November 18, 200816 yr it would be great if they continued their album is fab and their singles are doing great, I don't see any point in dropping them!
November 18, 200816 yr It's ALSO ridiculous because you're comparing the GLOBAL sales of these people with the UK-only sales of the Sats. It's a GLOBAL market you prat.... :lol: About time people bloody woke up and realised that.. The bands themselves certainly do, which is WHY you see Rock/Metal bands putting as much effort into playing territories such as South America, Australia, Continental/Eastern Europe and Japan & SE Asia as they do UK or US..... Because they sell a sh!tload of records there...... :rolleyes: The Cure got 3 consecutive No 1s in Spain earlier this year..... :lol: :lol: But, okay, if you wanna keep things just parochially BRITISH, then "Death Magnetic" did over 200k (and counting) in album sales, with a peak at No 1..... I mean, sorry, but the amount of bloody HYPE The Saturdays got (which is a lot more hype than The Wombats ever got Adam, LOL) should be translating into far more album sales.... Spice Girls, All Saints, Girls Aloud, Sugababes ALL did a lot better than this even with debuts....
November 18, 200816 yr So why would the record company be approaching producers and writers, who will need to be PAID, if they're not serious about the second album? You're talking about the "planning" stages here... Look what happened to Shirley Manson (oh, hang on, she probably isn't "pop" enough for you :rolleyes: ...), she had an entire ALBUM written, produced, mastered, ready to go on sale... But because she didn't particularly want to be some fukkin' Gwen Stefani copyist, Warners said it was "too noir" and shelved it.... People had to be PAID there as well mate...... So, "planning" a second album means jack all, if a record company is prepared to shelve an actual completed work....
November 18, 200816 yr At a time when female pop music was a HELL of a lot more prominent, yes... Oh, right, so the likes of Leona Lewis, Katy Perry, Avril Lavigne, Girls Aloud and P!nk ain't "prominent" then......? :lol: :lol: ALL of them totally out-gunning The Saturdays.... Gimme a break dude... Is that honestly the best you can come up with...? And I absolutely dare you to say that those examples ain't relevant....
November 18, 200816 yr :lol:! Of course they are, but those people have American money (millions, tons more than the Sats) and American producers behind them! And for the record, the Sats' album opened with more than Katy Perry's. The ONLY comparison you could do which would be fair would be with another new artist from 08 - Katy Perry or Scouting For Girls...
November 18, 200816 yr While I wouldn't ever want to use the phrase 'turdified comparison' :P, it is such an irrelevant point to compare Metallica with the Saturdays. It can so easily be done the other way around, take a new indie/metal (don't think I can't tell the difference, by the way, you mentioned indie AND metal as being more prolific sales wise) group and compare them to a well established popstar. You don't hear us going 'Oh my god, the Wombats are such a failure - they've sold next to nothing compared to Madonna' - of course they haven't, they've been around for a fraction of the time, haven't had chance to build up such a solid fanbase and besides - not every act can be the biggest seller in their genre, and there are thousands of pop acts out there. For a new girlband they have exceeded expectations. And I'm not a total pop lover before you call it bias, I prefer the Wombats to Madonna by about a million percent before my other example. They are NOT totally failing, and from what I've seen, the public is quite fond of them. I can see your point Adam, I'm just trying to demonstrate that we all get slagged off for favouring this supposedly "obscure" or "elitist" music such as Indie and Metal, and I'm just pointing out the facts that Slipknot, Metallica and Evanescence are totally sh!tting all over these "pop" bands in terms of sales.... Ev have scored a whopping 21 MILLION album sales with their first two albums.... I mean, come ON, that's hardly obscure is it...? That's downright Popular surely...? And they came out of absolutely nowhere... And I seriously doubt ANY of these aforementioned bands had anything like 400k lavished on them, as well as the enormous amounts of hype.... Evanescence started getting noticed by the media when they actually started selling a sh!tload of records, not before they did, same goes for Metallica, it all really started with their FIFTH album (the now legendary "Black" album) and the enormous global hit "Enter Sandman".... Difference is, the likes of Metallica reached their positions through MERIT, the strength of material, their great skills as musicians, and their ability to come back from years in the relative wilderness to sound totally relevant again.... And the facts are, these bands transcend the Metal genre in many ways, and have a pretty large cross-section of appeal... The likes of Girls Aloud have succeded because they've captured quite a few Indie and even some Rock fans.... Metallica and Evanescence have similarly captured a fair chunk of Indie and Pop fans too....
