Grammy Awards

[STING2]

Regarding the list of 100 best albums: It's a list of relevant albums, which was selected in hindsight. Elvis' "Sun Sessions" was important, but at the time who knew he's become the legend he is? Also, the grammy's have only awarded 47 Albums of the Year, so a list of Top 100 couldn't even come to close to being an adequate measure of his topic.

Touching on the subject of whether there's a tendency for similar genres to cancel each other out: It may not be the only case every year, but this IS a factor to consider. In other years there's been a sympathy vote (Charles, Lennon, Clapton, Quincy Jones, Bennett), which could throw it to McCartney, the 'let's be hip' vote (Hill, Outkast, Wonder's nod for 'Innervisions', Morissette), and the traditionalist, 'they have it coming' vote (Simon's "Graceland", Dylan, Santana, Sinatra). These factors can make a subpar album GREAT, and make millions wonder 'why'? Considering these factors, we can surmise that U2 COULD win by default.

Kanye deserves the win, because his album is relevant, revolutionary and rousing to the masses. THAT'S the key to success and honor. While U2 made a good album, it rode it's way to 3 million sales mainly due to their history (which HAS been honor repeatedly...Over 2 million sales were recorded in the first 3 months of it's release...meaning it didn't gain momentum).

Mariah is due for recognition, especially after a miraculous comeback album, but it's true that she's a singles artist. She's not about albums, and never has been. Give her the Record of the Year if you want, but don't bestow the greatest honor simply because she had a song that clicked on the radio.




Gwen is unpolished and while she's entertaining and charasmatic, she's made fluff. She's a step above La Bouche in the quality department, and that will never win accolades from the Grammys.

Paul: He's never been rewarded for his solo work, aside from a couple of minor awards in the mid-late 1970's. There's a reason for this. He's been starved for ideas for the majority of his solo career, and this album was a slight return to form, but not enough to warrant ALBUM OF THE YEAR. Here's a short list of older, established artist, and why they finally won the award...

Ray Charles: died

Steely Dan: First album is 20 years and probably last album to be released. Also, they were snubbed for great music when they thrived. Also, it was a really impressive album.

Santana: Commerically successful

Dylan: Decent album after a lifetime of legendary music.

Bennett: Still a minor mystery, but he was old and was always overshadowed by Grammy favorite, Frank Sinatra.

Clapton: Son's death

Quincy Jones: years of underappreciated producing.

Lennon: died.

Quincy Jones: years of underappreciated producing????!!! Do you realize that the 2nd biggest winner of Grammy awards period is Quincy Jones who has won 27 Grammy awards. How can anyone who has won that many Grammy awards more than anyone in history except George Solti be "underappreciated"?

Much of Santana's commercial success actually followed is Grammy award wins. In any event, Commercial success does not guarentee victory.

In the other cases, I can see how many of the voters may have voted because the artist had passed away or experienced unusual hardship, but this only tipped the balance in that artist favor and was not the only thing that contributed to it.



Remember that the Grammy Acadamy has members from all over the world. Kanye West is primarily known in just North America and is not really a global figure yet. He has yet to have an album sell 4 million copies worldwide. HTDAAB by U2 has sold over 9 million copies worldwide.

Also, I'd say its very inaccurate to say that U2 rode its history to strong album sales on BOMB. History did not help sales with Zooropa and POP and I don't think its been a factor lately. People are buying the album because they like the music, not just because its U2.





Whether Kanye's album is relevant or revolutionionary is a matter of opinion, but many people outside the United States have yet to even here him. Nearly 75% of his album sales come from North America. While he will definitely have strong support in the acadamy, its not clear that it will be enough to win Album Of The Year.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Clapton: Son's death

Beating Achtung Baby in the process

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Also, I'd say its very inaccurate to say that U2 rode its history to strong album sales on BOMB. History did not help sales with Zooropa and POP and I don't think its been a factor lately. People are buying the album because they like the music, not just because its U2.

