Teenage Wildlife

IMPORTANT: Use your registry nickname as your username when logging in to Conversation Piece!


BowieTalk
   >> Read It in the Tea Leaves
Thread views: 20289 *Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)
Marquis
(fetch a priest)
02/28/06 07:04 PM
Use Your Illusion new [re: Diamond_Dave]  

In reply to:

Not a bad effort by Bowie considering he has never really been a huge commercial option for most record buyers.


A "fact" I would bet any sane person who lived in the UK during the 70s would dispute.

In reply to:

Her label makes sure every radio and TV network have promo copies well in advance so how can she not have a hit?


Maybe if her music sucked? Huge marketing budgets can perhaps explain a number of one hit wonders, but not a ridiculously successful career of over 20 years.

From the womb to the tomb, presume the unpredictable
Guns salute life rapidly, that's the ritual


AdamAdministrator
(eden but no sham)
03/01/06 01:57 AM
I could fall asleep at night new [re: Shelle]  

In reply to:

It's highly debatable whether "Bowie may be the most successful UK solo act in UK chart history but only if we accept one particular measure. And not even a good one, like most hits, or most number ones, or most sales"


Wrong. IF YOU READ the first few lines, weeks on chart is the FAIREST, MOST ACCURATE method. This was not a claim made by me but rather a reputable source in chart statistics. You'd also know that IF YOU READ the first line.

In reply to:

is even News. Sounds more like Views to me, but I guess our dictators consider their Views as News to the rest of us.


The item has it's origins from a professional news article that simarly claimed (in it's headline) that Queen had overtaken The Beatles as UK's most successful chart act. This was based on the same set of info ("weeks on chart" versus the opinion of the team behind The Book of British Hit Singles & Albums).

You cantankerous dumb blonde.

BOWIE DOWNUNDER

th0mas
(acolyte)
03/01/06 04:16 AM
Re: I could fall asleep at night new [re: Adam]  

In reply to:

fairest, most accurate method


depends - isn't an album more important than a single? does it matter how much money was made? and then of course in a time in which the normal charts get less important there are much more important money sources for artists like downloadcharts, ringtonecharts, etc.
for the statistic also it does not matter how many people took part. so there wouldn't be a difference between thousand copies sold in a week and hundred copies, as long as the artist stays in the charts.

The numbers may be the most accurate one can find and offer not much room for different interpretations but the choice of the method already interpretates "success" in a way.

Nonetheless I am still amazed about Queen - is it all their two greatest hits albums which seem to be part of everyone's collection?


Come and buy my tanks

AdamAdministrator
(eden but no sham)
03/01/06 08:22 AM
Re: I could fall asleep at night new [re: th0mas]  

In reply to:

depends - isn't an album more important than a single?


Sure. And that's why they use albums as their point of reference. Bowie had 1,005 album weeks as of last June.

In reply to:

does it matter how much money was made?


Not if we're gaging 'chart success' in a pure sense. But Bowie makes more off an album sold than Elvis or The Beatles or Elton John and that is because he is singular songwriter.

In reply to:

and then of course in a time in which the normal charts get less important there are much more important money sources for artists like downloadcharts, ringtonecharts, etc.


That will become more relevant as time goes on. But it will be some time before Elvis ringtones outsell the last 50 years of albums and singles.

BOWIE DOWNUNDER

th0mas
(acolyte)
03/01/06 10:10 AM
Re: I could fall asleep at night new [re: Adam]  

In reply to:

And that's why they use albums as their point of reference


okay, then let me put it this way: Is a single irrelevant for chart success?

In reply to:

'chart success' in a pure sense.


the problem is not the word "chart" - and in the end of course they can add different chats depending on their importance. but more difficult is "success", because there is no unique way in which success is measured. Is success when many people listen to something or is it more important that more people listen to it than to something else? Is the number of people important? how much more worth is a position in the top then than at the lower border of the top 50?


Come and buy my tanks

NomDePlume
(electric tomato)
03/01/06 10:31 AM
Made you explain = I won! new [re: Strawman]  

In reply to:

Please tell me you saw the humour in that statement?

That thread even?



Of course I did.

Look, are you going to let Me fulfil my role here or what?

"It was like Will Self doing Watership Down." Strawman

KModerator
(thunder ocean)
03/01/06 11:29 AM
Re: I could fall asleep at night new [re: th0mas]  

In reply to:

The numbers may be the most accurate one can find and offer not much room for different interpretations but the choice of the method already interpretates "success" in a way.


