For Jimmy: Lindsey's chart/sales info
 

Jimmy, I'm still trying to find out what Under The Skin has sold overall but I can tell you that it debuted on the Billboard chart at No.80 (21/10/2006) and fell to No.187 the following week - after that it fell off the chart.

Its first week sales were 13,111 copies.

I don't have sales figures for the UK but it was only on the chart for one week (for the week ending October 21) debuting at No. 154

Edit: Hayley has provided info on the US sales for UTS and OOTC to date in this post:

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpo...2&postcount=33

US Soundscan totals as of this week (w/e 2-18)-

Under the Skin- 57,761 RTD
Out of the Cradle- 195,277 RTD


Also here are the chart runs for his previous singles and albums. All the numbers refer to chart positions, the number highlighted is the highest chart position.


UK SINGLES
1. TROUBLE
Date: 16/01/1982 - Run: 65-50-*31*-37-35-45-50 (7 wks) US:#9/19/5


US SINGLES
1. TROUBLE
Date: 24/10/1981 - Run: 74-55-30-24-19-16-13-12-11- 10-10-10-*9*-9-22-24-52-88-96 (19/5 wks) UK:#31/7

2. HOLIDAY ROAD
Date: 06/08/1983 - Run: 92-86-84-*82*-99 (5 wks)

3. GO INSANE
Date: 28/07/1984 - Run: 70-58-50-45-40-35-34-31-27-25-24-*23*-39-59-84-98 (16 wks)


UK ALBUMS

1. OUT OF THE CRADLE
Date: 08/08/1992 - Run: *51* (1 wk) US:#128/9


US ALBUMS

1. LAW & ORDER
Date: 07/11/1981 - Run: 98-50-41-36-33-*32*-33-39- (8 wsf)
02/01/1982: 39-43-44-43-43-46-45-51-63-66-83-95-111-128-146-188 (24 wks)

2. GO INSANE
Date: 01/09/1984 - Run: 125-62-57-48-*45*-45-45-45-55-65-96-96-113-133-137-168 (16 wks)

3. OUT OF THE CRADLE
Date: 04/07/1992 - Run: 147-133-133-143-145-*128*-135-151-0-0-0-200 (9-8c wks) UK:#51/1

who's jimmy?

I often wonder what LB though of his very limited success in his solo career when compared to Stevie's mega success. After all, LB crafted Stevie's FM songs into hits and then she found someone else to help her do that, especially after she dumped him - though they had done some extra FM work together while in FM a la Magnet and Steel. That had to hurt.

Then, LB claimed not to care about success so much as being an artist, but, he could not sell being an artist to any significant degree save for Trouble, which was a hit, though the album was not when compared to La Nicks or FM. I often wonder if he felt perhaps emascualted because CM had the hits and La Nicks had the mega fame - both of which he was a large catalyst of, though CM and La Nicks are certainly talented in their own right - CM moreso from an ability to play perspective and La Nicks moreso from a writing and vibrant performing perspective.

I think that LB came back to FM three times (TITN, The Dance, and SYW) instead of pursuing solo projects speaks volumes as to how he felt.

I guess he truly is the artist torm between selling and art - though I argue his commercial stuff (both his own and the stuff he produced) that sold in the stratosphere is both art and successful.

AliceLover...

Btw, apparently Christine's In The Meantime sold just 7,156 copies in the UK

Also, the reason this info is hard to get is because none of Lindsey's albums (including the new one) have apparently sold or shipped more than 500,000 copies yet, which means none have been certified.

UHHUH

Still, listening to his solo-albums speaks bigger volumes. He simply didn't go for selling. OOTC is maybe an exception, but for the rest one can only conclude: here's a man searching for meaning in his art not for the bucks in his art. Which he already proved that he could. When in this life is that going to sip through, Strand? As so often, I just can't follow some of his fans that seem to disregard what he is telling through his music AND in every fokking interview he gives. Maybe you guys are the reason that he's telling the same story for almost 30 years, simply because people don't seem to "hear" it.

Even worse: After everytime he has to tell the same story that is NOT accepted by the most of us, we conclude he's whining. :shrug:

^^^

I think Law and Order was a direct commercial venture.

I think he recently said Go Insane was a commercial venture.

In the end, I think it is possible to be both and clearly he wants to be commercially successful or he would have left The Mac after Tusk and certainly after Mirage (where they made more millions) -- yet, he came back three times, and admitted that The Dance was about the money and SYW came about because Warner's did not want the GOS but would take him with The Mac. So, commercial viability mattered to him at least four times in the past because he certainly had enough money to release all of his solo records after Tusk and never do a Mac commercial project again - but he did not and kept running back to the Mac - which I think does both art and commercially successful very well. I will note UTS is not in any way commercially viable and he seems happy with that, but only after having his cake and eating it too for 20+ years and while protesting during that time. Again, the man built a like $15 million house and lived at The Four Seasons for like a year. Clearly, he likes the money.

