Passengers Album Sales....

[Aardvark747]

Can anyone shed any light on how well this one went down? I don't think i've ever seen a figure for its sales....

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Not much...........wouldn't be shocked if it was under 100,000 copies..........if they would start associating it more with the U2 name, it would do quite well for itself.....I did see a lot of copies of it at Target when they had the U2 display with all of the albums though.

 

[Aardvark747]

Under 100,000 u think? Bloody hell. That IS low. Ur right about perhaps if the U2 name was associated with it more, it would be doing better.

I remember when I was getting their albums, 1 each week back in 97. I kept seeing this Passengers thing in amongst them, and wondered what it was doing there.
1 time in HMV, I actually took it out and put it 'back' in the P section! (I think I had too much time on my hands this particular day!)
It wasnt until a few weeks later, I saw a copy of it that had a sticker on the front, saying music by u know who, that made me buy a copy!

 

[fedeu2]

Maybe I´m mistaken but quite a long time ago I read somewhere that it had sold half a million copies worldwide.

Under 100,000 u think? Bloody hell. That IS low. Ur right about perhaps if the U2 name was associated with it more, it would be doing better.

I remember when I was getting their albums, 1 each week back in 97. I kept seeing this Passengers thing in amongst them, and wondered what it was doing there.
1 time in HMV, I actually took it out and put it 'back' in the P section! (I think I had too much time on my hands this particular day!)
It wasnt until a few weeks later, I saw a copy of it that had a sticker on the front, saying music by u know who, that made me buy a copy!

 

[Aardvark747]

Maybe I´m mistaken but quite a long time ago I read somewhere that it had sold half a million copies worldwide.

Thats more like it. I like hearing the million word!

 

[phommel]

I´m sure it´s more than 100,000 copies.

I wanna know the same about Million dollar hotel soundtrack. There wasn´t that much advertising as well on that album....

 

[STING2]

Its been a long time, but I think Passengers peaked at #80 in the United States. Its sales in the United States were definitely below 250,000. In the United Kingdom, the album did not make it to the 60,000 mark which is the Silver award, but MISS SARAJEVO the single sold 200,000 copies in the United Kingdom.

The Passengers album did do well in Canada where the album went GOLD for 50,000 copies sold!

I'd say a GLOBAL total of a half a million copies for Original Soundtrack 1 is about right.

 

[fedeu2]

Glad to see my memory is still working right!

Its been a long time, but I think Passengers peaked at #80 in the United States. Its sales in the United States were definitely below 250,000. In the United Kingdom, the album did not make it to the 60,000 mark which is the Silver award, but MISS SARAJEVO the single sold 200,000 copies in the United Kingdom.

The Passengers album did do well in Canada where the album went GOLD for 50,000 copies sold!

I'd say a GLOBAL total of a half a million copies for Original Soundtrack 1 is about right.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

That's pretty good, especially considering the type of music it was...........

 

[fedeu2]

Had it being marketed under the "U2" name, it would have sold several million copies worldwide. Then again, it would have been considered a commercial failure for U2 standards. See what happened with Pop which is a much more accesible record.

Bottom line is if you´re not a band called Radiohead, you don´t have the right to release an album such as Kid A and get away with it!
Critics will destroy you.

Glad to see my memory is still working right!

 

[phommel]

Bottom line is if you´re not a band called Radiohead, you don´t have the right to release an album such as Kid A and get away with it!
Critics will destroy you.

No I don't agree with you. To be honest, except for a few Passengers songs, the KidA album is form a much higher level than Passengers imo.

 

[doctorwho]

Had it being marketed under the "U2" name, it would have sold several million copies worldwide. Then again, it would have been considered a commercial failure for U2 standards. See what happened with Pop which is a much more accesible record.

Bottom line is if you´re not a band called Radiohead, you don´t have the right to release an album such as Kid A and get away with it! Critics will destroy you.

Two quick comments...

1) OS1 debuted at #76 in the U.S. - also its highest position.

2) Critics were actually very kind to the album and it received good reviews. Critics were also impressed that a group like U2 could or would make such an album.

I think the album would have done much better had it been released under the U2 name or advertised more. However, U2 correctly felt that releasing this as a U2 album would be misleading to their fans, and I concur. As a result, though, some interesting music wasn't heard by many people.

 

[Soldatti]

Here the chart run for the album in UK & US:

ORIGINAL SOUNDTRACKS 1
UK Date: 18/11/1995 - Run: *12*-46-51-61-73 (5 wks)
US Date: 25/11/1995 - Run: *76*-98-158-176 (4 wks)

 

[fedeu2]

My point was that everybody would have criticized U2 if Passengers had been released as U2 new material.
Since it was a side-project, it was treated as such.

As for Kid A, I never said the Passengers album was better, again, if U2 had released anything similar to Kid A the critics would have destroy them.

It seems to me that virtually everyone in the music business demands from U2 a lot more than from other bands. Case in point, the Pop album.

Two quick comments...

1) OS1 debuted at #76 in the U.S. - also its highest position.

2) Critics were actually very kind to the album and it received good reviews. Critics were also impressed that a group like U2 could or would make such an album.

I think the album would have done much better had it been released under the U2 name or advertised more. However, U2 correctly felt that releasing this as a U2 album would be misleading to their fans, and I concur. As a result, though, some interesting music wasn't heard by many people.

 

[Popmartijn]

It seems to me that virtually everyone in the music business demands from U2 a lot more than from other bands. Case in point, the Pop album.

How so?
That album also got great reviews.

 

[fedeu2]

Only at the beginning ....

How so?
That album also got great reviews.

 

[bsp77]

Only at the beginning ....

Yeah, that was crap. How did so many critics go from saying it was a masterpiece to being one of the worst albums of the year? They basically changed their minds because of peer pressure (low sales, lukewarm tour).

 

[fedeu2]

The only Best albums of the year poll I remember Pop made was Time Magazine´s. In fact, they considered Pop the best rock album of the year. Aside from that, by the end of 1997, the album was deemed both a commercial (mainly in the US) and artistic flop.

All critics and public who hated Pop loved ATYCLB though. Pretty much the opposite happened with Pop lovers I guess.

Yeah, that was crap. How did so many critics go from saying it was a masterpiece to being one of the worst albums of the year? They basically changed their minds because of peer pressure (low sales, lukewarm tour).

 

[edge3]

The only Best albums of the year poll I remember Pop made was Time Magazine´s. In fact, they considered Pop the best rock album of the year. Aside from that, by the end of 1997, the album was deemed both a commercial (mainly in the US) and artistic flop.

All critics and public who hated Pop loved ATYCLB though. Pretty much the opposite happened with Pop lovers I guess.

In the UK, the now defunct Vox music magazine rated Pop the 29th best album of 1997. Q music magazine also included it in their end of year top 50 & i think Ireland's main music mag, Hot Press, rated it the 8th best album of 1997. I've seen it included in a few other end of year critics lists as well but far fewer than it should have...it's a great 'little' album.