SYW vs TISL sales figures

Christopher · #1 09-19-2003, 12:22 PM

I dont think anyone posted this yet, and I know there has been interest in SYW sales numbers compared to Stevies' TISL 2 yrs ago....I dont know about you guys but before the release of SYW I was totally expecting Fleetwood Mac to sell at least double of what Stevie did!!....so does this make SYW a failure sales wise...?? Also these numbers may give creedence to the fact that miss Stevie may just go ahead and do another solo record...... the only thing to keep her in Fleetwood Mac would be to do big business on the road....and I really dont think they'll ever do another concert tour on this scale again.

This is from Billboard.com in the Ask Billboard section posted this week:

STALKING STEVIE

Keith,

Can you let me know how many copies have sold to date of Stevie Nicks' "Trouble in Shangri-La" as well as Fleetwood Mac's "Say You Will?" Also, I was curious if any of the songs from Stevie's last album like "Everyday" or "Planets of the Universe", or the title track from "Say You Will" hit Billboard's Hot 100 Bubbling Under chart.

Thanks for your time,

Jim

Hi Jim,

According to Nielsen SoundScan, Fleetwood Mac's "Say You Will" has sold 733,000 copies in the U.S., while Stevie Nicks' "Trouble in Shangri-La" has moved 638,000. The latter was released in May 2001.

Neither "Everyday" nor "Planets Of The Universe" reached Billboard's Hot 100 Bubbling Under chart. However, "Everyday" reached No. 17 on the Adult Contemporary survey, while "Planets" became a big club hit, hitting No. 1 on the Hot Dance/Club Play chart.

"Say You Will" never reached the Bubbling Under chart either - though it also peaked at No. 17 on the Adult Contemporary chart.

tommer · #2 09-19-2003, 01:11 PM

embarrassing numbers, for both mac and stevie...

Johnny Stew · #3 09-19-2003, 01:35 PM

The numbers aren't into the millions like her first three albums were, within the first couple years of their release... but I don't think 638,000 copies sold in the US is embarrassing, when you consider Stevie's age, the average age of her core fanbase, and the fact that she's female (not trying to sound sexist, but with only a few exceptions, female artists always sell less than their male peers).

Stevie's doing better than her female peers (Pat Benatar, Heart, etc.), and she's even doing better (or least comparable) numbers to some of her male peers.
For example, Paul McCartney's 'Driving Rain' is "only" gold, and Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers' 'The Last DJ' hasn't even been certified gold yet.

As usual, sales figures are not necessarily indicitive of quality, but in a discussion of sales, I don't see how Stevie's numbers are anything less than impressive, when all factors are considered.

However, I would expect bigger numbers from Fleetwood Mac... especially considering the additional promotion they received, and the breadth of this tour.

hayley · #4 09-19-2003, 01:57 PM

As of this week, the album's actually scanned 739,575 copies.

This is NOT bad. That is NOT embarassing.

Let's use an example- how about Sting. Sting was about a thousand times more commercially viable when Brand New Day came out then Fleetwood Mac is today, simply based on the market. It took Sting nearly four months to hit 750,000 copies sold. It took him nearly five months to reach platinum status, and the last month of that includes when Desert Rose began to hit.

Fleetwood Mac, operating without a huge radio presence, is doing very well compared to similar bands... Steely Dan, considered a relatively large surprise in terms of their continued success, has only sold 140,000 more copies of their record after its 90K opening week three months ago. 140K in three months? 750K in five ain't bad. I know Steely Dan might seem like a stretch in comparison, but honestly- the record company was expecting them to perform no better than SD, and a lot of the public associate them as similar bands, similar stature. (sad but true)

With Grammy nominations coming up (and they will be) and the tour continuing to be successful, they'll pass platinum with change to spare. And platinum is NOT a bad thing.

If Fleetwood Mac really wanted a huge smash record, they wouldn't have released a record like Say You Will... they would've played it more safe and released a shorter, more radio friendly album. Instead, they decided to court success on their own terms- and if you look at it like that- they released a record that's relatively difficult for casual fans or new listeners to attach to because of it's length and "out there"ness- it's VERY successful for what it is.

gldstwmn · #5 09-19-2003, 03:01 PM

Maybe their management could arrange for Mick and John to make out at the podium at this year's Grammy awards and then their record would sell a whole bunch more copies.

diamondsnake · #6 09-19-2003, 03:32 PM

I think those numbers are very good! I mean, think about it... Most people I know at least just download music from the web. That means that out of maybe 25% of the population that still buys CDs, 700,000 copies were sold. When you think of it like that, it is comparable to their older records. Because, back then non of this piracy was going on.

tommer · #7 09-19-2003, 04:41 PM

Quote:

but I don't think 638,000 copies sold in the US is embarrassing,

ok, so "embarressing" may be a bit harsh, but if you consider the number of people who attended their concerts this summer, you'll see that apparently many of them didn't even bother buying the album.