I think they probably did. Just because the overall sales weren't as high doesn't mean they didn't get a leg up simply because they have the name "U2" on the front. Zooropa in particular I think received inflated sales particularly for coming so close behind Achtung/ZooTV. I think every U2 album has a % of sales that come from people picking them up and buying them, with only maybe one songs knowledge, with the 'trust' that it's going to be great quality simply because it's U2. Neither Pop nor Zooropa are anywhere near as accessible or mainstream as HTDAAB, which, along with Pop's bad/misplaced 'dance album' reputation, limited sales more than anything else.

 

[Danospano]

Regarding Quincy Jones: You're right. He WAS appreciated as a producer, but I meant to say he'd never been appreciated as a performer. In 1989 he released "Back on the Block" and brought a slew of big names with him. By awarding him, they awarded everyone who cut a track. You're right about the astronomical number of trophies...it's amazing how many he's won for producing.

As for the second part about HTDAAB not selling the biggest chunk based on name recognition: They did. The number support my claim. Well, okay...I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the album came out in October 2004, and the only song anyone heard in full length was "Vertigo"...for the next few months they heard MAYBE "All Because of You", if they hadn't listened to a friend's copy. So, one...maybe two songs...How many people buy an album for just one song? A few do, but most don't...at least not in today's market place. Since the other singles have been released the sales have steadily gone downhill (until the last few weeks...and I'm not sure why this is). This tells me that the name "U2" meant more to people than the music. Therefore, the album HASN'T translated very well---at least not as well as ATYCLB, but yes, better than Pop and Zooropa...no doubt.

 

[bcrt2000]

This is a tough one... I definately think it will be between Kanye and U2. And I personally think Kanye deserves it more, but I'd like to see U2 win it. The problem is... I think HTDAAB has a solid selection of songs, but I don't know if it gives you the same feeling of a journey as when you listen to Pop (depressing, hopelessness, being lost in the world) or AB (dark, evil, mischevious, broken-hearted) from start to finish

 

[STING2]

I think they probably did. Just because the overall sales weren't as high doesn't mean they didn't get a leg up simply because they have the name "U2" on the front. Zooropa in particular I think received inflated sales particularly for coming so close behind Achtung/ZooTV. I think every U2 album has a % of sales that come from people picking them up and buying them, with only maybe one songs knowledge, with the 'trust' that it's going to be great quality simply because it's U2. Neither Pop nor Zooropa are anywhere near as accessible or mainstream as HTDAAB, which, along with Pop's bad/misplaced 'dance album' reputation, limited sales more than anything else.

Once again POP received more airplay than either ATYCLB or BOMB which conflicts with this assumption that Zooropa and POP were significantly less accessible and mainstream than ATYCLB or the BOMB. The opinion that the last two albums are more accessible is not supported by any related facts such as radio airplay.

The whole U2 name thing selling albums can be applied to every U2 release since the Joshua Tree. It does not explain the amazing sales success of ATYCLB and HTDAAB that received a level of airplay comparable to the Unforgettable Fire when it was first was released.

 

[STING2]

Regarding Quincy Jones: You're right. He WAS appreciated as a producer, but I meant to say he'd never been appreciated as a performer. In 1989 he released "Back on the Block" and brought a slew of big names with him. By awarding him, they awarded everyone who cut a track. You're right about the astronomical number of trophies...it's amazing how many he's won for producing.

As for the second part about HTDAAB not selling the biggest chunk based on name recognition: They did. The number support my claim. Well, okay...I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the album came out in October 2004, and the only song anyone heard in full length was "Vertigo"...for the next few months they heard MAYBE "All Because of You", if they hadn't listened to a friend's copy. So, one...maybe two songs...How many people buy an album for just one song? A few do, but most don't...at least not in today's market place. Since the other singles have been released the sales have steadily gone downhill (until the last few weeks...and I'm not sure why this is). This tells me that the name "U2" meant more to people than the music. Therefore, the album HASN'T translated very well---at least not as well as ATYCLB, but yes, better than Pop and Zooropa...no doubt.

