Forum Mainpage

Start a new Thread

Bottom

Page: [1] [2]

Rick
Oct-31-2006, 03:18 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America

Hello,
This is my first post to this site. I saw Paul at Radio City in NYC last week, and was inspired to seek out this bulletin board after that show. What an awesome performance!
Not too long ago there was another thread about what Surprise has sold. I work in the music business and I have access to soundscan data so I can give you information about that. All figures below are for the US only.
Surprise was released 5/9/06. It scanned 61K the first week and entered the Billboard charts at number 14. It remained on the charts for 13 weeks. It has now been out for 23 weeks and it has scanned a total of 250K. It is currently scanning about 1700 per week. The 250K total includes 22,482 digital album sales. In addition to this 48,251 individual tracks have been sold digitally.
You´re The One was released 10/03/00. (October is obviously a time when releases sell more quickly than they do in May.) It scanned 60K in the first week and entered the charts at number 19. It stayed on the charts for 17 weeks. It has sold 506K units total in the little over 6 years it has been out.
It did maintain a higher sales level for a longer time. When it had been out for 23 weeks, it was selling between 5 -9K per week, much more than what Surprise is doing now. The difference is digital sales is dramatic. Out of the 506K unit sales, only 568 copies have been sold digitally (1/10th of 1 percent, vs 9% for Surprise).
Hopefully the sales for Surprise will remain strong through the holiday season, and it will eventually emerge as a strong seller.
However, I´m sure that we will all agree that Paul does not have sales figure targets in mind when he releases an album. he has an artistic vision which he presents. The vision on Surprise is brilliant. Whether the rest of the world captures his vision is secondary.

I believe in the future I will live in m car.

Rick

Klausi
Oct-31-2006, 06:30 GMT
IP:
Germany

Hello Rick, you are certainly right that album-sales are not the main point as long as Simon continues to work.

Nevertheless sales in the US are disappointing, compared to the more than 800.000 worldwide. Advertising and touring cannot push something too strange for many people.

Simon said the rest of the world, especially the UK, are generally more open for new sounds. Graceland also sold two third outside the US.

It seems Surprise will finally sell as much as YTO, about a Million worldwide, which is not bad.

Bodo
Oct-31-2006, 12:24 GMT
IP:
Austria

Thanks much for that info Rick. Maybe we can include that somehow into the news, it sounds very interesting.
In general most fans agree that Surprise is a much better album then YTO, but the sales say different things. Although, just a few days ago one of the music industry bosses said that the time of CD´s are history. I think this also has a big impact on the sales. And Pauls main audience (the S&G fans and the Graceland fans) do not like electronic music that much.

Rosemary in Time
Nov-01-2006, 23:45 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

>However, I´m sure that we will all agree that Paul does not have sales figure targets in mind when he releases an album. he has an artistic vision which he presents.

Thanks for your post, Rick, and for the interesting figures. I have to say that I don´t agree that sales figures are unimportant. Art doesn´t exist in an ivory tower. It exists in a relationship between the artist and his audience. So it follows that an artist who doesn´t have an audience is in trouble. Personally I like Surprise, but the fact that people aren´t listening to it means that it isn´t relevant to anyone except a tiny minority of the population. To my mind that means that it´s a failed artistic vision. What´s more, I think Paul Simon has a strong desire to communicate and I therefore believe that he will feel very aware of the failure of his artistic vision. Yes, let´s all agree that here on this site we like Surprise. But it´s a flop. It didn´t achieve anything. The artistic vision behind it isn´t powerful enough to matter to very many people today.

Bodo
Nov-02-2006, 00:05 GMT
IP:
Austria

Art and sales are not in any relation today.

What Paul does is his absolute free artistical decision and work, and it reached about 800.000 people (+ let´s say about a few hundred thousand illegal downloads and copies).

Somehow for an artists ego sales numbers are important, and they have been important for Paul too, but not anylonger today. You can read in many interviews that he is aware of the fact that many people can not follow his musical way - just in the last interview he said that he does know what kind of music is ´IN´ today, all this music is around him, the kids play it,. but he does not like that music.

About sales: 90% of sales are just made by advertisement.

From the viewpoint of ´art´ this is Paul Simons best work.

nancy
Nov-02-2006, 05:43 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America

I agree,Bodo. Thank you,Paul,for yet another musical treasure.

Klausi
Nov-02-2006, 07:24 GMT
IP:
Germany

I think, it is somehow in the middle of both meanings.

90 percent of an album is NOT advertising. If so, The Sound of Silence or Graceland did not sell so well, and many debuts like Jewel or Tracy Chapman had not succeeded. Stars cannot be made.

In our times though, the interest for meaningful and demanding music is not the same as it once was.

Music has become more "ingredients" to other things like films, restaurants, shopping centers etc. instead of being a thing for itself. We are bombed with pop-music everywhere we go.

Who stops a conversation and says "Hey, listen, this is good music!"?

Where besides concerts are two or more people just listening to music?

Paul Simon never wrote songs for having success, even not, when he was very successful. He enjoyed the success and was very touched when it did not happen like after Hearts And Bones or the Capeman. Seven years of work for nothing is hard for every artist.

But a million albums is not a flop (but also not a hit). It`s between.

Rosemary In Time
Nov-02-2006, 10:09 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

Well of course these are the answers I expected. But read my post more carefully and you will see that I wasn´t talking about what is "IN" or what is "popular" or what is a "hit".

What I say is that just having an artistic vision is nothing.

Art means moving people with the power of your artistic vision.

If it doesn´t capture an audience it may be nice but it is a failure as art.

A song without a listener is like a dance without a dancer.

