 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,749  Location: Somewhere in the universe Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
|
forkboy wrote:Young adults, people in the 19-30 demographic, buy considerably more music than teenagers. This is because they have student loans, or jobs, neither of which a 14 year old will have. Thus the 14 year old buys records when he gets his pocket money from mother & father, the 22 year old buys stuff when he gets paid, and as he gets paid more he is able to buy more.
Granted I am slightly more fanatical about music than Joe Average, but in my old job there I'd regularly buy somewhere between 3 & 5 albums a month. Now yes, the singles charts are the almost exclusive domain of younger folk, because a £3 single involves less saving up than a £12 album. But this discussion is going nowhere because you are too young to actually understand what we are talking about here so I'm going to just bring it to an end. Yes, young adults buy more records than teenagers, that's why most child artists score #1 hits, but they still score pretty high. As for adults, they simply don't buy music or else the charts would've probably been corrupt with Bruce Springsteen and Tim McGraw. |
 Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu! |
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Moderators, Registered Joined: 11/02/2009(UTC) Posts: 3,340 Location: Narsik Thanks: 295 times
Was thanked: 539 time(s) in 290 post(s)
|
Mt. Epic wrote:forkboy wrote:Young adults, people in the 19-30 demographic, buy considerably more music than teenagers. This is because they have student loans, or jobs, neither of which a 14 year old will have. Thus the 14 year old buys records when he gets his pocket money from mother & father, the 22 year old buys stuff when he gets paid, and as he gets paid more he is able to buy more.
Granted I am slightly more fanatical about music than Joe Average, but in my old job there I'd regularly buy somewhere between 3 & 5 albums a month. Now yes, the singles charts are the almost exclusive domain of younger folk, because a £3 single involves less saving up than a £12 album. But this discussion is going nowhere because you are too young to actually understand what we are talking about here so I'm going to just bring it to an end. Yes, young adults buy more records than teenagers, that's why most child artists score #1 hits, but they still score pretty high. As for adults, they simply don't buy music or else the charts would've probably been corrupt with Bruce Springsteen and Tim McGraw. Adults are actually more prone to buying Kiss, Queen, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Ac/Dc, Motley Crue, and other such rock bands before buying those two examples. |
Proud member since September 6th, 2007!
Proud to be a mod since May 5th, 2011!
Currently writing the longest Solo-Written RP in Rockstar Game History |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,749 Location: Somewhere in the universe Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
|
asdf wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:forkboy wrote:Young adults, people in the 19-30 demographic, buy considerably more music than teenagers. This is because they have student loans, or jobs, neither of which a 14 year old will have. Thus the 14 year old buys records when he gets his pocket money from mother & father, the 22 year old buys stuff when he gets paid, and as he gets paid more he is able to buy more.
Granted I am slightly more fanatical about music than Joe Average, but in my old job there I'd regularly buy somewhere between 3 & 5 albums a month. Now yes, the singles charts are the almost exclusive domain of younger folk, because a £3 single involves less saving up than a £12 album. But this discussion is going nowhere because you are too young to actually understand what we are talking about here so I'm going to just bring it to an end. Yes, young adults buy more records than teenagers, that's why most child artists score #1 hits, but they still score pretty high. As for adults, they simply don't buy music or else the charts would've probably been corrupt with Bruce Springsteen and Tim McGraw. Adults are actually more prone to buying Kiss, Queen, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Ac/Dc, Motley Crue, and other such rock bands before buying those two examples. So how come those artists have had much success in the last 10-20 bands? Adults are more prone to buy those artists. It's just, adults don't buy much music as in comparison to teenagers and young adults. |
Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu! |
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,151 Location: The Abyss Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
|
old.gregg wrote:I'm a huge Nirvana fan, and personally find the song 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' unbearable!
