The music industry is NO different today than it was 10... 20... 40 years ago. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-31-2003, 11:16 AM   #16
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On Detonation Boulevard
Posts: 553
Local Time: 07:38 AM
A recent change in the music industry has been the decision to not let albums re-enter the chart after they've dropped out. I don't understand why, and I can't see a good reason for it. Anybody know the facts?

Maybe that's why Pink Foyd keep on re-releasing Dark Side of the Moon every few years.
__________________

__________________
Mirrorball Man is offline  
Old 08-31-2003, 12:22 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,542
Local Time: 08:38 AM
I think they installed that policy to allow more new albums enter the charts. This way there is no 496th re-entry of Dark Side Of The Moon, but instead an album of a new artist. Makes sense to me, although you miss the albums that have a record-breaking stay in the charts (you know, like charting for years).

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 09-02-2003, 11:31 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 02:38 AM
How many record companies were around in the 1960s?

How many record companies are around today?

It is getting worse, to deny that is crazy. Wall Street saw all those kids going to Woodstock, jamming up the freeways, and idea went off in their head. They saw huge cash potential.
Where is the regional hit? Where is the DJ who doesn't follow a playlist? How many radio stations were independent in the 1960's? How many of them are owned by Clear Channel now?
Realise this, if U2, REM, Bruce Springsteen, were trying to get big now, we'd hear 1 or 2 records from each of them, then they'd be dropped and never get to make Born to Run, Achtung Baby, or Document. It does suck today, stop the apology and understanding for white men in suites selling their "PRODUCT". I love music, it saves.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 09-02-2003, 11:48 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 07:38 AM
posted by Angela Harlem:
I predict though, that bands like Creed will be our children's Rolling Stones. *We* here at Interference don't like them, but we represent a finite percentage of the music buying public. For every one of us, there are possibly 10 people out there who think they are the second coming.
____________________________________________

You are so very wrong.

I'm just starting to work in the industry and I take part in about half a dozen music forums, and believe me we here at interference are not even close to the only people that hate Creed. In fact I've seen more people stick up for them here then anywhere else. I have only met ONE person ever who actually admitted that they liked them and bought their albums. They are hated, and in my opinion, only high school age, middle America, mullet wearing goons buy their records. And unfortunately there's a new crop of them every year.
___________________________________________
Wesley Clark For President
DraftWesleyClark.com
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-02-2003, 12:44 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 02:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yertle-the-turtle
led zeppelin --> poison --> creed.
I think Led Zeppelin may have influenced a "hard rock" scene, but to put them in a line with Poison (a pure pop band) and Creed (I don't really need to say anything about them).

I realize it is not your personal taste, but Led Zeppelin was inventive...something Poison and Creed do not have.
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 09-02-2003, 02:18 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
MissVelvetDress_75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: basking in my post-concert glow still mesmerized by the orbit of his hips..Also Holding Bono Close as he requested.
Posts: 25,776
Local Time: 02:38 AM
Re: The music industry is NO different today than it was 10... 20... 40 years ago.

Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
I always see a lot of bitching about how the music industry today sucks, and how everyone years for the olden days when music had meaning... when people wrote their own songs... when pop acts didn't dominate the music scene so let's take a look back at some of the singles that had time at #1 back in 1993...

1. I Will Always Love You, Whitney Houston
2. Whoomp! (There It Is), Tag Team
3. Can't Help Falling In Love, UB40
4. That's The Way Love Goes, Janet Jackson
5. Freak, Silk
6. Weak, SWV
7. If I Ever Fall In Love, Shai
8. Dreamlover, Mariah Carey
9. Rump Shaker, Wreckx-N-Effect
10. Informer, Snow

and what about 20 years ago... 1983...

1 EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE, The Police
2 BILLIE JEAN, Michael Jackson
3 FLASHDANCE...WHAT A FEELING, Irene Cara
4 DOWN UNDER, Men At Work
5 BEAT IT, Michael Jackson
6 TOTAL ECLIPSE OF THE HEART, Bonnie Tyler
7 MANEATER, Daryl Hall and John Oates
8 BABY COME TO ME, Patti Austin and James Ingram
9 MANIAC, Michael Sembello
10 SWEET DREAMS (Are Made Of This), The Eurythmics

thank you for posting this. lol this brings me back to high school and my elem school days. lmao i had a dance routine to MANIAC. those 1993 songs were my songs for spring break in PC Beach. INFORMER!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHA!
__________________
MissVelvetDress_75 is offline  
Old 09-02-2003, 02:33 PM   #22
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On Detonation Boulevard
Posts: 553
Local Time: 07:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn
I think they installed that policy to allow more new albums enter the charts. This way there is no 496th re-entry of Dark Side Of The Moon, but instead an album of a new artist. Makes sense to me, although you miss the albums that have a record-breaking stay in the charts (you know, like charting for years).
C ya!Marty
Does anyone know which chart these albums re-appear in? Or even if there is one? Ta.
__________________
Mirrorball Man is offline  
Old 09-02-2003, 02:44 PM   #23
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On Detonation Boulevard
Posts: 553
Local Time: 07:38 AM

Actually, Gary Numan was on Top of the Pops a month or two ago!!! And it's always good to see U2 on there, and Depeche Mode. But then I'm biaised
__________________
Mirrorball Man is offline  
Old 09-03-2003, 12:31 PM   #24
The Fly
 
violetfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: another time, another place
Posts: 84
Local Time: 07:38 AM
It's an interesting way to look at things, watching the top 40 although the list doesn't neccessarily affect what I enjoy in music, in fact most of my favourite acts are not represented by any top 40 lists. In the end I guess there will always be a balance of stuff I can't listen to and stuff I love and rarely will I find that the things I love, will be enjoyed by everyone. Perhaps its my quirky tastes.

Aside from Michael Jackson and the Police, one can't deny the Eurythmics and Men at Work their fair share. Down Under is a fantastic song and I'm happy it made it as far as it did.
__________________

__________________
violetfly is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com