HTDAAB has actually sold better than ATYCLB once you adjust for the different market conditions the albums were released in. Sales for albums in 2004/2005 are significantly lower than they were in 2000/2001 all across the market. The decline has been 21%. This is because "file Sharing" other internet downloading, and CD burning, all which involve obtaining music without paying for it, are much more common place today than they were in 2000. BOMB has sold just over 3 million copies at this point while ATYCLB at this point had sold 3.2 million copies. Adjusting for the different sales climate though, back in 2000/2001 with the same chart positions as now, BOMB would have sold 4 million copies up to this point compared to ATYCLB 3.2 million.

In addition, HTDAAB was released on November 23, 2004 not in October 2004. On Billboard's year end chart which for 2005 which runs from the last week in November 2004 to the 3rd week in November 2005, BOMB came in at #8 in the United States. By comparison, Achtung Baby was released on November 19, 1991 and came in at #5 on the year end list for 1992. So HTDAAB impact on the current market is nearly the same as the impact Achtung Baby had on the market back in 1992!

The reason sales tailed off after the first couple of months for HTDAAB is because radio was unwilling to play U2's other songs. Vertigo was the only song to get moderate airplay in the United States making it to #31 on the HOT 100. "Sometimes" made it to #97 but only spent 3 weeks on chart. No other songs from HTDAAB have received enough radio airplay to crack the HOT 100.

What looks far more amazing is when an artist is able to sell this many albums with so little airplay.

Once again, the album is the 8th biggest selling album of the year in the United States. It is the 2nd biggest selling album of the year worldwide! Simply put, you can't really ask for a more popular album in 2005 than the BOMB especially when you add in the massive popularity of the tour which when it ends in April 2006 will be the highest Grossing tour in the history of the planet. All this with smaller airplay than POP received in 1997.

The question remains, if it was simply name recognition, why didn't Zooropa and POP sell in such high numbers, especially in a climate where Cd burning and file sharing were rare if non-existent back in the 1990s.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Uuugh, STING, it's tiresome. You might very well be the only person in this entire forum who would stick to radio airplay - over a decade apart - as the defining thing that proves that Numb is a more accessible, wider of appeal song than Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own.

Your arguments are always so detached from the actual music, that it would not surprise me to discover that you had listened to neither album, nor were you paying any attention to the back stories of either U2 at the two different points in time, their recent history at both points in time, the mammoth changes that the media and entertainment industries have undertaken in the decade in between (despite dropping terms like "file sharing" from time to time in a way that suggests you think possible we weren't aware of this strange phenomenon) and how they have really effected U2 individualy, not just industry wide, nor actually listened to the radio either in 1993 or today to see what else is playing (not by stats, but by sound), nor listened to much of a wide array of music during either period of time to get a feel for what is rather generic and what is pretty unique, nor a host of other things. It is like you listen to music by opening an excel spreadsheet. The stats and arguments you make are not irrelevent, far from it, but they are only a fraction of the story.

 

[Lila64]

do either of you work in the music industry? Just curious

 

[Earnie Shavers]

do either of you work in the music industry? Just curious

I worked in marketing for one of the 2 or 3 largest global record labels for 5 years. Due to all you fuckers and your illegal downloading (which I, of course, am not guilty of at all ) I now work for a film company. Previous to the record label I spent a year working for a music-specific publicity and promotions company, and previous to that I was working for a music industry association, not unlike the RIAA.

 

[Lila64]

I don't download music or own an ipod so there
and I work in music, but not in any capacity such as yourself. The one CD I downloaded last year from a friend - I listened to it and then went out and bought the dualdisc version of it. I just had no other place to hear anything from the album prior to purchasing, so... The extra copy, wherever it is, can be taken in the car or whatever ...
Sorry I digressed. Back to the (irrelevant) Grammy Awards...

 

[angelordevil]

Please, go force Bono to recite sixty minutes' worth of the phone book, get Edge, Adam, and Larry to play monotonous background music with kitchen utensils, mix it terribly, sell it as U2's new bold adventure of an album, and see how many countries it goes to #1 in.

Passengers...