November 18, 200816 yr :lol:! Of course they are, but those people have American money (millions, tons more than the Sats) and American producers behind them! You're honestly trying to tell me that it would've made any difference had The Sats been American...? I'm not sure mate... I'm really not.... And Avril is Canadian anyway.... ;) I doubt very much she had anything like the millions you claim at her disposal when she first started out.... Katy Perry has certainly outgunned The Sats as far as singles go though mate.... Cant deny that.... :P
November 18, 200816 yr At a time when female pop music was a HELL of a lot more prominent, yes... :rofl: Considering the UK album charts has been going since 1956, guess who was the first female pop group to have a UK #1 studio album? Answer: The Spice Girls in 1996. So in the previous 40 years a big fat juicy zero female groups had #1 albums in the UK. UK Albums: 1950s: Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 0 1960s Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 7 1970s Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 6 1980-84 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 6 (1980 Kate Bush was the first British female to have a #1 album) 1985-89 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 43 1990-94 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 39 1995-99 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 76 (1996 Spice Girls were the first British group to have a #1 album) 2000-04 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 73 2005 - Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 36 So in the first 29 years of the UK album chart a total of just 19 weeks were spent at #1 by female acts. In short female groups were never dominant in pop music until The Spice Girls came along and tore up the "boybands" being bigger than "girlgroups" rule book (in the same way that Madonna did for female solo artists a decade earlier). Considering it was after 40 years the first UK studio album by a female group to top the album chart the fact it then went on to sell over 3.3 million copies in the UK becoming one of the top 10 best selling albums of all time in the UK and sold over 28 million copies worldwide speaks volumes. Therefore as others have mentioned with the amount of marketing & hype in the music industry it was hardly unreasonable to expect The Saturdays to make as big an impact as the Sugababes or Girls Aloud; or going further back The Spice Girls; All Saints or even Eternal, B*Witched or Atomic Kitten but so far they are a relative commercial flop, although at least the single Up stopped it being a disaster of Leon Jackson proportions. At these stats prove it has never been a better time to be a female artist to shift "units".
November 18, 200816 yr :rofl: Considering the UK album charts has been going since 1956, guess who was the first female pop group to have a UK #1 studio album? Answer: The Spice Girls in 1996. So in the previous 40 years a big fat juicy zero female groups had #1 albums in the UK. UK Albums: 1950s: Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 0 1960s Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 7 1970s Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 6 1980-84 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 6 (1980 Kate Bush was the first British female to have a #1 album) 1985-89 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 43 1990-94 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 39 1995-99 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 76 (1996 Spice Girls were the first British group to have a #1 album) 2000-04 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 73 2005 - Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 36 So in the first 29 years of the UK album chart a total of just 19 weeks were spent at #1 by female acts. In short female groups were never dominant in pop music until The Spice Girls came along and tore up the "boybands" being bigger than "girlgroups" rule book (in the same way that Madonna did for female solo artists a decade earlier). Considering it was after 40 years the first UK studio album by a female group to top the album chart the fact it then went on to sell over 3.3 million copies in the UK becoming one of the top 10 best selling albums of all time in the UK and sold over 28 million copies worldwide speaks volumes. Therefore as others have mentioned with the amount of marketing & hype in the music industry it was hardly unreasonable to expect The Saturdays to make as big an impact as the Sugababes or Girls Aloud; or going further back The Spice Girls; All Saints or even Eternal, B*Witched or Atomic Kitten but so far they are a relative commercial flop, although at least the single Up stopped it being a disaster of Leon Jackson proportions. At these stats prove it has never been a better time to be a female artist to shift "units". Excellent post as always Rich..... And with the stats to back up, as ever.... I take it the 2000-04 would include the 3 weeks Evanescence's "Bring Me To Life" was No 1 then...?? :lol: I seriously favour female-fronted acts these days tbh.... Whether it be Portishead, Goldfrapp, Kate Bush, Tori Amos, Amanda Palmer, Within Temptation, Nightwish, Arch Enemy, Siouxsie or Evanescence.... There's just something so much more about them in a lot of ways.... I've always had a respect for "Women in Rock" as well, they've always come across as being stronger in many ways than their male counterparts....