Of course, he could have been coming back to The Mac to be with Stevie :cool:

I just want to know how many vinyls are in the world so I can fantz on rolling around naked with them and Lindsey...dammit. :blob1:

Thanks for posting this info Sharon!

Its funny, Holiday Road charted so bad, but everyone knows that song. EVERYONE.

IMO they are now sick of the bark bit.

I agree on both counts!!!!!!!!!

And - I LOVE Holiday Road - arf arf arf - arf arf arf :cool:

I think he said it had elements aimed for the commercial market, like Trouble and Slow Dancing (respectively) but overall they were albums where he tried to push the limits of his creativity, Go Insane more so than L&O. He specifically mentioned Go Insane got crazier as the album progressed. I have a hard time believing he was aiming to sell as many albums as possible. If that was the case, he would have made a Rumours II.

Not entirely. He felt if he did the Fleetwood Mac thing he would have more of a leg out there if he were to release a solo after that. I doubt he really only did it for the money, he obviously wasn't in dire need of any. By both his own and Stevie's admission.

What other options did he have then? :shrug:

That's what he told me. :laugh:

I bow gracefully and beg pardon of TRACKAGHOST...went out of your way on all those sales info for a certain Ledgie...

There was an interview for SYW where LB flat out says The Dance was about the money and, I think, the exposure it would get him to a world who had pretty much forgotten him.

As for SYW and what was he supposed to do, well he could have released the GOS songs online for free or for $1.00 a song after The Dance. I mean if artistic integrity is all he cares about, then why care if it sells or why use FM once again to sell it :shrug:

He probably wouldn't have done it for free, no, but I do really think that the latter was the biggest issue.

It's not about integrity. I don't know why you come up with The Dance for g*ds sake.

The dance has NOTHING to do with Lindsey Buckinghams search for artistic growth and search of meaning. OFCOURSE that was for the money and the attention. There's not one soul on earth that would argue that. Say You Will was NOT primary for the money in LB's book. He wanted an artisticly valid double album that contained both FM's radiopopsensibility as well as out of the box new approaches in poprock. How can a man think it's about bucks if you take the challenge to put Murrow, Rover, Come, Say Goodbye etc. on a record? You're also going for critical acclaim for daring that in such a moneymachine that the Mac was.

And he could have released GOS on an indielabel and I'm sure he has weighed that as an possibility. But the labels' double standard towards that batch before and after the AOL-fusion pissed him off bigtime. Then the Mac came by for the Dance. So the possibilities of getting these songs released changed .

Now, concerning marketingdecisions he made, you may be right that those are not the most strong or consequent choices of him. But that has NOTHING I say NOTHING to do with the fact that this man challenges himself over and over again to find NEW grounds and experiments on songwriting- and productionlevel, trying to reinvent himself as a musician, not as a product. He's bad at that. It's not a Madonna, for sure. Not even a Stevie Nicks in that case. But he's not selling out like his ex does.

The attention it would garner him so that a solo release would have more legs to get out there. It's always better to follow up on a mega selling machine like the Dance than a commercial failure like OOTC. The Dance itself has nothing to do with it, no, but the reasons behind it were definitely well thought out.

I agree 200%. Like I said, if they weren't going to release GoS, what else was there to do for him than take the songs into a FM project, the only thing they were obviously going to stand behind? There were too many loose variables with all the changes going on within WB, so he made sure that his stuff at least would get out. This was the best way to go. Besides, they didn't put a gun to his head, he made that decision himself. They're not the anti-christ, he obviously likes his bandmembers and was not against working with them again. He made the decision to start working on Stevie's demos himself. And really, he even turned one of her songs into an obscure one, so you can't convince me he did SYW for commercial reasons.

I think what continues to confuse people is the fact that Lindsey has had opportunities to switch to smaller, indie labels... places where it would be more about the "art" than the "commerce"... but he continues to re-sign with Warner Bros., a label that has, at times, flat out refused to release his material.

That is because he is in many ways beholden to the money - who wouldn't be. To me, that has nothing to do with artistic integrity, though he did change "only kill" to "break their will" on Peacekeeper :eek:

He could have finished and released GOS in lieu of doing The Dance. He did not do that. He opted for the commercial venture, which he was still opting for five years later when SYW came into the picutre. I do not blame him one bit - just calling a spade a spade :cool:

I dislike that phrase... "selling out."
By all rights, an artist has "sold out" the minute they signed a contract with a record label, to create a product that the record label can sell.

