Why Radiohead has got so poor sales in the US?

[Bastian]

I know Radiohead has got a large following in the States and it's considered the "next best band in the world" by many people, so I was surprised by the RIAA certifications for this band.

OK COMPUTER, their most acclaimed album, achieved only a mere platinum status while it reached the top 10(#8) on the "best album of all time" readers' poll of the Rolling Stone magazine

I know that Radiohead's albums haven't got any smash hit and am aware of the alternative nature of their music but I cannot believe that OK COMPUTER, unanimously considered as one of the most important and influential album of the 90s, sold just like POP that is the real U2 commercial and artistic disaster!

How is that possible?

 

[doctorwho]

Side Note: I am a so-so fan of Radiohead. I did not rush out to buy "O.K. Computer", but did so after hearing many people, in various U2 forums, praise the album. I have given the album many listens since 1997 and have yet to be won over by it. In fact, I pretty much hate the album. Therefore, I would hardly consider it "important".

But I digress... I think the people who call this album "influential" are the critics and some bands (like U2) - not the general public. Yes, Radiohead has their fans and enough to generate first week sales of around 200,000 copies (which can be enough for a #1 debut - depending on the week). But they haven't had a hit song in years and, as a result, their albums quickly fall from the charts.

I believe it is a case of simply being TOO experimental (which I actually think is Radiohead's biggest fault). Their songs, in recent years, have little mainstream appeal. Without that appeal, sales will be flat.

A hit song can do wonders for an album. For example, Kid Rock's latest album has been out for over a year. Its sales were slumping and not even close to that of its predecessor. However, thanks to a new hit song from that album - that is now charting - the albums sales have spiked! The album is now in the Top 10. We also saw this with U2. Thanks to "Stuck in a Moment..." U2's ATYCLB rose from #110+ back into the Top 40 on the album charts. Therefore, without these hit songs, Radiohead's albums will always fall short of big sales.

 

[Bastian]

Why then an album like Pink Floyd's Dark side of the moon was able to sell 15 million copies without any hit song (maybe just the song Money)?
And the amazing thing is that it's selling among 5-8k copies each week after 30 years since its release!!
I can't actually understand the Pink Floyd phenomenon in the US,
I really like them but it's a mistery to me to know how it was able to break the hard market rules based on the promotional push of the hit songs...

 

[doctorwho]

Pink Floyd's album was released during a time when the public was open to such music. For example, in 1978, a disco song would race to the top of the charts. Come 1980, that same song would flop. Is the song "bad"? Of course not - but it's the public's willingness to accept such material.

Pink Floyd's work is experimental, but at that time, the public was willing to accept it. Now, that type of music is not considered accessible. Moby created the brilliant album "Play". However, it took a commercial before the public started accepting it - and it became a hit. Some may call this a "sell-out" but I give Moby credit. He had to find a way to get his more experimental sound into the mind's of the unwilling mainstream.

In a few years, perhaps Radiohead will dominate the charts because the public will find that music outstanding. One never knows...

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

radiohead on kid a released zero singles, received almost no airplay for anything and still went to number 1.

i believe that album is certified as platinum.

amnesiac later on went on to have stronger opening week sales compared to kid a, but didnt get to number 1. they released two singles - pyramid song and knives out. not single songs, but singles nevertheless.

clearly they are not out their strictly for commercial success. which is great. artistic integrity is all that matters anyway.

 

[womanfish]

artistic integrity doesn't mean a hell of a lot if no one hears your music.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

artistic integrity doesn't mean a hell of a lot if no one hears your music.

in light of the band were talking about, i think your statement is rediculous.

despite that even, they went to number 1 in the states.

so noone hears them? right.

 

[u2popmofo]

.

clearly they are not out their strictly for commercial success. which is great. artistic integrity is all that matters anyway.

I completely agree.

 

[womanfish]

in light of the band were talking about, i think your statement is rediculous.

despite that even, they went to number 1 in the states.

so noone hears them? right.

Actually your reply is rediculous. Your initial statement was that "Artististic integrity is the ONLY thing that matters" Just because you are making that statement with Radiohead in mind doesn't change the statement. A painter or musician or any artist could toil away in their studio their whole life just pleasing themselves with their own artistic integrity. But what does it mean? Not a whole hell of a lot if no one sees or hears it. So to me it is not the ONLY thing that matters. Part of what matters for an artist is to share their vision/feelings/statements/creations with the world.

