Quote:
Originally Posted by elle
while there were one-off flukes of legendary bands and artists charting high with new music, from what i've seen overall trend seems to be exactly the opposite - they make tons of money on overpriced tours that are #1 tours of the years when they are out on the road, but their new music albums are just to feed their creative soul and prove to themselves and others they are still artistically relevant. for example, while coming out with some fanfare, don't think most recent Rolling Stones album sold much or charted very high. or U2's.
here and there you have new album reaching #1 (like Bowie's did), but that is generally a result of either excellent PR or a set of other circumstances - or both. we know that Mac has one of the most crappy PR support systems out there, so the chances of a FM album being a commercial success seem low to none.
LB is well aware of that and doesn't expect it. Mick has also said in some interviews he doesn't expect their new album would sell. so commercial aspects of an album are almost non-existent, and while some fans seem to be hung up on those, i don't think the band is.
what i think the band is more worried about is the perception of reunion-breakup-reunion pattern or something like that (goes back to crappy PR!). which has been sown into the very fabric of FM so that's also something they should not be worried about.
|
I don't think high chart placements from classic bands is a fluke. It takes maybe 80-90k to hit the top spot. That's why you have a lot of old bands or artists, like James Taylor and David Bowie among others (hell, even "Weird Al" Yankovic), getting their first number one album so late in their career. It's because the threshold is exponentially lower than it used to be. Fleetwood Mac would have a very good chance at it. A better chance than they had in 2003 even when they sold 200,000 and made it to #3. They wouldn't sell near that much but could still chart higher.
09-24-2016, 01:59 PM
Threaded Mode