The Chinese Democracy Effect

[Jonathan Blum]

The Chinese Democracy Effect:  http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9499317/justin-timberlake-daft-punk-chinese-democracy-effect

An essay about the Long-Awaited Comeback Album effect which oddly doesn't mention either "Smile" or "Radio", but which makes some interesting points related to both of them...  "Radio" seems like an example of what the author describes as the new rulebook for long-awaited albums, while "Smile" flies triumphantly in the face of it!

[Jason Penick]

I've never been much of a fan of Stephen Hyden dating back to his days at the AV Club, because from what I can tell he displays a very narrow musical frame of reference that springs forth from the nonstop diet of 1990s grunge and alternative he listened to as a kid. Most on the ball reviewers would have picked up on the fact that Steely Dan accomplished exactly the sort of thing he's talking about with Two Against Nature, which came out 20 years after their previous studio album Gaucho and picked up exactly where they left off, winning a Grammy for best album in the process and thereby establishing the gold standard by which all comeback albums ought to be judged.

Furthermore, of the albums he mentioned, Bowie's was a commercial dud and received middling reviews at best, Timberlake's only got over due to a massive hype campaign and people are already forgetting about it, and M B V (despite great reviews) didn't exactly set the charts on fire saleswise. Daft Punk's, I will agree with him, was an unqualified success.

As with most articles the guy writes, I'm ultimately questioning his purpose. He doesn't display any real level of insider knowledge in his reporting, and he's not particularly humorous, so all I'm left with is the same lingering, mostly ambivalent emotions I would get from having a random conversation about music with some hipster at a dive bar. So what?

I don't dislike Hyden or wish for him to fail. It's just that he seems to get a lot of plum assignments these days, and I've read far better examples of insightful rock journalism elsewhere.

[alf wiedersehen]

Furthermore, of the albums he mentioned, Bowie's was a commercial dud and received middling reviews at best

What you've said about Bowie's The Next Day is completely wrong.

Firstly, the record currently holds an 81 on Metacritic and is one of the best reviewed albums to be released this year.

Secondly, the album was a commercial success. In Britain, it sold 152,876 copies in the first three weeks and entered the charts at #1. It sold 85,000 copies in it's first week in the U.S. It even went on to reach #1 in Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland.

Do some research.

[Jason Penick]

Hey asshat, I don't need you to tell me what to do and what not to do, okay? Every review of that Bowie album I've read has said that it's substandard. I'm sorry I didn't consult with Metacritic first, though I probably should have to avoid pissy comments from jerks like you. Wow, it sold a whopping 200,000 out of the gate? Pardon me while I go sh*t myself.

[Michael Edwards Love]

You might try listening to it.  "The Next Day" is very good.

[Jonathan Blum]

Hey asshat, I don't need you to tell me what to do and what not to do, okay? Every review of that Bowie album I've read has said that it's substandard.

Well, there do seem to be a few more reviews out there.  But I think the actual issue is about you calling it a commercial dud... I can't think of many UK #1 albums which can really be described that way!

(Just for the record, 200,000 copies is about what "Radio" sold, IIRC...)

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[Amazing Larry]

Hey asshat, I don't need you to tell me what to do and what not to do, okay? Every review of that Bowie album I've read has said that it's substandard.

Well, there do seem to be a few more reviews out there.  But I think the actual issue is about you calling it a commercial dud... I can't think of many UK #1 albums which can really be described that way!

(Just for the record, 200,000 copies is about what "Radio" sold, IIRC...)

Cheers,
Jon Blum

200,000 is a lot nowadays.

[Niko]

Definitely not a commercial dud. Especially since Bowie had hits like 40 years ago.

[Jason Penick]

Definitely not a commercial dud. Especially since Bowie had hits like 40 years ago.

Hey look, I'm not trying to drag this out, especially considering this thread had nothing to do with Bowie in the first place, and I'm not trying to derail it. But just to counteract what Mr. Research Guy said earlier; I would hope most of you would understand that first week sales of new albums from established artists with a huge publicity push might not be an entirely accurate barometer in terms of shelf life, especially when said album is outselling in the UK vs. the US. But just for fun, let's take a look at how The Next Day sold over time, say on its seventh week:

Seven weeks. That’s how long David Bowie’s “The Next Day” has been on the chart. It’s perched at number 99, having moved 4,060 copies in its latest week, putting it right above Matt Maher’s debut and four spots below Darlene Zschech’s “Revealing Jesus.” Never heard of them? That makes two of us, I don’t know who they are either.

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2013/05/08/success-is-elusive/

But hey, clearly you shouldn't listen to me since I don't do my research. Back to talking about the pros and cons of the box set.

[alf wiedersehen]

I will agree that perhaps it's less than what Bowie and his team expected. But, they probably weren't looking at this realistically.

The pop market is a fickle one, and it changes constantly. To me, the fact that an artist that hadn't made a record in, what, twenty years reaches number one is quite the accomplishment. There was hardly any press for the album either, it was just quietly released. Perhaps with a bigger advertising campaign, it would have sold even more.