 

[Danospano]

Sting2: My argument is that the initial sales (the biggest block of U2's album HTDAAB sales), were attributed to name recognition. Not their overall sales figures of the remaining year. Yes, Zooropa and Pop experienced huge opening weeks, but quickly trailed-off. Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and ATYCLB gained/maintained momentum as the year progressed. HTBAAB hasn't maintained this momentum, in fact it spent fewer weeks in the Top 40 compared to ATYCLB.

You pose intellegent arguments, so don't think I'm doggin' you . I value your opinion, but I just wanted to clarify my stance. k?

 

[STING2]

Uuugh, STING, it's tiresome. You might very well be the only person in this entire forum who would stick to radio airplay - over a decade apart - as the defining thing that proves that Numb is a more accessible, wider of appeal song than Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own.

Your arguments are always so detached from the actual music, that it would not surprise me to discover that you had listened to neither album, nor were you paying any attention to the back stories of either U2 at the two different points in time, their recent history at both points in time, the mammoth changes that the media and entertainment industries have undertaken in the decade in between (despite dropping terms like "file sharing" from time to time in a way that suggests you think possible we weren't aware of this strange phenomenon) and how they have really effected U2 individualy, not just industry wide, nor actually listened to the radio either in 1993 or today to see what else is playing (not by stats, but by sound), nor listened to much of a wide array of music during either period of time to get a feel for what is rather generic and what is pretty unique, nor a host of other things. It is like you listen to music by opening an excel spreadsheet. The stats and arguments you make are not irrelevent, far from it, but they are only a fraction of the story.

Whats really tiresome is when someone decides to make personal assumptions about someone they don't know instead of actually discussing the topic. Can you actually discuss a topic without making so many uneccessary accusations about someone else that you don't know, that have nothing to do with discussion? It adds nothing to your opinion on the topic.

I've listened to a lot of music over the years, probably somethings you may not have listened to yourself. I've actually met the entire band and seen them in concert 16 times, as well as having seen much of their history in Dublin at various times when I have been in Ireland. Just because someone does not agree with your opinion about the band and its music does not mean they don't know as much as you about the band if not more. The same could be said about music in general and the difference in what is played on the radio in 1992 vs. 2005.

Why I think something from 1990s U2 is more accessible or equally accessible to something by U2 after 2000, independent of something that is fact like radio airplay, is simply an opinion. Just as your opinion that U2 post 2000 is dramatically more accessible is simply an opinion. You and I could argue endlessly about whether HTDAAB is the best album of the year or not, but in the end, this is art and no one is right or wrong.

What cannot be debated though are the raw statistics of sales and airplay. Airplay and what radio programers feel is accessible and to lesser extent what the public finds more accessible are closely tied together. That is the reason why I bring this into the discussion when it is relevant. These are facts that go beyond ones opinon of what is accessible or not.

 

[STING2]

Sting2: My argument is that the initial sales (the biggest block of U2's album HTDAAB sales), were attributed to name recognition. Not their overall sales figures of the remaining year. Yes, Zooropa and Pop experienced huge opening weeks, but quickly trailed-off. Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and ATYCLB gained/maintained momentum as the year progressed. HTBAAB hasn't maintained this momentum, in fact it spent fewer weeks in the Top 40 compared to ATYCLB.

You pose intellegent arguments, so don't think I'm doggin' you . I value your opinion, but I just wanted to clarify my stance. k?

I understand what your saying, 40 or 50 weeks out from release, its true that HTDAAB relative chart position compared to Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and ATYCLB has not been as good. This difference though may be explained by the level of radio airplay.

Its true that sales for BOMB were disproportionately lumped into the opening 6 weeks on a level not seen on past albums. But if name recognition was the reason, why were massive sales not seen form Zooropa or POP on the level of BOMB in their opening 6 weeks?

 

[Inner El Guapo]

The question remains, if it was simply name recognition, why didn't Zooropa and POP sell in such high numbers, especially in a climate where Cd burning and file sharing were rare if non-existent back in the 1990s.

Zooropa had almost zero hype and harldy any promotion at all.
A very obscure single and even more obscure accompanying video. And I think even all this considered still sold 6 million copies in the US, which is more than both ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

Pop was just bungled, in terms of how they delivered the album to the masses. Give ATYCLB or HTDAAB one foot in the grave to begin with like POP had and it might be a different argument altogether.