And yes, I'll definitely have a listen to this album - why not?! The thing that annoys me is that the majority of people who hate Nirvana or hate Kurt only hate them because they've ONLY listened to Teen Spirit! I find Kurt Cobain to be a talented musician, capable of something far deeper than fret-wankery or whatever it is that makes these guitar 'Gods' so amazing. Calling Nirvana one short-lived fad is very, very wrong. Yes, it's a shame that there's still things being released that Kurt would disagree with if he were still alive but if there's fans to listen (or more importantly buy it) then labels are always gonna push that one 'last' release. Totally agree. There was a time where I couldn't stop listening to them and I even got his action figure from the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" music video still in the box in my room. Other then that I'll most likely buy that live album because well I pretty much have everything else released by them. Including the box set which I thought was decent. |
thecerebral_collection:
quarantine | thewaitingroom | bunker18
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Moderators, Registered Joined: 13/02/2009(UTC) Posts: 3,094  Location: Probably not here Was thanked: 113 time(s) in 76 post(s)
|
Mt. Epic wrote:asdf wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:forkboy wrote:Young adults, people in the 19-30 demographic, buy considerably more music than teenagers. This is because they have student loans, or jobs, neither of which a 14 year old will have. Thus the 14 year old buys records when he gets his pocket money from mother & father, the 22 year old buys stuff when he gets paid, and as he gets paid more he is able to buy more.
Granted I am slightly more fanatical about music than Joe Average, but in my old job there I'd regularly buy somewhere between 3 & 5 albums a month. Now yes, the singles charts are the almost exclusive domain of younger folk, because a £3 single involves less saving up than a £12 album. But this discussion is going nowhere because you are too young to actually understand what we are talking about here so I'm going to just bring it to an end. Yes, young adults buy more records than teenagers, that's why most child artists score #1 hits, but they still score pretty high. As for adults, they simply don't buy music or else the charts would've probably been corrupt with Bruce Springsteen and Tim McGraw. Adults are actually more prone to buying Kiss, Queen, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Ac/Dc, Motley Crue, and other such rock bands before buying those two examples. So how come those artists have had much success in the last 10-20 bands? Adults are more prone to buy those artists. It's just, adults don't buy much music as in comparison to teenagers and young adults. I think you're not taking into account the fact that kids and young adults are all filthy pirates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,749 Location: Somewhere in the universe Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
|
Gildermershina wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:asdf wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:forkboy wrote:Young adults, people in the 19-30 demographic, buy considerably more music than teenagers. This is because they have student loans, or jobs, neither of which a 14 year old will have. Thus the 14 year old buys records when he gets his pocket money from mother & father, the 22 year old buys stuff when he gets paid, and as he gets paid more he is able to buy more.
Granted I am slightly more fanatical about music than Joe Average, but in my old job there I'd regularly buy somewhere between 3 & 5 albums a month. Now yes, the singles charts are the almost exclusive domain of younger folk, because a £3 single involves less saving up than a £12 album. But this discussion is going nowhere because you are too young to actually understand what we are talking about here so I'm going to just bring it to an end. Yes, young adults buy more records than teenagers, that's why most child artists score #1 hits, but they still score pretty high. As for adults, they simply don't buy music or else the charts would've probably been corrupt with Bruce Springsteen and Tim McGraw. Adults are actually more prone to buying Kiss, Queen, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Ac/Dc, Motley Crue, and other such rock bands before buying those two examples. So how come those artists have had much success in the last 10-20 bands? Adults are more prone to buy those artists. It's just, adults don't buy much music as in comparison to teenagers and young adults. I think you're not taking into account the fact that kids and young adults are all filthy pirates. Not most teenagers though, because surprisingly, most can't pirate. |
Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu! |
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 19/07/2009(UTC) Posts: 753 Location: STALKER!
|
old.gregg wrote:I'm a huge Nirvana fan, and personally find the song 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' unbearable!