Seven weeks. That’s how long David Bowie’s “The Next Day” has been on the chart. It’s perched at number 99, having moved 4,060 copies in its latest week, putting it right above Matt Maher’s debut and four spots below Darlene Zschech’s “Revealing Jesus.” Never heard of them? That makes two of us, I don’t know who they are either.

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2013/05/08/success-is-elusive/

But hey, clearly you shouldn't listen to me since I don't do my research. Back to talking about the pros and cons of the box set.

However, this point is completely asinine. All albums fall down the charts. Even Dark Side of the Moon had to come down some day.

And, hey, when it did, I bet it was sandwiched between some new, top 40 bands that people hand't heard of either.

Also, simply because you haven't heard of a band doesn't mean they aren't popular. Obviously someone has to like their music to a certain extent to get them so high on the charts.

[Jason Penick]

However, this point is completely asinine. All albums fall down the charts. Even Dark Side of the Moon had to come down some day.

And, hey, when it did, I bet it was sandwiched between some new, top 40 bands that people hand't heard of either.

Also, simply because you haven't heard of a band doesn't mean they aren't popular. Obviously someone has to like their music to a certain extent to get them so high on the charts.

Christ Jesus, are you oblivious? I am really not trying to be rude here, but come on, mate. Or maybe you're bating me. Are you seriously sitting here and saying that you see no difference between Dark Side staying on the charts for 741 weeks vs. Bowie falling off in seven, and falling hard? And what band are you referring to that I haven't heard of? I'm not Bob Lefsetz. I was quoting him to make a point that you probably have yet to grasp. Look, I'm really not trying to start a pissing match with you, but at some point you probably are going to have to admit that just because Bowie hit #1 in his first week out does not make his album a massive worldwide success. Five years from now will anyone be discussing any of this singles? Five months? Five weeks? I don't know if you're from England, but believe you me when I tell you not many people in America gave a sh*t. In my personal opinion, he would have been better off keeping Tin Machine together back when he was still ahead of the game.

Look I'm a huge Steely Dan fan, and Donald Fagen's last solo album didn't even register a blip on the fucking radar commercially, but I'll still go to the mat saying it was 30 times better than Bowie's latest. Argue all you want, I don't care anymore. Conventional wisdom says first week out, fanbase shows up, buys the album. With a publicity push, maybe the album goes top 10 or even #1. But what matters is long term sales-- if an album can't maintain that then it's not a catalog item and... f***, I'm done. And because you angered me, which is actually really hard to do, I might just point out to you that I don't think too many people on this board go back to the days when Chuck ran it, and in lieu of telling you to shut up and obey your betters, I'll throw out a quote the old school SF cats used back in the day and say may the baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind. Not trying to be rude, but who are you and what makes you such a special snowflake that you think you can get off talking to me like this? I'm honestly curious. Your thoughts? Let's hear it Mister Man.

Actually f*** that, I'm done, with you. Talk to yourself.

[Gertie J.]

oh just move along and forget it, the guy's obviously  trolling.

[Jason Penick]

f***, I'll bite. Who are you referring to Gertie J?

[Gertie J.]

to the other guy.

[Jason Penick]

I don't think he's a troll. He did have a point, if possibly ill conceived. I don't see him as a troll though. I see this as the kind of honest back and forth conversation that keeps message boards like this interesting. But thank you nonetheless Gertie J!

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Hey asshat, I don't need you to tell me what to do and what not to do, okay? Every review of that Bowie album I've read has said that it's substandard. I'm sorry I didn't consult with Metacritic first, though I probably should have to avoid pissy comments from jerks like you. Wow, it sold a whopping 200,000 out of the gate? Pardon me while I go sh*t myself.

Of the music magazines I read - NME, Mojo, Uncut, Q - the Bowie album got good reviews in them all. Er, and 200,000 is really quite a lot...

[Mike's Beard]

I'm not a huge follower of Bowie but haven't his albums followed pretty much the same pattern in the UK since the mid 90's? Enter high then crash out of sight fairly quick. I remember all the critical hosannas Outside had when it was released, it made a big splash on the charts and then dropped out of sight within weeks.

Bowie must have been chuffed with the sales from his comeback. He's got a firm understanding of the music biz these days and is not going to pull a Mike Love and bemoan that it's still not riding high a year later.

[alf wiedersehen]

Are you seriously sitting here and saying that you see no difference between Dark Side staying on the charts for 741 weeks vs. Bowie falling off in seven, and falling hard? And what band are you referring to that I haven't heard of? At some point you probably are going to have to admit that just because Bowie hit #1 in his first week out does not make his album a massive worldwide success.