The fact is, so much of the bulk of the central argument cannot be found in raw data like charts and soundscan.

If this weren't the case then all Rollign Stone would have to do to find the top 100 albums of the 90's would be to pull up the soundscan data and put NSync on the cover "album of the decade" discerning musical tastes do not work so 'linear' for lack of a better term.

 

[Bono's shades]

I live in flyover land, and NO songs from Zooropa got any play whatsoever on the radio here that I recall. I didn't even know the album was out for a while because I didn't hear any of the songs on the radio. However, Vertigo, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own and All Because of You all got played on our local Adult Contemporary station. I'm not sure how much they got played, but since I managed to catch them despite hardly ever listening to anything besides college radio these days must mean they were getting pretty significant play - either that or it's a heck of a coincidence!

So I don't think I'm just talking out of my ass when I say HTDAAB is considered far more accessible than Zooropa.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

It is the MTV awards that have been shrinking in ratings the past 10 years. When the awards were held in Miami in 2004 was the lowest ever.

Uhh??? Ok.

It doesn't change the fact the 2005 Grammy's were the lowest rated in 10 years. People are becoming quite apathetic about them.

We'll see how they do this year and if they do poorly you can always say "well the MTV awards are doing worse."

 

[Inner El Guapo]

I live in flyover land, and NO songs from Zooropa got any play whatsoever on the radio here that I recall. I didn't even know the album was out for a while because I didn't hear any of the songs on the radio. However, Vertigo, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own and All Because of You all got played on our local Adult Contemporary station. I'm not sure how much they got played, but since I managed to catch them despite hardly ever listening to anything besides college radio these days must mean they were getting pretty significant play - either that or it's a heck of a coincidence!

So I don't think I'm just talking out of my ass when I say HTDAAB is considered far more accessible than Zooropa.

As do I (flyover) and I agree. Zooropa came out of left field, literally.

I heard 4 or 5 songs from POP on the radio before the album was out. Heard Vertigo dozens of times, heard Beautiful Day dozens of times before those albums were out. Numb, maybe 5 times.

And the album did well, probably on name recognition the same as every other U2 album since the Joshua Tree. Saying otherwise, to me, is just foolish. EVERY artist gets a bump in sales on name recognition alone. That may change in the future when you can listen to multiple tracks before the release (digitally) and people won't just pony up money for an album they haven't heard.

All of this and 10,000 other reasons are why record sales are a very poor indicator of anything other than an economic/social trend. Pop music has told us this time and time and time again.

 

[STING2]

Zooropa had almost zero hype and harldy any promotion at all.
A very obscure single and even more obscure accompanying video. And I think even all this considered still sold 6 million copies in the US, which is more than both ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

Pop was just bungled, in terms of how they delivered the album to the masses. Give ATYCLB or HTDAAB one foot in the grave to begin with like POP had and it might be a different argument altogether.

The fact is, so much of the bulk of the central argument cannot be found in raw data like charts and soundscan.

If this weren't the case then all Rollign Stone would have to do to find the top 100 albums of the 90's would be to pull up the soundscan data and put NSync on the cover "album of the decade" discerning musical tastes do not work so 'linear' for lack of a better term.

NUMB got played more on MTV especially during normal hours of the day than any video from HTDAAB. In addition, the songs on POP received more radio airplay and video play than the songs on ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

By the way, ZOOROPA has only sold 2 million copies in the United States even though it was released before the era of CD burning and file sharing. ATYCLB has sold 4 million copies and HTDAAB has sold 3 million copies in the United States at time when album sales have been heavily reduced across the board because of file sharing and CD burning.

Rolling Stone magazines top 100 albums of the decade is a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

[STING2]

As do I (flyover) and I agree. Zooropa came out of left field, literally.

I heard 4 or 5 songs from POP on the radio before the album was out. Heard Vertigo dozens of times, heard Beautiful Day dozens of times before those albums were out. Numb, maybe 5 times.