November 18, 200816 yr At these stats prove it has never been a better time to be a female artist to shift "units". No, they don't... 2000-04 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 73 2005-08 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 36 Just half as many weeks in almost as long. ANOTHER factor to consider is that album sales were way higher than they are now back in the 90s. And Grimly, Katy is a more successful singles artist yes, but singles aren't where the money is.
November 18, 200816 yr I'm not going to debate this any more though... if the Sats aren't near to 150k by the end of the year, they might be in the danger zone. Otherwise, they're fine. You honestly think they'd be dropped from a label who have kept Sophie Ellis-Bextor on after her last two albums sold 80k and 40k respectively? And they spend a lot more on her too. The Saturdays' album cost little to make and next to nothing has been spent on music videos either, in relative terms. They're a cheap artist to have on the books.
November 18, 200816 yr Katy is a more successful singles artist yes, but singles aren't where the money is. [/size] But again, you only look at it in terms of UK.. Try looking at Global sales sometime mate..... She's sold 800,000 albums mate, so far..... :P I think she's doing slightly better than the S(h)ats, dont you....? Is your unwillingness to debate the point come all of a sudden because Richard's weighed-in with some empirical evidence....?
November 18, 200816 yr But again, you only look at it in terms of UK.. Try looking at Global sales sometime mate..... She's sold 800,000 albums mate, so far..... :P I think she's doing slightly better than the S(h)ats, dont you....? Is your unwillingness to debate the point come all of a sudden because Richard's weighed-in with some empirical evidence....? I'm not QUITE sure you actually understood my earlier point. 800k from the UK, Germany, USA, Australia, Japan and more, yes. The Sats are on what, 45k? From one market alone and after a much lesser time on sale. If, like Katy Perry, the Saturdays had been pushed globally, promoted all over the world and actually had a release anywhere except the UK, do you think they'd only have sold a twentieth as much? :heehee: It's not a valid comparison. A valid comparison would be to compare how much One Of The Boys had sold in the UK after 3 weeks on sale...
November 18, 200816 yr Very um.. clever 'shats' joke there btw. Most mature. Not as if we've had the hilarity of Rob and his 'shyteadays' 'joke' going on for months now.
November 18, 200816 yr I'm not QUITE sure you actually understood my earlier point. 800k from the UK, Germany, USA, Australia, Japan and more, yes. The Sats are on what, 45k? From one market alone and after a much lesser time on sale. If, like Katy Perry, the Saturdays had been pushed globally, promoted all over the world and actually had a release anywhere except the UK, do you think they'd only have sold a twentieth as much? :heehee: It's not a valid comparison. A valid comparison would be to compare how much One Of The Boys had sold in the UK after 3 weeks on sale... And again you fail to recognise that this is a GLOBAL market mate.... If The Saturdays aren't being pushed as hard in the US or in Europe, well, could that actually be because they wont actually sell that many records there...?? :rolleyes: Could be..... I really dont see the point in investing 400 grand in a band and NOT selling them in as many territories as possible... A very stupid business model that surely...? Unless of course, their record company know DAMN WELL that they wont do well in those territories..... So, all they have to back them is UK sales... Er, which they aint doing so sh!t hot on.....