A song doesn´t even exist as art unless it is shared. If it doesn´t succeed in making a relationship between the singer and his audience it is a failure.

Bodo
Nov-02-2006, 11:36 GMT
IP:
Austria

I understood you very good Rosemary, but I do not think that you are right when you say: "Art means moving people with the power of your artistic vision. " or "If it doesn´t capture an audience it may be nice but it is a failure as art."
That is not true, because the first thing about art is that you make it for yourself, that it is your work, your feelings and your vision - when you start to think what other people like and how people will react on it the dilemma begins. Then you just work for the people and the audience and their expectations. Most people who buy music do not know anything about artistic visions, they want to hear something they are familiar with. See, Paul Simons fans(the other millions, not us) expect from him music like Graceland, Late In The Evening or S&G songs - thats Paul Simons burden, because this have been his big hit(s). The audience of every artist - and now I do not want to speak about music only (painters, photography, writers..) always wants their artist to do the same things, to repeat themself. And many artists do that, but they are not happy with their work anymore.
The creative process does not involve any audience or sales numbers - or even a result. You just do it for yourself - for Paul Simon the work on Graceland and on The Capeman was thrilling, he put his full creativity into both things - but why was 1 album a hit and the other a big flop? No one can really tell, it maybe was just the right time for a certain song.
Artistically Paul Simon ist the most free musician I know, he has enough time and money to work on an album as long as he wants [I remember the interview with Evan Zyproin from the YTO recordings, he recorded with many other musicians, but he said he never had spend so much time in the studio, normaly they have strikt time tables and can only use the studio for 3-5 hours, but with Simon you can try one small part for 20 or 30 times] - he does not sell much, but no one around him or Warner says "He, that was a flop, next time we need a song like You Can Call Me Al please"
A musician like Robbie Williams couldn´t do that, he has to arrange that music so with his producers that his main audience (girls, age group 15-30 maybe) will buy it. Absolute no artistical freedom, but it moves all that people.

So failure of art has absolute nothing to do with the audience. You have to experience that artistical freedom first (I know, at first everyone is working just for the audience and their positive response)

Rosemary In Time
Nov-02-2006, 15:01 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

There is no point debating with you, Bodo.

You are still talking about Robbie Williams and hits and fashions and people who buy music in order to hear something familiar. This has nothing to do with art.

Art which doesn´t capture and move an audience is brain dead. Period.

Scaaty
Nov-02-2006, 15:21 GMT
IP:
Ireland

so opera is brain dead? Rembrandt is brain dead? films like Three colours Blue, Red, White are brain dead. A film like Rocky isn´t brain dead.
True Art rarely appeals to the masses initially because it is not easily accessable. When something can endure and is timeless - that is art. Many of the fans of this site are too young to have known Paul Simon when he made a lot of his albums, yet they still got into him and not just for the big hits.

Bodo
Nov-02-2006, 16:58 GMT
IP:
Austria

Did I explain it so wrong? Why did I talk about Robbie Willians - because it is not art. You say exactly the same things I say.

At what number of listeners would you say it is art? Surprise sold about 800.000 worldwide - is it art or not now?

I say - if it only captures one person, then it is also art. Even if this person is only the artist himself.

Mimi
Nov-02-2006, 18:29 GMT
IP:
Austria

I am touched by what he does. So for me it is art.

I am thankful that there are some artists out there that make music that I can relate to. There are a lot of different people out there with a lot of different tastes. It would be a shame, if everything, that is not mainstream and bought by the millions is declared as not useful. This is not they way, I would describe art.

Rosemary in Time
Nov-02-2006, 21:26 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom

It´s not a question of whether it´s mainstream and sells millions.

But just because something pleases, that doesn´t make it a successful work of art.

If I make Bodo a delicious cassoulet, is that as good a work of art as a Paul Simon song?

If I also serve him a wonderful bottle of Chateau Lafitte, is that a better work of art?

What is the difference between a pretty girl with a bunch of flowers and a work of art?

Can a beautiful tropical fish be a work of art?

If something looks nice but smells bad can it be a work of art?

If I dance alone in my room is that a work of art?

Would it be a better work of art if someone saw me dancing?

Bodo
Nov-03-2006, 11:17 GMT
IP:
Austria

It´s not a question of whether it´s mainstream and sells millions.

Didn´t you say that it didn´t reach enough people and so Pauls artistical vision was a failure?

But just because something pleases, that doesn´t make it a successful work of art.

True

If I make Bodo a delicious cassoulet, is that as good a work of art as a Paul Simon song?

No.
If you reproduce something which has been already invented by other people million times before, it is not art. Art is the creative process behind it. Believe it or not, art is not the result alone.

If I also serve him a wonderful bottle of Chateau Lafitte, is that a better work of art?

do you want to be provocative?

What is the difference between a pretty girl with a bunch of flowers and a work of art?

Art does not have to be pretty (yes I am zynical, a pretty girl is not art, I answered the question a few times now why)

Can a beautiful tropical fish be a work of art?

If you believe in the creationist´s thesis, of course.

If something looks nice but smells bad can it be a work of art?

Of course, except you think about something from McDonalds.

If I dance alone in my room is that a work of art?

Possibly. But I can not talk about your special case - let´s say if Rudolf Nurejew danced alone in his room...

Would it be a better work of art if someone saw me dancing?

No, it does not change anything.

In one sentence you can say this:
Art produces emotions, but different ones for every person. (so obviously if something is wonderful and nearly everyone has the feeling this looks wonderful, then it is kitsch and not art. Most people produce just kitsch)

Page: [1] [2]

Forum Mainpage

Start a new Thread

Top