Jump to content

10 Months into 2014, No Platinum Albums


Dan H.

Recommended Posts

1) Songs of Innocence. This article is wrong. You can quibble over how it should count, but if Magna Carta's free downloads counted, so do these.

2) so the fuck what? Music is being made. I don't care how much an album I like sells as long as I get it.

3) Give the Foos a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Songs of Innocence. This article is wrong. You can quibble over how it should count, but if Magna Carta's free downloads counted, so do these.

2) so the fuck what? Music is being made. I don't care how much an album I like sells as long as I get it.

3) Give the Foos a week.

I don't think U2 is accounted for just because it appeared on 3 million computers, rather than having been clicked and downloaded Edited by LiveFromNormal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Songs of Innocence doesn't even come close to counting. This is about buying albums. If it reaches platinum now after being physically released, then that's another story. And the Foos won't reach it either. Not before the end of the year. The only album that probably has a chance is Taylor Swift's 1989. I know people don't want to accept that, but that's about it as far as 2014 goes.

Edited by Zeppelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VHS died out

Nintendo 64 died out

Nokia phones died out

This is no different.

And it's definitely a good thing for modern pop music. Now instead of releasing one album a year with 80% filler tracks and going irrelevant for 2 years until the next album, they can focus on releasing one killer single every few months and staying consistently relevant.

Edited by bacardimayne
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing but crap has been released. Why would anyone buy any of it?

That isn't even remotely the reason. There has been a lot of great stuff released, people and the industry just don't give a fuck anymore.

The real reason is the music "buying" public doesn't value music anymore. They don't give a shit about real musicians or the concept of full albums. In turn the music industry has catered to this apathetic attitude of the people and puts far less effort into supporting true artists and instead push a meaningless product onto people who in a strange way eat it up but don't care about it all at the same time. It's a vicious cycle. People don't care about the music that matters anymore and the music that doesn't matter is what people pay attention to. Though music that doesn't matter will never have huge sales. So here we are.

VHS died out

Nintendo 64 died out

Nokia phones died out

This is no different.

And it's definitely a good thing for modern pop music. Now instead of releasing one album a year with 80% filler tracks and going irrelevant for 2 years until the next album, they can focus on releasing one killer single every few months and staying consistently relevant.

It is most defintely NOT a good thing for modern pop music. There is almost nothing in the last 10 years that will be looked at in the next 20-30 years as classic pop the way even the cheesiest of pop music in the 80s and 90s was. Books don't die out so why the fuck are people allowing albums, which become soundtracks to our lives to die out. Fuck this generation is becoming more and more stupid and lame by the day.

It's a sad day when songs are bought more than albums.

It's a prime example of how pathetic the wrold's attention span has become. It's an example of how fucking lazy and disinterested we are becoming.

Songs of Innocence doesn't even come close to counting. This is about buying albums. If it reaches platinum now after being physically released, then that's another story. And the Foos won't reach it either. Not before the end of the year. The only album that probably has a chance is Taylor Swift''s 1989. I know people don't want to accept that, but that's about it as far as 2014 goes.

I agree Songs of Innocence doesn't count. Had they not given it away for free I believe they'd have gone platinum but I don't think album sales meant anything to them this time around. I think they had bigger picture in mind than where their album charted. It's unfortunate though ina way because it will be the first time their album doesn't go #1 since The Unforgettable Fire.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VHS died out

Nintendo 64 died out

Nokia phones died out

This is no different.

And it's definitely a good thing for modern pop music. Now instead of releasing one album a year with 80% filler tracks and going irrelevant for 2 years until the next album, they can focus on releasing one killer single every few months and staying consistently relevant.

I'm sorry, but this really is the most moronic post I've seen in a long time.

Comparing an artform like the album to fucking Nokia phones and Nitendo 64?? Are you even a music fan???

Albums will not die out. The days of artists making albums for profit might (and probably already has). But worse case scenario, you'll be left with the artists/bands who make music for the sheer love of creating something new, and the two-bit, manufactured, corporate acts will just put out singles for the morons who don't have the attention span to sit down and listen to one artist for a whole 45 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who made it a rule that all music has to be released in 8-12 song compilations in bi-annual frequencies? It just became the accepted norm because of the times.

I don't think that artists should stop making albums (though as Jakey Styley said, modern pop stars could benefit from it) but I can see the concept of the album becoming much less predominant over the coming decades.

It's the digital age. There's no real reason to release things in packages when they're not physically bound together, unless they're designed to be heard together. It's just what's accepted as the norm, and that seems to be slowly changing.

Edited by bacardimayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who made it a rule that all music has to be released in 8-12 song compilations in bi-annual frequencies? It just became the accepted norm because of the times.

I think it had it a lot to do with how expensive it's been to record and release music historically. Are you going to rent a studio, hire producers, engineers etc, hire a pressing factory, find a distributor, buy advertising time/space for 2-3 songs?

With digital music some of those costs are gone, hell you can go through the entire process by yourself: self-record, self-produce, release digitally and self-promote through social media. But for some of these steps you may or may not be good enough.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VHS died out

Nintendo 64 died out

Nokia phones died out

This is no different.

And it's definitely a good thing for modern pop music. Now instead of releasing one album a year with 80% filler tracks and going irrelevant for 2 years until the next album, they can focus on releasing one killer single every few months and staying consistently relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...