Quote:

Stevie's doing better than her female peers (Pat Benatar, Heart, etc.),

right, but then again, both Heart and Pat don't have a major label contract, or a worldwide release deal, both of them also records cheaply, in their releases you won't find this huge galleries of the finest professional musicians, nor will they ever dare to shelf recordings made with dallas austin in the process.

Quote:

As usual, sales figures are not necessarily indicitive of quality, but in a discussion of sales, I don't see how Stevie's numbers are anything less than impressive, when all factors are considered.

true, but especially today, you have to measure in terms of it's financial success, profit and investment. you can sell 6 or 3 million and still lose money (if you're michael jackson or mariah carey)

Quote:

It took Sting nearly four months to hit 750,000 copies sold.

i think Stink sells 70% of his records outside the states.

EricBliss12345 · #8 09-19-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diamondsnake
When you think of it like that, it is comparable to their older records. Because, back then non of this piracy was going on.

Weren't Fleetwood Mac the first band to have an album played on the radio in it's entirety, and a week before release or something like that? Who WOULDN'T have taped it and said screw buying it? Tusk cost more at the time of it's release then than it does now on CD. And I can't imagine that the majority of the Rumours fans would be excited to go out and buy it after they heard how off the wall Tusk was, especially considering the price.

Piracy has always been going on, it's just in a different format now, and it's always something different. Back in the 80s people thought home taping/trading was destroying the record industry, in the 90's and 00's it's music downloading. The RIAA always wants to blame somebody else besides themselves for poor sales of poor music.

Sorcerer386 · #9 09-19-2003, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tommer
ok, so "embarressing" may be a bit harsh, but if you consider the number of people who attended their concerts this summer, you'll see that apparently many of them didn't even bother buying the album.

Actually, I don't really think that's true. You figure FM has done 50 dates so far (I'm estimating, don't really know). So, if they average 10,000 people per show, that's 500,000 people. Plus, it seems MANY people see numerous shows. Then you have the families who go, for example my mother and father went with me (now that I've totally embarrassed myself by admitting that). And yes, there are a large number of people I'm sure who only went to the concert to see the hits. Still, it's hard to accurately say "many" of them didn't buy the album -- we can't be sure.

In hindsight, I think the album would have sold better if Christine were on it, and if she were on tour. Even though, imo, SYW is a much better album than BTM, there just seems to be this sort of jinx on FM that if all five members aren't present, the album just won't sell as well. And I'm not counting on the Grammies helping out FM...I was let down with TISL.

joe68 · #10 09-20-2003, 09:00 AM

My answer:

TISL is an excellent Stevie Nicks record w/ videos. She hit all the talk shows, all the magazines and had tons of exposure. Remember when VH1 debuted her record on their website and the thing crashed within minutes?!

SYW is a so-so Fleetwood Mac record (at best) w/ no videos. Appearances on Leno and Today were embarassing, plus touring adds nothing to sales anymore, unless you're 20 years old waiting for a record to break. They created huge buzz before the record came out, but when people actually listened to it and word of mouth spread, many just dont like this record. Nuff said.

ShangriLaTroubl · #11 09-20-2003, 12:00 PM

I wouldn't say that many don't like this album...but I could venture to say that for the most part it IS an album designed for the hardcore fans...which is fine by me...I think the band is at a point in their career where hell, they go out on the road play for thousands of fans...many of them are knowing the songs at the shows (more and more as the tour progresses) things ARE going good for them....and I like where this band is...

Chris

wondergirl9847 · #12 09-20-2003, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joe68
SYW is a so-so Fleetwood Mac record (at best)

It's, IMO, a perfect record (sans Silver Girl's horrific lyrics), I love it!! Of course, I'm no Rumours-only fanatic.

Those people are stuck in a time warp or something. You know, I love music from when I was a kid too, but dang, I can move with the times also.

Janet · #13 09-20-2003, 12:45 PM

Do you know how many people tell me they aren't seeing the show because Christine is not in it and because they are older?

People have been fans of FM a long time. Many people don't want it changed and without Christine, its really changed. She added her own charm and that charm is totally missing. That feminine , light, britishness she had, and her light pretty songs. Thats totally gone and people miss that.

But they will hit a million, by Grammy time Im sure

ShangriLaTroubl · #14 09-20-2003, 02:04 PM

I think if they were to release THROWN DOWN with an actual video...the album would come back up the charts...

Chris

diamondsnake · #15 09-20-2003, 02:52 PM

I really don't understand why they wouldn't have just let Christine do the album and not the tour. I have read she was intrested in doing the cd with them, but she hated traveling. So, why did she have to do both? They are only playing a handful of new songs at the concerts. Would it have really been a big deal to teach a new pianist to do Christine's parts on the new songs?

She could have really added a lot to this cd and made it a hit. She had the most catchy songs and the ones people knew by heart! I know that I just became a fan during the dance and Christine was the one I was first amazed by. I loved her! She could have made this album a success!