But (as Adam noted in the first post, albeit in a somewhat obscure manner), precise sales figures do not exist from the 50's, 60's and 70's. At the time people working in record stores gave their impressions of how many copies of each album they had sold, and no-one took down the precise figures (hence also chart positions might be inaccurate). As a result, based on the data available this is the most reliable way of measurement.

Monochrome

Shelle
(cracked actor)
03/01/06 03:22 PM
Alone, I'm guessing new [re: Adam]  

In reply to:

Wrong. IF YOU READ the first few lines, weeks on chart is the FAIREST, MOST ACCURATE method


Wrong. If you read the first few lines, it says merely that it has been suggested that the ‘weeks on chart’ figure represents the fairest, most accurate method of ranking acts

Suggested, and I don't care how good these guys are at compiling stats, if they think this is the most accurate method, they're none too bright.

Anyone with half a brain could blow a number of holes in this crazy "suggestion". For example:
(1) Albums became big sellers at some point (70s, I think, but I could be wrong on this unimportant detail). Equating a week on the charts back in 1955 when albums sold much less with a week on the charts in 1995 when the market for albums was so much bigger is dumb.
(2) Albums sales are seasonal. A week on the charts in the holiday season is worth a lot more than a week on the charts in February.
(3) Saying that one week at #100 is the same as a week at #1 is crazy. At the very least, there should be weighting in their calculations.

And so on.

Really, Adam, I hope you're a little more logical and a little more questioning in your thinking when you're looking after your 450 or whatever students.

In reply to:

You cantankerous dumb blonde.


Now, now, no need to get personal, midget.

"The Smarter than Shelle Club: p2c not welcome." --- Beltene


AdamAdministrator
(eden but no sham)
03/01/06 07:43 PM
To fall asleep with Shelle: punch her out first new [re: Shelle]  

In reply to:

Wrong. If you read the first few lines, it says merely that it has been suggested that the ‘weeks on chart’ figure represents the fairest, most accurate method of ranking acts

Suggested, and I don't care how good these guys are at compiling stats, if they think this is the most accurate method, they're none too bright.


I know the word SUGGESTED was used because that was MY WORD to qualify one people's set of data/opinion.

In reply to:

Really, Adam, I hope you're a little more logical and a little more questioning in your thinking


Once again, it's not MY thinking. Sure you can pick holes in their theories and that's partly because you're not viewing their evidence or argument on how they reached such a conclusion.

In reply to:

Anyone with half a brain could blow a number of holes in this crazy "suggestion".


LOL! Good for you. Of course there are MANY ways to determine chart success.

In reply to:

Equating a week on the charts back in 1955 when albums sold much less with a week on the charts in 1995 when the market for albums was so much bigger is dumb.

AND

Albums sales are seasonal. A week on the charts in the holiday season is worth a lot more than a week on the charts in February.


That depends on what's being calculated or conjectured. 'Chart history' is not the same as a pure sales aggregate. Album markets have increased every year since the advent of rock n roll. Music markets took a giant leap in the 80s post Thriller. On a determination of album charting, everything is relative for it's time. The fact that the #100 album this week might sell more than the #1 in 1956 is irrelevant to the chart history. Even the headline of this thread qualifies this as 'chart history' rather than some kind of sales aggregate which you seem to be fixated with in your attempts to disqualify people that even you admit are 'not so bright'.


BOWIE DOWNUNDER

th0mas
(acolyte)
03/02/06 05:26 AM
Re: To fall asleep with Shelle: punch her out first new [re: Adam]  

In reply to:

everything is relative for it's time.


I guess that's the big advantage about this method - when using sales numbers (which as K pointed out do not exist for every time) "success" would depend on the size of the music market and some one hit wonder of the 90s could probably beat well-known 50ies combos.

still this method has it's flaws. so rather than "top 5 chart success" it is a "most-weeks-in-charts top 5". and that in the end makes it just one more list which shows tendencies but no final evidence for the greatness of the Bowie. so we got to keep on looking for it.


Come and buy my tanks


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)
*Threaded Mode
Jump to

Teenage Wildlife Davie Bowie | Email Us! Forums powered by WWWThreads v5.1.5perl

Teenage Wildlife Home Page Bowie's music Info on Bowie Other Media Have your say! Search the Site Help me!


Toolbar (Interact)

Etete Systems