And yes, I'll definitely have a listen to this album - why not?! The thing that annoys me is that the majority of people who hate Nirvana or hate Kurt only hate them because they've ONLY listened to Teen Spirit! I find Kurt Cobain to be a talented musician, capable of something far deeper than fret-wankery or whatever it is that makes these guitar 'Gods' so amazing. Calling Nirvana one short-lived fad is very, very wrong. Yes, it's a shame that there's still things being released that Kurt would disagree with if he were still alive but if there's fans to listen (or more importantly buy it) then labels are always gonna push that one 'last' release. YAY! ANOTHER NIRVANA FAN! God, I thought I was the only one. I love Smells Like Teen Spirit though. I'll definitely listen, if not buy, this album. You have to admit, even if you can't stand them, you have to admit that Nirvana was one of the most influential bands of the '90s |
RP Only Since July 2010The Owner Of:Long Nights- [alt-rock/post-grunge- think Foo Fighters meets Creature with the Atom Brain] MTN Climber -Ryan Page: Vocals/Guitar/Keys -Warren Mcgriff- Guitar -Christopher I. Myers- Bass -Blake Renwick- Drums The World According To St. Jimmy- [Pop-punk/punk- Think Green Day meets Social Distortion] -Michael "Dog" Bryant: Vocals -Shawn "Shady" Harris: Guitar -Jeff Zamora: Bass -Karl Hine: Drums forkboy wrote:STOP MISSING THE FUCKING POINT YOU INTENTIONALLY OBTUSE BUFFOON Paradox wrote:*Shotgun clicks*
Dont mess with prog
The Skulls wrote:Why thank you. Wait, if I'm alive then -- oh lawdy BRRRAAAAIIINZZZ |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,749 Location: Somewhere in the universe Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
|
btw, the album debuted at number 37 on the US Billboard Top 200 Chart, which isn't considered very successful. |
Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu! |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Moderators, Registered Joined: 13/02/2009(UTC) Posts: 3,094 Location: Probably not here Was thanked: 113 time(s) in 76 post(s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,255
Location: Glasgow
Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 107 time(s) in 82 post(s)
|
Mt. Epic wrote:btw, the album debuted at number 37 on the US Billboard Top 200 Chart, which isn't considered very successful. People bought it. To get to #37, lots of people bought it. Many thousands. That means it was a financial success. That's the bottom line. So to quote Paul, "get over it". Flogging existing bands with material that is already on record is cheaper than finding a lot of new bands, paying for them to get into the record studio, and then you are still left hoping that of them hits big. Because the news flash is that most don't. Edited by user 13 November 2009 11:45:10(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,529
Location: Give me more sunliiiiiight!
Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 31 time(s) in 23 post(s)
|
Yeah, wow, 37 on the Billboard charts. What a complete failure...now are you done flogging the dead horse? |
 _____________ The Black Gates- Progressive technical metal The Infidels!- Retro doom funk grindcore The Graveyard Sluts- dirty, slutty rawwwwk Psycopathologist- old school death grind Everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's just that your's is stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,749 Location: Somewhere in the universe Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
|
forkboy wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:btw, the album debuted at number 37 on the US Billboard Top 200 Chart, which isn't considered very successful. People bought it. To get to #37, lots of people bought it. Many thousands. That means it was a financial success. That's the bottom line. So to quote Paul, "get over it". Flogging existing bands with material that is already on record is cheaper than finding a lot of new bands, paying for them to get into the record studio, and then you are still left hoping that of them hits big. Because the news flash is that most don't. Yes it is a financial success, I never said it wasn't going to be. I was merely saying that it wasn't gonna be quite as successful as releasing an album like a Greatest Hits for Coldplay or a live album by The Strokes even. Besides, they had a huge dispute over who would be receiving the pay from the posthumous Nirvana albums, and it was gonna be between Foo Fighters, Courtney Love, and the label, but then they had the lawsuit, and Courtney Love got like almost all of the rights to the royalties so she did whatever she wanted with it. And she sold about half of her share to about a dozen different labels so it would've been more like pocket change to each label that received their cut. Edited by user 14 November 2009 08:02:14(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu! |
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 08/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,007 Location: cuernavaca, mexico
|
Mt. Epic wrote:forkboy wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:btw, the album debuted at number 37 on the US Billboard Top 200 Chart, which isn't considered very successful. People bought it. To get to #37, lots of people bought it. Many thousands. That means it was a financial success. That's the bottom line. So to quote Paul, "get over it". Flogging existing bands with material that is already on record is cheaper than finding a lot of new bands, paying for them to get into the record studio, and then you are still left hoping that of them hits big. Because the news flash is that most don't. Yes it is a financial success, I never said it wasn't going to be. I was merely saying that it wasn't gonna be quite as successful as releasing an album like a Greatest Hits for Coldplay or a live album by The Strokes even. Besides, they had a huge dispute over who would be receiving the pay from the posthumous Nirvana albums, and it was gonna be between Foo Fighters, Courtney Love, and the label, but then they had the lawsuit, and Courtney Love got like almost all of the rights to the royalties so she did whatever she wanted with it. And she sold about half of her share to about a dozen different labels so it would've been more like pocket change to each label that received their cut. Still, pocket change for a label is a good profit |
RP bands: Insolent Paradox - Progressive [Forum Thread] - Post-production Oceans - Fusion Jazz - Writing stephaniewazhere wrote:I'm failing? I'm failing??????? LMAO!!!!!!