On the flip side, speaking of Radiohead, who obviously have an audience. If you think that they are just about their own artistic integrity and not about sales and chart positions, you my friend are very naive. Radiohead's whole marketing campaign is to be strange, experimental, elusive. It's what drives their target audience. They are the safe "underground" "alternative" band to like. Thus you will find OK Computer sandwiched neatly between a Dave Matthews CD and Blink 182 CD in just about every dorm room in America. It's their marketing ploy to be reclusive and experimental, just like it's Avril's marketing ploy to be "punk". I think their music has suffered from it, others don't. I can't stand to listen to their last 3 albums, but the critics jumped on them like stink on a monkey and consumers followed suit (for a little while at least).

 

[WHYWHY]

BAH HUMBUG!



God Bless.

WHYWHY.

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

I think that marketing ploy of Radiohead does exist, but I dont think they do it consciously. They keep their artistic integrity and all that, but because of that they have this edgy, alternative, underground feel about them. Dont get me wrong, I love Radiohead, but I think sometimes artistic integrity works against them.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

Actually your reply is rediculous. Your initial statement was that "Artististic integrity is the ONLY thing that matters" Just because you are making that statement with Radiohead in mind doesn't change the statement. A painter or musician or any artist could toil away in their studio their whole life just pleasing themselves with their own artistic integrity. But what does it mean? Not a whole hell of a lot if no one sees or hears it. So to me it is not the ONLY thing that matters. Part of what matters for an artist is to share their vision/feelings/statements/creations with the world.

On the flip side, speaking of Radiohead, who obviously have an audience. If you think that they are just about their own artistic integrity and not about sales and chart positions, you my friend are very naive. Radiohead's whole marketing campaign is to be strange, experimental, elusive. It's what drives their target audience. They are the safe "underground" "alternative" band to like. Thus you will find OK Computer sandwiched neatly between a Dave Matthews CD and Blink 182 CD in just about every dorm room in America. It's their marketing ploy to be reclusive and experimental, just like it's Avril's marketing ploy to be "punk". I think their music has suffered from it, others don't. I can't stand to listen to their last 3 albums, but the critics jumped on them like stink on a monkey and consumers followed suit (for a little while at least).

your a tosser. please stay in free your mind where i cant be bothered. thanks.

 

[The Wanderer]

hopefully they wont remix songs from the last 3 albums then to get them accessible enough to be on the next U2 attack of the clones best of episode

if radiohead where in it strictly for popularity and record sales, they would record most of their music with basic acoustic and electric guitar formats, with a little more emphasis on the chorus bits, because their actual tunes themselves can be quite catchy but they present them often in a way that makes it worth listening to more than once or twice

artistic integrity, regardless of popular success, is an artist who strives to produce the best art possible from their own perspective and intellect, the moment you sense an artist is making art to please someone else, it's gone -- doesn't mean the product cant still be good, but it does mean the artist lacks that artistic integrity

could it just be that radiohead is truly eccentric and weird? often doing things at random in an unorthodox manner to keep the experience fresh and interesting for themselves?

conversely, I dont see U2 being around much more, they look to be quite bored with themselves, it's getting to be a great chore for them to finish anything new, and they have gotten incredibly conservative in their approach to everything

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

hopefully they wont remix songs from the last 3 albums then to get them accessible enough to be on the next U2 attack of the clones best of episode

if radiohead where in it strictly for popularity and record sales, they would record most of their music with basic acoustic and electric guitar formats, with a little more emphasis on the chorus bits, because their actual tunes themselves can be quite catchy but they present them often in a way that makes it worth listening to more than once or twice

artistic integrity, regardless of popular success, is an artist who strives to produce the best art possible from their own perspective and intellect, the moment you sense an artist is making art to please someone else, it's gone -- doesn't mean the product cant still be good, but it does mean the artist lacks that artistic integrity

could it just be that radiohead is truly eccentric and weird? often doing things at random in an unorthodox manner to keep the experience fresh and interesting for themselves?

conversely, I dont see U2 being around much more, they look to be quite bored with themselves, it's getting to be a great chore for them to finish anything new, and they have gotten incredibly conservative in their approach to everything

i agree, although reluctantly with the last paragraph.