In my eyes, the only folks who haven't "sold out," in the truest definition of the term, are the ones who continue to create in utter obscurity without any compromises.

I feel that Stevie fully understands the fact that she is, alongside being a singer/songwriter, an employee of her record company, and knows that she needs to deliver on her contract. Her albums have their share of obscure, esoteric songs... the ones that satisfy her artistic side... as well as more "commercial," radio-friendly songs that satisfy the record company.
She also knows that she has to get up on stage and sing certain songs in order to help sell that album.

Lindsey likes to talk about artistic freedom, but then vents frustration when his employers expect a return on their multi-million dollar investment.
When Warners passed on 'Gift of Screws,' he could have taken his music and gone elsewhere. Folding those songs into a more commercially viable Fleetwood Mac product wasn't his only option. But, perhaps it was his only option if he was hoping to make money on it.

Well, ace of spades, why don't you call Say Goodbye, Red Rover, Come, and Murrow overly commercial now, too?

These discussions between us will always be the same. You pinpoint the artist by his marketingchoices, and I pinpoint him by his musical guts.

I'm a audiovisual art-teacher. What was your job again?:laugh:

I agree. The cold, hard fact is that we all need to make money. And, hopefully, we get to make money while also doing something that we love.
But, if we want to make money, then we HAVE to be willing to make compromises. If Warner Bros is going to invest a huge amount of money for an artist to record an album, they expect... rightfully so... to make that money back. It IS a business.

The fact that Lindsey recorded most of 'Under The Skin' in hotel rooms, is probably the single biggest reason why Warners is so laidback about sales figures this time around. They didn't have to give Lindsey a huge advance to record it. He handed them something he made on a shoe-string budget.
So even if 'UTS' sells no more than the usual amount of copies for a Lindsey Buckingham album, they're in the black.

Well. Don't you also start mixing up artistic freedom with dumb marketingchoices, incoherent and inconsequent. All true. But that has nothing to do with the heartfelt passion for artistic freedom. Just acknowkedge that. I also say that his marketingstrategies are and were dumb. Thaqt's why I love the guy. He simply doesn't know how to do it because his artistic drive is constantly conflicting with it. Yes. And vice versa, before you are going to say that.

And about stevie: I talk about lindsey here. Everytime Strand or You come in the comparison with stevie is there. And THEN I react. Look at strands posts.

I love stevie, and she's made alot of better commercial choices than lindsey has. But today, Lindsey's music is alot more alive in my opinion than hers. She did that during his absence from the worlds stage, so I'm not blaming her. But her recent public appearances are sell outs. whatever you talk around it. Just calling a spade a spade.

What Lindsey does is most of the time irrelevant to what Stevie does, but I will say this... I don't agree with you calling Stevie a sell-out. If anything, she just doesn't have those 'guts' that Lindsey has to do anything outside the realm. That's her personality. Together, they are the yin to each other's yang, but on their own they are miles apart. It's not fair to compare them or call Stevie a sell-out because of that.

/end of Stevie talk in the Lindsey forum. :wavey:

Just some random comments...

Doesn't that make him a smart businessman? :thumbsup: Even though it never happened...LOL His timing seems a little off with the whole marketing thing. LOL

The GOS songs were already online for free. I've had them for almost 7 years. :lol: Didn't he say he felt that that selection of songs would help redefine FM? I could be wrong. On top of the bonus with the cash cow of FM, more people would hear his songs...that's an artistic goal as well in my book.

Why do they have to be torn at all? I think most artists no matter who they are desire to sell their work. Nothing wrong with that. They want people to hear their stuff, they want to make money, and they want the affirmation. It goes together. Buckingham doesn't "pray to the commercial Gods" like some and he does push himself to create. That's what we all love about him but it's still a business. I don't see that as a crime. Does it send him to his knees when he doesn't sell a million copies? Only he can answer that, but I don't think it does.

The Dance...probably even SYW was about money. Great actors do the same thing. They go an do a box office's dream movie for the cash so they can fund/and or take a huge hit money wise on other worth while, not-so-commerical projects. I don't doubt their artistic ability for it. I say good for them!

I don't call her a sell out. She's done enough during her career that made me intensely happy to say that. I said that the things she DID recently are sell-outs. Vegas, Henley, that godaweful sell-out-remake of one of the greatest gems ever-Dreams ( great new vocal but a desastrous cheap result), the crappy Stand Back during the footballthing and, I'm interested, but holding my breath for her new Isaak-cooperation. Touring with Petty? That was awesome. Sing with Petty and Vedder? I'd sick a mooses duck to have been there.