Mod Edit - you failed... Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,749 Location: Somewhere in the universe Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
|
Paradox wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:forkboy wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:btw, the album debuted at number 37 on the US Billboard Top 200 Chart, which isn't considered very successful. People bought it. To get to #37, lots of people bought it. Many thousands. That means it was a financial success. That's the bottom line. So to quote Paul, "get over it". Flogging existing bands with material that is already on record is cheaper than finding a lot of new bands, paying for them to get into the record studio, and then you are still left hoping that of them hits big. Because the news flash is that most don't. Yes it is a financial success, I never said it wasn't going to be. I was merely saying that it wasn't gonna be quite as successful as releasing an album like a Greatest Hits for Coldplay or a live album by The Strokes even. Besides, they had a huge dispute over who would be receiving the pay from the posthumous Nirvana albums, and it was gonna be between Foo Fighters, Courtney Love, and the label, but then they had the lawsuit, and Courtney Love got like almost all of the rights to the royalties so she did whatever she wanted with it. And she sold about half of her share to about a dozen different labels so it would've been more like pocket change to each label that received their cut. Still, pocket change for a label is a good profit But really? Would a label spend time promoting an album with a low revenue rather than a little kid who got no balls bwho will still guarantee a hit album/single or both? |
Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu! |
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Moderators, Registered Joined: 11/02/2009(UTC) Posts: 2,308 Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 6 post(s)
|
Yes, we get it, you don't like Nirvana.
37 on the Billboard charts - do you have any idea of the figures you're talking about there?! It IS a financial success, just as 'some kid' gets success through whatever means of promotion they get. |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,255
Location: Glasgow
Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 107 time(s) in 82 post(s)
|
Mt. Epic wrote:forkboy wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:btw, the album debuted at number 37 on the US Billboard Top 200 Chart, which isn't considered very successful. People bought it. To get to #37, lots of people bought it. Many thousands. That means it was a financial success. That's the bottom line. So to quote Paul, "get over it". Flogging existing bands with material that is already on record is cheaper than finding a lot of new bands, paying for them to get into the record studio, and then you are still left hoping that of them hits big. Because the news flash is that most don't. Yes it is a financial success, I never said it wasn't going to be. I was merely saying that it wasn't gonna be quite as successful as releasing an album like a Greatest Hits for Coldplay or a live album by The Strokes even. Besides, they had a huge dispute over who would be receiving the pay from the posthumous Nirvana albums, and it was gonna be between Foo Fighters, Courtney Love, and the label, but then they had the lawsuit, and Courtney Love got like almost all of the rights to the royalties so she did whatever she wanted with it. And she sold about half of her share to about a dozen different labels so it would've been more like pocket change to each label that received their cut. Well here we see further examples of your ignorance about the music business. You see, Coldplay are signed to Parlophone owned by EMI & Nirvana were on Geffen, owned by Universal Music. So I'm sure as much as Geffen would love to release a Coldplay best of album but that would be impossibe as things currently stand. The Strokes as bigger sellers than Nirvana is so laughable as to not even be worth discussing other than to point out the farce. Welcome to the record industry, of which you seem to know nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,749 Location: Somewhere in the universe Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
|