And the album did well, probably on name recognition the same as every other U2 album since the Joshua Tree. Saying otherwise, to me, is just foolish. EVERY artist gets a bump in sales on name recognition alone. That may change in the future when you can listen to multiple tracks before the release (digitally) and people won't just pony up money for an album they haven't heard.

All of this and 10,000 other reasons are why record sales are a very poor indicator of anything other than an economic/social trend. Pop music has told us this time and time and time again.

Just for the record, this is what U2's albums have sold in the USA from the Joshua Tree onward.

Joshua Tree 10 million
Rattle And Hum 5 million
Achtung Baby 8 million
Zooropa 2 million
POP 1.5 million
ATYCLB 4.5 million
HTDAAB 3.1 million

Album sales are an indicator of popularity of an artist. What actually gets played on the radio is influenced by several things and yes accessiblity is one of them. Its interesting to note that POP received more radio airplay in the USA than either ATYCLB or HTDAAB.

 

[STING2]

I live in flyover land, and NO songs from Zooropa got any play whatsoever on the radio here that I recall. I didn't even know the album was out for a while because I didn't hear any of the songs on the radio. However, Vertigo, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own and All Because of You all got played on our local Adult Contemporary station. I'm not sure how much they got played, but since I managed to catch them despite hardly ever listening to anything besides college radio these days must mean they were getting pretty significant play - either that or it's a heck of a coincidence!

So I don't think I'm just talking out of my ass when I say HTDAAB is considered far more accessible than Zooropa.

Well radio programers did not agree that Zooropa was far less accessible since the level of radio airplay that Zooropa received nationally in the United States was not that far behind HTDAAB, especially when you look past the Vertigo single. In addition POP received considerably more radio airplay than ATYCLB and HTDAAB. Both Zooropa and POP received more video play on MTV than HTDAAB has.

 

[STING2]

Uhh??? Ok.

It doesn't change the fact the 2005 Grammy's were the lowest rated in 10 years. People are becoming quite apathetic about them.

We'll see how they do this year and if they do poorly you can always say "well the MTV awards are doing worse."

If people were really apathetic about them, you would not see the massive jump in sales for the artist the following week. That still happens and happened when U2 won their Grammy's in 2001 and 2002 for songs off ATYCLB. The real key is how many albums the Grammy awards sale, that is the true measure of its impact. Ratings of course can be effected by the artist who get nominated in a given year.

 

[Bono's shades]

NUMB got played more on MTV especially during normal hours of the day than any video from HTDAAB. In addition, the songs on POP received more radio airplay and video play than the songs on ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

I didn't have cable back in 1993, but when I visited my parents and watched MTV then, they seemed to be still playing mostly videos. Now it's virtually all reality programming, with the little time still devoted to videos going to artists that have "youth appeal." However, if you go to VH1 in the morning, you will still see videos from ATYCLB and HTDAAB because that channel, although very mainstream, is a bit more friendly to older artists.

As for radio, that industry has changed drastically over the past seven or eight years, when Clear Channel began buying everything in sight. Playlists have been narrowed considerably. You can't compare radio back then to radio right now - it's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[crystal4470]

At least U2 aren't up against Gorillaz again!!!!!

1) ?

2) U2 always deserves to win.

3) Can't answer cos i haven't listened to the other albums.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

If people were really apathetic about them, you would not see the massive jump in sales for the artist the following week. That still happens and happened when U2 won their Grammy's in 2001 and 2002 for songs off ATYCLB. The real key is how many albums the Grammy awards sale, that is the true measure of its impact. Ratings of course can be effected by the artist who get nominated in a given year.

That's just free promotion Sting, it doesn't mean the larger audience isn't growing weary of them.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

Just for the record, this is what U2's albums have sold in the USA from the Joshua Tree onward.

