Moving the goalposts won't work with me.
Hell why not just talk about the club shows they were doing in 1981?
HELLO, the vast majority of people did not know who U2 were in 1981.
In 1997, they had been the most popular band in the world for 10 years. HUGE DIFFERENCE!
Because if you're going to change the context of the debate, might as well go to the most extreme example...oh wait, POPMart is the extreme example.
Didn't change anything. You said U2 could sellout anywhere simply based on their name. I simply showed you that was not the case.
Different time, different place, different context, different U2, different expectation, different status OR you could say it was a prematurely booked tour, with an undercooked album and a mismanaged promotional design. Any number of issues, the bottom line is, U2 in 2009 is not U2 in 1981 or 1997.
I don't know why you keep going back to 1981 when almost nobody knew who U2 were. U2 become the most popular band in the world in 1987. The NAME, the iconic status, everything started with that year. In 1997, U2 were 10 years in to being the most popular band in the world.
IF, as you claim, they could just rely on their name, POPMART would have been soldout everywhere. It wasn't, not even close.
From 1993, which was the end of ZooTV to Spring of 1997, U2 were all but dead to the mainstream/pop culture world. Even Zooropa and Passengers sold rather lightly. When U2 returned in 1997, before the album had barely been on store shelves and before (maybe even the night before, IIRC) the tour started, they aired a primetime special here in America on ABC.
Well, what were U2 to mainstream/pop culture world in 2006, 2007, 2008? Tour did not start until nearly 2 months after the album had been released.
Last I heard, it was still the lowest rated primetime special in American broadcast network history. And this was in the earliest days of POP and POPmart!!
Well, how many music artist can you name before that time had, had a primetime American broadcast special on a major network? The ratings are irrelevant as if comparing how many people watched a show about ONLY U2 compared to your normal nightly viewed TV programs and specials.
The fact that U2 actually had a special on a major network just about the band is what is significant. Back then, most artist had NEVER had that. I can't recall any in fact.
When it was getting good reviews and nobody had even seen the tour yet!! Does this illustrate how bad things were for U2 at that point?
Well, according to you, it does not matter. The NAME U2 will insure sellouts everywhere.
Yet you want to ask this silly question in comparison to a U2 that plays halftime at the Super Bowl and wins buckets full of Grammy's? I can't be the only person who thinks this comparison is absurd.
Janet Jackson has also played the Super Bowl, but she struggles to fill arena's. Also, U2 had won Grammy awards before POP.
It appears you might be uninformed about U2's popularity and success, prior to this decade.
U2 in 2001 or 2004 or 2009, that had or were experiencing this 21st century renaissance and the U2 from 1997 simply aren't seen as the same band, in more ways than one.
Doesn't matter. 1987 through 1993 was the most successful period of U2's career in terms of expanding their fan base. IF as you claim U2 could just rely on their NAME, POPMART would have been soldout everywhere. It wasn't!
It is entirely your opinion what those sales figures and airplay data are supposed to mean. The data is the data, your presentation of the data, in your comparison is arbitrary. Nothing but a subjective opinion. You aren't saying, here is the data, make up your own mind. You're saying, here is the data and this is what it means. In other words, you're pretending that it's a given objective fact that the album was a "success". Why?
For the second time now, I have never said that. I have only said that objective facts about the album sales could be used to support someone's subjective opinion about the quality of the albums.
The album was a success in terms of sales. Thats an objective fact. I've never stated that ones opinion about the quality of the album is anything other than subjective.
What dollar figure constitutes "success"? How many units sold constitutes success? Is it all relative to profit? What amount of profit constitutes "success"? What is any objective factual barometer of "success"?
If you want to say it's X-units sold or X-dollars made, then every album meeting that criteria would be a "success". Are you prepared to say this?
From a business standpoint, yes.
Even if you did, how did you come up with the number?
Did you make it up? Where do you find an objective standard for "success" without making it up yourself?