forkboy wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:forkboy wrote:Mt. Epic wrote:btw, the album debuted at number 37 on the US Billboard Top 200 Chart, which isn't considered very successful. People bought it. To get to #37, lots of people bought it. Many thousands. That means it was a financial success. That's the bottom line. So to quote Paul, "get over it". Flogging existing bands with material that is already on record is cheaper than finding a lot of new bands, paying for them to get into the record studio, and then you are still left hoping that of them hits big. Because the news flash is that most don't. Yes it is a financial success, I never said it wasn't going to be. I was merely saying that it wasn't gonna be quite as successful as releasing an album like a Greatest Hits for Coldplay or a live album by The Strokes even. Besides, they had a huge dispute over who would be receiving the pay from the posthumous Nirvana albums, and it was gonna be between Foo Fighters, Courtney Love, and the label, but then they had the lawsuit, and Courtney Love got like almost all of the rights to the royalties so she did whatever she wanted with it. And she sold about half of her share to about a dozen different labels so it would've been more like pocket change to each label that received their cut. Well here we see further examples of your ignorance about the music business. You see, Coldplay are signed to Parlophone owned by EMI & Nirvana were on Geffen, owned by Universal Music. So I'm sure as much as Geffen would love to release a Coldplay best of album but that would be impossibe as things currently stand. The Strokes as bigger sellers than Nirvana is so laughable as to not even be worth discussing other than to point out the farce. Welcome to the record industry, of which you seem to know nothing. No, I'm not saying the to bands Coldplay and Nirvana are signed under the same record, which proves your ignorance. I was just pointing out a few random examples, so it doesn't necessarily have to be Coldplay. It could be The Killers or Rihanna, if you want this to be label-mates only. Also, The Strokes WOULD outsell an outdated Nirvana live album with one of their own, mainly because The Strokes are among the current popular music wave, and Nirvana are only held alive to its current point because of Foo Fighters and Courtney Love. Basically, that last sentence I wrote is what I'm trying to get across in this thread. Nirvana was originally a short-lived fad, but Foo Fighters and Courtney Love stretches to long lengths too far. And it was Cobain's wish not to become what he is now, so both parties are being disrespectful to their dead friend's wishes. But as you said, companies only care about the money, and since Love split her large, legally won from Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselics' share of the royalties and her own, and gave half to several labels under Universal Music, then they really don't care for their friend. |
Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu! |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,749 Location: Somewhere in the universe Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
|
old.gregg wrote:Yes, we get it, you don't like Nirvana.
37 on the Billboard charts - do you have any idea of the figures you're talking about there?! It IS a financial success, just as 'some kid' gets success through whatever means of promotion they get. Yes, but the kid gets MORE! plus, the kid brings in tour revenue to promote the album, which is where most of the money comes from, where as Nirvana can't bring back Cobain out of the grave to sing "Pennyroyal Tea". |
Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu! |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,255
Location: Glasgow
Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 107 time(s) in 82 post(s)
|
Yeah. You don't need to promote a band the size of Nirvana. Do you think The Beatles sales are hurt by John & George being unable to play anymore? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,529
Location: Give me more sunliiiiiight!
Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 31 time(s) in 23 post(s)
|
Though I am no fan of Nirvana, I'd like to know how you came up with calling Nirvana a short lived fad? Granted they were around for roughly seven years but they have sold some fifty million records and I am sure its legacy given the impact that they had, could well have lived on without Foo Fighters and so on. Hardly a short lived fad.
Round and round and round and round we go... |
_____________ The Black Gates- Progressive technical metal The Infidels!- Retro doom funk grindcore The Graveyard Sluts- dirty, slutty rawwwwk Psycopathologist- old school death grind Everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's just that your's is stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