First of all, absolutely there is a difference. I was merely using DSOTM as a symbol we both can understand. It stayed on the charts for years, but sooner or later, it had to come down. When it did, it was in the same position as Bowie's album where it was probably stuck between two bands people hadn't heard of. Also, I'm not saying that you haven't heard of a certain band, I was referring to what Mr. Lefsetz said, which was along the lines of "Bowie's album is between two bands that no one has heard of." Also, I'm not saying The Next Day was a huge commercial smash and David Bowie bathed in champagne and their are ten copies of The Next Day littering everyone's houses. I'm saying that it wasn't a commercial dud like you said it was.

Look I'm a huge Steely Dan fan, and Donald Fagen's last solo album didn't even register a blip on the fucking radar commercially, but I'll still go to the mat saying it was 30 times better than Bowie's latest.

We're not talking personal taste here. I thought Bowie's album was alright, but it wasn't the greatest thing I had ever heard. But, it has received tremendous reviews. It doesn't matter what you or I personally think. That's a totally different conversation.

Conventional wisdom says first week out, fanbase shows up, buys the album. With a publicity push, maybe the album goes top 10 or even #1.

Yes, I agree. David Bowie's fan base came out the first week, they bought the record, and the record stalled. That happened. I got it.

And because you angered me, which is actually really hard to do, I might just point out to you that I don't think too many people on this board go back to the days when Chuck ran it, and in lieu of telling you to shut up and obey your betters, I'll throw out a quote the old school SF cats used back in the day and say may the baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind. Not trying to be rude, but who are you and what makes you such a special snowflake that you think you can get off talking to me like this? I'm honestly curious. Your thoughts? Let's hear it Mister Man.

I don't understand how I possibly could have angered you so thoroughly. If anything, I should be the one who's angry. You've been throwing insults at me and even condescending towards me. I haven't done anything like that. I've just replied to your points.

I could be sitting here insulting you back. But, I don't. I'm above insulting people I don't know on message boards. And, if you've been here as long as you say you have, you should probably have gotten to that point, too.

[Niko]

oh just move along and forget it, the guy's obviously  trolling.

Doesn't seem like trolling to me. He's arguing his point.

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[Niko]

I could be sitting here insulting you back. But, I don't. I'm above insulting people I don't know on message boards. And, if you've been here as long as you say you have, you should probably have gotten to that point, too.

Don't tell him what to do, asshat!

 

[smile-holland]

Bubbly waves and (especially) Convenient Target of Asshats: please cool down a bit or take it to PM's !

[runnersdialzero]

Bubbly waves and (especially) Convenient Target of Asshats: please cool down a bit or take it to PM's !

PM in the TM, maybe.

[Cabinessenceking]

Hey asshat, I don't need you to tell me what to do and what not to do, okay? Every review of that Bowie album I've read has said that it's substandard.

Well, there do seem to be a few more reviews out there.  But I think the actual issue is about you calling it a commercial dud... I can't think of many UK #1 albums which can really be described that way!

(Just for the record, 200,000 copies is about what "Radio" sold, IIRC...)

Cheers,
Jon Blum

200,000 is a lot nowadays.

It's not that less music is being sold.
It's that tastes and musical styles have diversified substantially. There are probably hundreds of times more artists, groups and people just making music for a hobby compared to back when, and population hasn't increased anywhere near as much.

Also, streaming, paid-for-radio and other internet channels mean less people buy a physical copy or a a full album on itunes.

Sales per capita have gone down significantly I'd reckon though.

[Rocky Raccoon]

About a week ago, I listen to That's Why God Made the Radio and it really isn't as good as I remember it being.  I still love some of the songs, "Summer's Gone" should rank with the group's best work in my opinion.  But there's still enough to skip over, particularly "Spring Vacation" and "Beaches in Mind."  "Spring Vacation" is particularly strange with its lyrics "Some said it wouldn't last, all we can say is we're still having a blast."  Uh, yeah... just letting that sink in.  "Isn't It Time" is still pleasant, despite its lyrical theme being similar to "Spring Vacation," it's at least a little more subtle.  "The Private Life of Bill and Sue" is an interesting attempt by Brian at satire which doesn't really go anywhere.  Both that and "Shelter" are pretty forgettable.  And then Mike contributed the blandest track on the album, "Daybreak Over the Ocean."  I remember really liking "Strange World" when the album first came out, I still think it's a nice track but the lyrics are a bit trite.  The first three tracks still sound great and the last three tracks still sound great but that leaves an entire half of hit-or-miss mediocrity.  I definitely was in full fan mode when the album came out but now I can see how uneven it actually is on repeated listening.  And yes, the vocal mix is pretty jaw dropping at times.  I don't mind a little pitch correction as much as others but it is just way to obvious on some of these songs.  I mean, Brian has always used doubling/reverb to sweeten his voice throughout his solo career but never the way it's used both here and on the live album.  Of course we can blame Joe Thomas but I think the Beach Boys are to blame as well as they could have easily done multiple takes until they got their voices sounding good, rather than rely on flawed technology to fix it.  That being said, I am still so glad that the album happened but it could have been handled differently.