"Paul Hyett" invalid83261.co.uk> wrote in message
> In uk.music.charts on Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Chris Brown
> yahoo.com> wrote :
>>> Now this part I don't get - why would the recent release of a previous
>>> single have any affect on the current one?
>>> If you like it, you buy it - if you don't, you won't - end of story.
>>Because they're (up to a point at least) competing with each other for
>>plays and space on the shelves, the latter obviously being a more
>>consideration back in those pre-download days. Obviously that would be
>>of a problem for already-established acts, but as I said they didn't miss
>>out by much.
> But I don't see how the above affects my 'buy it or not' theory above?
> For me, most of the time I only have to hear a song once, to know whether
> I'll end up buying it or not.
That may indeed be the case for you - but it obviously doesn't apply to
everybody, otherwise hardly anything would last more than one week in the
charts. I only had to hear this once to know I wasn't going to buy it,
Another point I'd forgotten - Robbie's album had been out for a while, and
they were fast sellers back then, so hundreds of thousands of people already
had this track.
>>> Since when was #3 a 'flop'?
>>Well, after two consecutive chart-toppers, albeit that the first didn't
>>enter there, it's not an auspicious start. But I said "ended up" because I
>>was looking at the longer-term performance of the album, which was (at
>>relatively) very weak - yes the fans bought it early in its run but it
>>didn't have anywhere near the same sort of legs as the previous albums.
>>the other two singles flopped, even though I thought they were better
> I find the phrase 'better musically' intriguing.
Possibly more so than it really needs to be in this case: I just thought
they were better records than 'Re-Offender' rather than being any different
from it. But this is an interesting digression anyway, so I'll run with it.
> To me, it always just sounds like an excuse to shift the blame away from
> the artist who produces unpopular work, onto the fans who disagree with
> the artist's vision & refuse to buy it.
Well, I'm not convinced "blame" is entirely the right word here - and in any
case, I don't have a particular axe to grind in this position; I don't have
any connection to Travis or anything.
> If an artist refuses to acknowledge their fans concerns, then they have
> no-one but themselves to blame if their career bombs.
> The smart ones then switch back to what they know has worked for them
> before - Kylie reverting to pop/dance in 2000, for example.
Thing is, though, that in musical terms the singles from this album weren't
really much different from what they'd been doing since about 1999 - there
was an attempt to tackle some slightly more serious lyrical themes, but I
doubt that anyone noticed. It does have to be said that the first single
would be expected to sell best - and as it happened the two subsequent
singles had been available before the album, but the extent of the
differential was staggering - 'The Beautiful Occupation' was their first
widely available single ever to miss the Top 40.
Either way, subsequent releases suggest that Travis have indeed avoided
doing anything interesting since.
>>>>>>>(Mutya) also has a single out soon.
>>>>>>Yes. Big favourite on commercial radio, which sounds like a good
>>>>>>to listen to it.
>>>>> Several of the music channels have picked it up, and it should chart
>>>>> because of who she is, but I can't see it being a *big* hit.
>>>>Because of who she is didn't do Siobhan Donaghey many favours.
>>> But Siobhan left the Sugababes before they became big, whereas Mutya was
>>> major part of their success.
>>As of now, that makes sense. But her first attempt at a solo career
>>'Freak Like Me'
> I didn't realise Mutya had tried before. No sign of it in Guinness, so it
> couldn't have been too successful...
No - I meant that Siobhan had, at a time when she was as successful as any
That said, Mutya did have a little go last year with that George Michael
track, and the reaction was less than impressive.
>>> I've only seen *one* new vinyl album on shelf-display recently - and
>>> was the Arctic Monkeys this Monday.
>>> Apart from anything else, you can't burn vinyl directly to digital
>>Not without a moderate amount of complication, but then again not everyone
>>necessarily wants to do that all the time - especially where singles are
>>concerned, if you really want it in a digital format you can just buy it
> Which is fine if you have enough money to replace a potentially vast vinyl
Or if you don't want to.