For Jimmy: Lindsey's chart/sales info

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by #1LiddyBuckFan

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.

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

[danax6]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

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'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.

Originally Posted by #1LiddyBuckFan

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.

Exactly. 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.

[hayley]

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.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by danax6

she doesn't have the guts to do so.

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?

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by hayley

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.

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

[danax6]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

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.

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.

You strageticly tresspassed my point about the Dreams-abomination?

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.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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.

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.

[AliceLover]

Originally Posted by hayley

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.

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

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Kelly

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.

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."

Originally Posted by Kelly

Strand......I do not believe LB "runs back" to FM.
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.

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.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by danax6

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.

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.

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

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?

I never said LB was not an artist. In fact, I have repeatedly called him brilliant - even if some of his stuff is not for me, etc.

I am just taking issue with the position that LB's selling out is somehow less of a sell out than La Nicks' deal. Clearly, La Nicks is not about being adventerous (though she has her moments) and LB is. Does that make one a better artist than the other? I say no because (to use another example) Cézanne bridged late 19th century Impressionism and the early 20th century's new line of artistic enquiry, Cubism. Does that make is folowers Matisse and Picasso (who call Cezanne "the father of us all") any less of an artist because they were not that relatively adventerous. I say no. Same thing for La Nicks and LB.

In the end, I think it is possible to be overtly commercial and still an artist. Them's fighting words to the LB fans though because they seemingly cannot abide any talk of LB having any interest in money, a position the facts belie.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

. . . But her recent public appearances are sell outs. whatever you talk around it. Just calling a spade a spade.

Both heer and his set lists are mostly hit (and note she has way more hits) with some non-hits put in there. So, how is she selling out more than he is

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by #1LiddyBuckFan

. . . Why do they have to be torn at all? . . . .

Lord Child - be careful with that crazy talk around here - LB is NEVER about the money - EVER He cares only about the music and nothing more - even if it may break their will - oops I meant only kill - I mean errrrrrrr

(this post is meant light hearted and to enrage Gerald, whom I love)

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Both heer and his set lists are mostly hit (and note she has way more hits) with some non-hits put in there. So, how is she selling out more than he is

yes, she simply is.

Come on dude. Listen to his new album and tour. It's not just setlist, also HOW you perform old hits. That tight threepiece ensemble with electronic drums is something else. And besides that: The energy!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

. . . You strageticly tresspassed my point about the Dreams-abomination?

I love how when she does something a little out there for her, it is horrid. When LB makes something essentially unlistenable to the masses, it is great art.

I love the Dreams redo by Deep Dish and think it was adventerous of her to reach out to these at the time hot young artists. Of course, she could have sold the song to a car rental company for their commercial, which is wholly artistic in every possible fashion and has nothing to do with money