November 18, 200816 yr No, they don't... 2000-04 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 73 2005-08 Weeks at #1 by Female Artists: 36 Just half as many weeks in almost as long. ANOTHER factor to consider is that album sales were way higher than they are now back in the 90s. And Grimly, Katy is a more successful singles artist yes, but singles aren't where the money is. You are not good with using stats are you? Firstly, this five year period is not over, it is a pretty safe bet that Leona or Dido will be #1 next week to take that total to 37; whilst this 5 yearly period still has another 14 months to run so it could easily rise above 50 weeks and be better than any 5 yearly period before the mid 1990s. Secondly, album sales have slightly reduced (due to the global recession which is affecting sales of most luxury/consumer items such as cars; games consoles; TV; etc) and whilst albums at the top end of the chart are not selling in the volumes they once were, overall album sales are still very healthy due to back catalogue albums.
November 18, 200816 yr And again you fail to recognise that this is a GLOBAL market mate.... If The Saturdays aren't being pushed as hard in the US or in Europe, well, could that actually be because they wont actually sell that many records there...?? :rolleyes: Could be..... I really dont see the point in investing 400 grand in a band and NOT selling them in as many territories as possible... A very stupid business model that surely...? Unless of course, their record company know DAMN WELL that they wont do well in those territories..... So, all they have to back them is UK sales... Er, which they aint doing so sh!t hot on..... Indeed, one thing that irritates me regarding fans of girlgroups Girls Aloud, The Sugababes & now The Saturdays is that outside of the UK: The biggest selling British girlgroup in the last few years in Europe is....... Client The biggest selling British girlgroup in recent years in the USA is........ The Pipettes Personally I think both Client & The Pipettes are better than the three groups mentioned yet they are virtually unknown to the "Simon (Cowell) says X-Factor is great so I must buy the single" even though it is $h!t sheep led British record buying public; but then again maybe it is because Europe & America recognises talented acts who pen their own material and are great live performers who don't need an expensive set, autotune and backing tapes to cut it live.
November 18, 200816 yr Indeed, one thing that irritates me regarding fans of girlgroups Girls Aloud, The Sugababes & now The Saturdays is that outside of the UK: The biggest selling British girlgroup in the last few years in Europe is....... Client The biggest selling British girlgroup in recent years in the USA is........ The Pipettes Personally I think both Client & The Pipettes are better than the three groups mentioned yet they are virtually unknown to the "Simon (Cowell) says X-Factor is great so I must buy the single" even though it is $h!t sheep led British record buying public; but then again maybe it is because Europe & America recognises talented acts who pen their own material and are great live performers who don't need an expensive set, autotune and backing tapes to cut it live. 100% in agreement mate.... Client are fukkin' AWESOME... They get absolutely no respect in UK though... About the only time you see them play shows in UK is when they're supporting the likes of Covenant in tiny venues like the sodding Islington Academy FFS...... :angry: I'd be willing to bet that in terms of Europe, the likes of Covenant and Wolfsheim are outselling The Saturdays as well.... People are so bloody parochial in this country, thinking only in terms of UK sales, ignoring totally what goes on in Europe.... This market really means Jack-all.... Go to any European music Festival, it's just a totally different world... Festivals like Wacken, M'era Luna and Roskilde are, for me, miles better than anything similar on offer in UK..... I like Pipettes as well.... I hardly think that either Client or Pipettes are exactly crying in their pints though, they sell loads of records outside UK in what are bigger markets..... :lol: So, in terms of actual sales, er, who's actually the more popular... :rolleyes:
November 18, 200816 yr And again you fail to recognise that this is a GLOBAL market mate.... If The Saturdays aren't being pushed as hard in the US or in Europe, well, could that actually be because they wont actually sell that many records there...?? :rolleyes: Could be..... I really dont see the point in investing 400 grand in a band and NOT selling them in as many territories as possible... A very stupid business model that surely...? Unless of course, their record company know DAMN WELL that they wont do well in those territories..... So, all they have to back them is UK sales... Er, which they aint doing so sh!t hot on..... Actually, they're going to the US late 2009.
Create an account or sign in to comment