Joshua Tree 10 million
Rattle And Hum 5 million
Achtung Baby 8 million
Zooropa 2 million
POP 1.5 million
ATYCLB 4.5 million
HTDAAB 3.1 million

Album sales are an indicator of popularity of an artist. What actually gets played on the radio is influenced by several things and yes accessiblity is one of them. Its interesting to note that POP received more radio airplay in the USA than either ATYCLB or HTDAAB.

are those the soundscan numbers or the RIAA certifications, which as you probably know can be years and years behind?
asking probably Zooropa onward, as the older albums were in that 'in between' period for soundscan. I am thinking worldwide when I think of those numbers, so I am crossed up.

It is interesting to note that about POP.
So it was more popular?
But it didn't sell as much, so that's out the window.....
More accessible? Well it sold substantially less, so that's out the window as well.....

maybe those airplay numbers mean diddly squat.
Any given song can receive more airplay than any other given song and there is no guarantee to any qualification other than the fact that it was played X number of times. PERIOD.

Accessibility is like saying, good or bad, subjective. Is there chart data for what is good and bad as well?

 

[Inner El Guapo]

NUMB got played more on MTV especially during normal hours of the day than any video from HTDAAB. In addition, the songs on POP received more radio airplay and video play than the songs on ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

By the way, ZOOROPA has only sold 2 million copies in the United States even though it was released before the era of CD burning and file sharing. ATYCLB has sold 4 million copies and HTDAAB has sold 3 million copies in the United States at time when album sales have been heavily reduced across the board because of file sharing and CD burning.

Rolling Stone magazines top 100 albums of the decade is a matter of opinion, not fact.

1-that's because in 1993, MTV played more videos in general.
2-In 1993, MTV didn't have MTV2 and the others
there was a VH1, but not the Vh1 classic and others, there are so many avenues these days, I've seen HTDAAB singles on at least 4 of them.
3-See 1 and 2 for Pop.
Personally, I have witnessed more HTDAAB and ATYCLB videos than I ever did for Pop, do you have the numbers for video spins, or are we just talking about pure subjective opinion "I saw this" "you saw that"?? I'm not sure they exist, I'd doubt it.

Lastly, the fact that Zooropa undersold ATYCLB and HTDAAB underscores the fact that it came out of nowhere. Going from Achtung to Zooropa, a year and a half gap, and only 6 months removed from the support tour to Achtung, it SCREAMS precicsely what we were saying.

I got the worldwide numbers and the US numbers mixed up. Does 6 mill worldwide sound right for Zooropa? I was crossed up, ATYCLB definitely sold more than that worldwide, 10 or 11 mill? HTDAAB is around 9? I'm not positive about all those numbers.

and to the 'top 100' point, of course it is.

WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT OPINIONS.
Opinions on accessibility etc.
You are the only one trying to quantify this subjective topic with radio airplay data. It doesn't fit or fly, that's all anyone is trying to say and all you keep quoting is chart data and sales data. This is like calling into a sports radio show to talk about sports and just reading the box scores to everyone, who in most cases already get it, already knew it.

I'm interested in your opinions, I can get a subscription to Billboard in 5 minutes.

 

[STING2]

That's just free promotion Sting, it doesn't mean the larger audience isn't growing weary of them.

Well its certainly a stronger indication that they are not growing weary of the awards show. Can you find a single show through out the year that has more impact on album sales the following than the Grammy awards? There simply isn't one, and that is why the Grammy awards are very relevant from a commercial standpoint. Nielson ratings go up and down, but the effect on albums sold has remained the same and that the key.

 

[STING2]

I didn't have cable back in 1993, but when I visited my parents and watched MTV then, they seemed to be still playing mostly videos. Now it's virtually all reality programming, with the little time still devoted to videos going to artists that have "youth appeal." However, if you go to VH1 in the morning, you will still see videos from ATYCLB and HTDAAB because that channel, although very mainstream, is a bit more friendly to older artists.

As for radio, that industry has changed drastically over the past seven or eight years, when Clear Channel began buying everything in sight. Playlists have been narrowed considerably. You can't compare radio back then to radio right now - it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Clear Channel is just the latest in a long list of corporate take overs. Things have not changed so drastically that would invalidate the comparisons between the years that I have made. Also, the space in years is much smaller when we compare POP to ATYCLB, 1997 to 2000.