be understood. When the songs were first released, they had a different meaning, with the jeans adverts they were given a new context, generally 'nostalgic americana' and a down-to earth urbanity. They were being upheld as songs capturing a time, rather than their original meaning of protest or whatever. By being given a new reading, they gained a current relevance which meant a lot of people wanted to hear them to get that musical feeling from them.

That meaning was there to be felt already, but a lot of people did not know it.

I think these 2 factors are an important feature in mass marketing modern songs. Exposure is vital, videos (and band image etc) give the audience strong clues and ideas on the context and intended readings of the songs. Without context, a lot of the masses just won't fully get the song, and if you are confused, you are less likely to be bothered to buy it.


just some thoughts, make of it what you will.

[Bob Olhsson]

I really don't buy there is or ever has been any "mass audience" for music. There are performers who a lot of people like but the concept that people have been force-fed music doesn't ring true to my experience. The biggest sellers would be a dismal failure if they were toothpaste brands because they only command a tiny percentage of sales. The music business has always been very fragmented. The difference today is that Madison Avenue has been exploiting the fragmentation and intentionally not supporting exposure of the kinds of artists who bring people together across demographic lines.

I'm not saying exposure isn't important but word of mouth makes things happen lots faster than purchasing exposure ever has.

[DaveC]

ahh - I didn't say in my last post, but I am in agreement with you Bob that quality is vital. Imho, the exposure and marketing issues are what seperates the quality songs that have modest sales from the songs/artistes of similar quality who have mass sales, ferraris and yachts. I don't think marketing can make a bad song into a hit.

I am also in agreement with your points about motown - but take that as proof that you don't need to pay for exposure, not that you do not need exposure at all. The records still needed to be played on am/fm to generate the size of sales that they did, though maybe word of mouth gave the records that 'critical mass' of popularity that forced the jocks to play the records, which went on to make them 'mass' hits.

I also take your point about the fragmented nature of the industry and society... its a complicated issue!

[bunnerabb]

yay! imperialism! wooohoooo! USA! USA! we're #1! If you're smart and you do it right, you BUY some chinese stuff so they can grow.

Well, if that's the case then we're safe as milk, son, cause I'm pretty sure that every fucking thing I own was made in China or near there.

Cep'n for my waffles. I always fly those in from Belgium.

:D

[Bob Olhsson]

I certainly agree our political and musical problems are pretty closely related.