 

[The Wanderer]

i dunno, maybe i hold U2 to too high a standard, they're just starting to feel too much like Springsteen and other aging rock stars

 

[Salome]

could it just be that radiohead is truly eccentric and weird?

very possible and most likely true

I also don't doubt it's being cultivated for promotional reasons

 

[The Wanderer]

absolutely.

 

[u2popmofo]

i dunno, maybe i hold U2 to too high a standard, they're just starting to feel too much like Springsteen and other aging rock stars

Ouch. It hurts cause it's true.

Hopefully we'll get kicked in the pants by a new album.

 

[womanfish]

your a tosser. please stay in free your mind where i cant be bothered. thanks.

Well your personal attack should get this thread locked, but it doesn't change the fact that Radiohead does use their musical experimentation to fill a niche in the music market.

I have been posting chart stats and news since Interference started and well before that on Wire, so I will continue to be a regular poster here and you can go trolling for the next random radiohead thread.

 

[The Wanderer]

personal attack???

haha, personal attack would have been him calling you Tie Domi

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

Well your personal attack should get this thread locked, but it doesn't change the fact that Radiohead does use their musical experimentation to fill a niche in the music market.

I have been posting chart stats and news since Interference started and well before that on Wire, so I will continue to be a regular poster here and you can go trolling for the next random radiohead thread.

such a diplomat.

youve done a lot for the u2 community, and i respect you for it. however, it appears your knowledge regarding radiohead appears to be lacking. its painfully obvious here.

 

[Popmartijn]

Ouch. It hurts cause it's true.

Hopefully we'll get kicked in the pants by a new album.

Can I disagree here? Not to hijack this thread, but it's still no shame for U2 to be in the same league as Bruce Springsteen. He's one of the few artists that's still amazing after so many years.

C ya!

Marty

 

[womanfish]

such a diplomat.

youve done a lot for the u2 community, and i respect you for it. however, it appears your knowledge regarding radiohead appears to be lacking. its painfully obvious here.

I just don't like to resort to namecalling.

Radiohead recorded one of my all time favorite albums ever with The Bends. Then began to delve into areas that didn't interest me as much. They got a LOT of critical acclaim for "breaking new boundaries" with OK, Kid A, etc... They became the critical darlings, thus causing interest in the public and getting solid sales numbers. I must admit that my knowledge of Radiohead is fairly limited, other than the fact that I used to think they sounded good, and now I think their good songs are few and far between. And it has seemed to me that they stuck to this path of experimentation because it was getting them great reviews, public attention, and solid sales. I don't think that's too much of a stretch.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

I just don't like to resort to namecalling.

Radiohead recorded one of my all time favorite albums ever with The Bends. Then began to delve into areas that didn't interest me as much. They got a LOT of critical acclaim for "breaking new boundaries" with OK, Kid A, etc... They became the critical darlings, thus causing interest in the public and getting solid sales numbers. I must admit that my knowledge of Radiohead is fairly limited, other than the fact that I used to think they sounded good, and now I think their good songs are few and far between. And it has seemed to me that they stuck to this path of experimentation because it was getting them great reviews, public attention, and solid sales. I don't think that's too much of a stretch.

fair enough, that is your opinion. and my opinion is that any band thats been away for over three years and comes back by doing only two press interviews, releases no singles and shy's away from all media attention is a pretty shitty attempt at raising public awareness.

then there are the songs themselves, which is anything but mainstream.

 

[u2popmofo]

How do people really thing that Ok Computer is some excessively experimental album?

I sure dont.

 

[IWasBored]

all i know is that when i went to buy the kid a album, it was sold out and i had to go to a different store...

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

as far as im concerned, radiohead really arent that far "out there" as many people think they are.

 

[u2popmofo]

as far as im concerned, radiohead really arent that far "out there" as many people think they are.

Truer words have never been said by a person who was named Gickies

Especially Ok Computer, I mean, come on. That's pretty straight forward rock and roll. Sure it's not the crap you hear on the radio, but it's not what I'd call excessively experimental. Then again, I've heard people act like Zooropa and Pop were immensly experimental albums for U2. I think people really need to not listen to the crap that's on the radio and MTV. If you find those albums excessively experimental and too weird for you, you're listening to top 40 radio far too much.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

precisely, dear mofo...

 

[Cleasai]

Curious, has Radiohead's label even pushed the album (via advertisements, promotions). I wasn't even aware that they recently released a new album