Well, there is the RIAA which does official audits for record companies album sales. Soundscan which tracks sales from retail outlets. Amusement Business which tracks concert ticket sales. Nobody makes this stuff up. Real sales, tracked and recorded by the organizations listed.
What about the airplay, what is the 'sufficient' number of proper airplay?
Where did you get it?
Broadcast Data Systems monitors all radio airplay across the country and provides the data use to make the HOT 100 AIRPLAY ONLY CHART. These charts are printed in Billboard Magazine as well as being shown on their Website. Billboard Magazine is the music business magazine of the industry.
That qoute (
The "success DESPITE the lack of airplay) is an objective fact ) is only an objective fact being used to support my opinion on the album. My opinion is still subjective, and always will be with regards to the quality of the album.
You're looking beyond the idea that you are qualifying what the actual "facts" are supposed to mean. If "success despite the lack of airplay" is an objective fact, then tell us how you arrived at this conclusion without inserting any subjectivity into it.
We know factually what the airplay levels were for ATYCLB and HTDAAB. We know factually what the sales levels were as well. We know these things for POP. This is an indisputable fact that can be sited with sources. There is nothing subjective about it.
Its a fact that radio airplay can have a major impact on sales. When radio airplay drops significantly, but sales go up significantly, then something else is at work.
Here are your facts, ATYCLB and HTDAAB both sold X and Y units respectively and the airplay was XZ and XY respectively. You've got 4 pieces of data, therefore if I measure these pieces of data alone, it should tell me the same thing you are suggesting, if we are both being objective.
1- Where does the standard for what is sufficient airplay come from?
2- Where does the standard for "success" come from?
Well, first your missing POP's sales and airplay. So you should have 6 pieces of data.
1. The standard for airplay and its impact on sales comes from the HOT 100 airplay chart. Record companies and artist know from past experience that the best chance of selling lots of albums comes from having singles chart in the top 40, top 20, or even better top 10 of the HOT 100 Airplay chart which is based on what is being played on the radio all over the country. Essentially, radio airplay is an advertisement for the album. The more heavily advertised a product or service is, the better chance it has of selling.
2. The standard for a successful album obviously comes from how much it sells.
You think saying an album was successful based on sales data is an objective fact. The objective fact is Album XYZ sold 10 million units. That's inarguable. What you're doing is assigning merit to what that number is supposed to mean.
Well, if you want to call an album that sold 10 million copies a failure, I suppose you could. Generally in any business, most products that sell well are considered a success. If you think "success" in Business and Economics is subjective then you might have a point there, but again, your now going off on a different tangent.
My may point is still the sales data and airplay. Higher sales DESPITE lower airplay.
The airplay is the same thing, there is no "lack of airplay" without being ENTIRELY subjective, this implies there is a 'correct' (and apparently objective) amount of sufficient airplay.
POP was only able to sell 1.5 million copies with the following airplay from its singles:
Discotheque: #22
Staring At The Sun: #16
Last Night On Earth: #74
ATYCLB sold 4.5 million in the USA with the following airplay:
Beautiful Day: #19
Stuck In A Moment: #56
HTDAAB sold 3.2 million in the USA with the following airplay:
Vertigo: #30
POP had higher airplay than either ATYCLB or HTDAAB. BUT, POP sold less than half of what ATYCLB or HTDAAB.
ATYCLB had lower airplay than POP. BUT ATYCLB sold about 3 times as many albums.
HTDAAB had lower airplay than POP. BUT HTDAAB sold more than twice as many albums.
Therefore "success despite the lack of airplay" is completely subjective.
How about this:
ATYCLB sold three times as many copies as POP DESPITE having lower airplay.
HTDAAB sold twice as many copies as POP, DESPITE having lower airplay.
Is that objective enough for ya? Thats the whole point I have been making all along with the sales and airplay comparisons.
Again, I used these objective facts to support my opinion about the album which of course is always subjective. In terms of the quality of the album good, bad etc., no one has been attempting to make that an objective fact.