I'm not even saying that he's made "dumb marketing choices" -- all I'm saying is that he's not a slave to Warner Bros. He could easily go elsewhere if he honestly and truly wanted to. So many other artists who were unhappy with the "marketing machine" have done that. It can be done... as long as you're willing to work for less.

Another note -

For whatever it's worth, I'm just happy that he's not resting on his laurels at this point...like everyone has said and heard...FM could tour as an oldies act forever and still make bundles of cash and maybe one day they'll do it. But right now, IMO, he's laid his soul on the table again in the form of UTS, he's pushing himself musically and he's still passionate about his work/performing. Everything else aside...that's a true artist.

Again, I agree.
but he didn't do it obviously. Dumb. But still I understand that stretch. It's a wrestling game for him and he's said that often enough.

HAIL for that post. It cannot be a supprise that i agree with you on this.:xoxo:

I'll give you Vegas, but it'd be less of a sell-out if she did anything new and innovative, but as I said earlier, she doesn't have the guts to do so. I wish she was more like Lindsey in that regard for sure. Henley...well, he contacted her about it. She thought it'd be fun. No biggie. The Superbowl performance was more for promo, and they specifically mentioned her touring with Chris Isaak this summer. Besides, it's the freakin' Superbowl, who can say no? Lindsey couldn't say no to the president either. :laugh:

Exactly. :nod: And it's only backed up by his willingness to do another FM album before they go out, because he doesn't want to become a nostalgia act.

US Soundscan totals as of this week (w/e 2-18)-

Under the Skin- 57,761 RTD
Out of the Cradle- 195,277 RTD

The OOTC number shocked me. Go Insane & Law and Order were out before the beginning of the Soundscan era, so their numbers are moot- they only represent sales since that time.

But that is what I mean. With such a legacy it's difficult to prevent doing sell outs. You need guts for that. She hasn't. That's my whole point.

You strageticly tresspassed my point about the Dreams-abomination?

Thanks Hayley. I'll add those to the first post :)

But that's not really a conscious choice she makes, as I said it's part of her personality. You can't change who you are. :shrug:

What? If there was ever anything unStevie-like it was that. She went with the times and redid vocals for a remix of one of her classics. It was something innovative in her book, you can't fault her for that.

How could LB have taken the GoS songs, that WB passed on in 2000, and gone elsewhere? He was an employee of Reprise/WB when all that went down. He may very well have asked WB to release him, under whatever terms that he may have offered them. If they chose to keep him on their roster...what choice did he have? He wanted to release his music and his band was a valid way to do that.

Strand......I do not believe LB "runs back" to FM. Chris and Stevie made it very clear that they had an "intervention" type dinner, at Christine's, to talk him into doing the Dance. The four of them came to LB and talked HIM into doing the Dance. He made money off the tour..but so did everyone else, including La Nicks who DOES run back to FM. It was Stevie who handed LB the potential set list for the next Mac tour in 2007/2008.

Reallu surprised at that OOTC #. Im glad 200,000 heard that album. Its a masterpiece!

I believe he could have shopped it elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong.

If he was still contractually bound to Warners though, I'm sure... again, if he was so desperately unhappy there... that he could have bought himself out of the contract. That's done all of the time, too.

And, of course, none of this explains why he would still want to stay with Warners even after he released his 'Gift Of Screws' material on 'Say You Will.' Doesn't he run the risk that they'll turn their noses up at his material again in the future (such as pushing for a more "radio-friendly" album after 'Under The Skin,' as Lindsey has already intimated that they've done)?

I'm not saying that the man doesn't put himself out there and that he doesn't take chances. I'm also not saying that he's less of an "artist" for staying with a big record label. I guess I just don't understand the mindset of someone who steadfastly refuses to compromise his art, and yet won't take his music to a smaller label that would actually WANT him to be uncompromisingly "Lindsey Buckingham." Somewhere where he'd be a huge fish in a very small pond, instead of a "misunderstood visionary" lost in a sea of pre-manufactured fluff-head pop acts and hip hop "artists."

As far as Stevie "running" back to Fleetwood Mac. I don't know. Her albums sell quite well and her tours bring in quite a bit of revenue. 'Say You Will' has only sold about 200,000 more copies than 'Trouble In Shangri-La'... and Stevie didn't have to split the royalty payments four ways on the latter. "Running back" implies a need (whether that be a financial need or a need for the level of exposure that the name "Fleetwood Mac" brings), and I don't see a need there.

I don't fault her, I said the result is a cheap sell-out. And I agree that one can't change ones personality, but that can't be a reason to LIKE the choices someone makes. I don't like her choices nowadays.