View Full Version : Zeitgeist Goes Gold In The US!!!!


daevil1
02-01-2008, 09:47 AM
Zeitgeist has been certified Gold in the US!

From SP.com

http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/news_2973

I would say thats quite an accomplishment in today's musical atmosphere and I believe thats without downloads from Itunes and such.

Floppy Nono
02-01-2008, 09:50 AM
Awesome, and yes im pretty sure digital sales don't factor in the same way as non digital.

Kahlo
02-01-2008, 09:50 AM
did that take longer than usual for an SP record?

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 09:50 AM
To celebrate, the band will be selling a special gold-cover version of the album with the bonus track "Superchrist."

Floppy Nono
02-01-2008, 09:54 AM
did that take longer than usual for an SP record?

machina got certified gold on april 18th, 2000, it came out in february, so 2 months for that.

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 09:54 AM
Awesome, and yes im pretty sure digital sales don't factor in the same way as non digital.

From RIAA site:

In 2004, the RIAA amended its 45-year-old Gold and Platinum award program, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) launched the Digital Sales award. Developed to recognize the significant sales of the burgeoning digital music market, 45 titles were included in the initial group of certifications, encompassing tracks from each major recording company and representing nearly every genre in music.

In 2006, the RIAA added a Digital Ringtone Award, recognizing the success of Mobile Mastertones. The new award was announced in partnership with CTIA—The Wireless Association, and Billboard.

Consistently each month since its inception, a number of artists are awarded Gold and Platinum Awards recognizing the success of their digital music.

As with the existing Gold and Platinum award program, all certifications for the Digital Sales award are audited by the firm of Gelfand, Rennert & Feldman.

topleybird
02-01-2008, 09:56 AM
Albums that went gold in 2007:

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=&format=ALBUM&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=Gold&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=on&before=on&startMonth=1&endMonth=12&startYear=2007&endYear=2007&sort=Artist&perPage=25

Floppy Nono
02-01-2008, 09:59 AM
From RIAA site:

In 2004, the RIAA amended its 45-year-old Gold and Platinum award program, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) launched the Digital Sales award. Developed to recognize the significant sales of the burgeoning digital music market, 45 titles were included in the initial group of certifications, encompassing tracks from each major recording company and representing nearly every genre in music.

In 2006, the RIAA added a Digital Ringtone Award, recognizing the success of Mobile Mastertones. The new award was announced in partnership with CTIA—The Wireless Association, and Billboard.

Consistently each month since its inception, a number of artists are awarded Gold and Platinum Awards recognizing the success of their digital music.

As with the existing Gold and Platinum award program, all certifications for the Digital Sales award are audited by the firm of Gelfand, Rennert & Feldman.


yeah, so they have their own category then. I'm sure if they had combined sales, zeitgeist would have hit gold much more sooner. Hell, maybe it'd be at platinum since it only has 500k physical sales.

xezton
02-01-2008, 10:01 AM
To celebrate, the band will be selling a special gold-cover version of the album with the bonus track "Superchrist."

That's exactly what I thought when I saw that picture in the link.

Well that's cool. Maybe their next album will get there faster.

suncrashesdown
02-01-2008, 10:52 AM
oh, NOBODY buys your records anymore, huh Billy, you stupid fuck

wounded
02-01-2008, 10:56 AM
that's nice for them so gish went platinum eventaully right? siamese 4x or something like that, MCIS 9x (but really 4 million copies sold), adore platinum, machina gold and zeitgeist gold.

i didn't bother to look those numbers up i'm too lazy and i'm suppose to be reading for class.

RenewRevive
02-01-2008, 11:11 AM
it is surprising that it reached gold so fast as the sales appeared to have petered out months ago and it was still way off at that point. maybe the US tour gave it a kick.

MonteLDS
02-01-2008, 11:15 AM
ya, SP is going back to their good old days of Gish pace to gold.

obviously i assume in the US their were at least a few who bought 2 or more. myself buying 5 versions (stander, booklet, target, best buy, best buy silver) in the united states most likely inflated that album to go gold

SP albums don't sell like they use to

daevil1
02-01-2008, 11:17 AM
ya, SP is going back to their good old days of Gish pace to gold.

obviously i assume in the US their were at least a few who bought 2 or more. myself buying 5 versions (stander, booklet, target, best buy, best buy silver) in the united states most likely inflated that album to go gold

SP albums don't sell like they use to

Yeah but most people didnt think it would make Gold so I think its still good with only having one real single getting airplay.

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 11:26 AM
SP albums don't sell like they use to

99% of albums don't sell like they used to.

Chris *Gag* Daughtry's album sold 3.2 Million copies making it the biggest selling album of '07.

Rewind to 2000 when N*Sync's "No Strings Attached" was #1. That album sold 9.94 Million copies.

One can argue that going gold today is like going 1x or 2x Platinum back in the day.

MisterSquishyHalo
02-01-2008, 11:47 AM
The way sales petered out, I would have never thought that it would go gold. Good for SP2

andrewface
02-01-2008, 11:48 AM
how can it have sold 500000? everyone here says it was a huge failure

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 11:57 AM
how can it have sold 500000? everyone here says it was a huge failure

It "Shipped" 500,000.

And just because Netphoria doesn't like something doesn't mean the rest of America feels that way. If that were true, people outside of this messageboard would actually give a shit about Two Gallants.

skipgo
02-01-2008, 12:23 PM
99% of albums don't sell like they used to.

Chris *Gag* Daughtry's album sold 3.2 Million copies making it the biggest selling album of '07.

Rewind to 2000 when N*Sync's "No Strings Attached" was #1. That album sold 9.94 Million copies.

One can argue that going gold today is like going 1x or 2x Platinum back in the day.

This is quite logical, but it seems a lot of people aren't interested in logic. I've seen other people make this same point, and it goes largely ignored. I will agree with Monte though, about people buying multiple copies making the number higher than it might have otherwise been. I have to wonder how many copies they would've sold without all of the extra copies being released.
At any rate, it's not the failure Netphoria would have you believe.

That doesn't change the fact that my interest in it has dwindled to nearly nothing, but I'm happy to see that the band is still doing okay, even if they probably won't ever make it back to the level of success they once enjoyed.

rolmos
02-01-2008, 12:25 PM
That's only like 400 metal lobsters...

topleybird
02-01-2008, 12:32 PM
I hadn't realized things had gotten SO bad for the music industry; check out my link above of all albums that went gold in 2007. It's a little over 175 albums.

Now do a search for all albums that went gold in 1997. It's a little over 800.

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 12:37 PM
This is quite logical, but it seems a lot of people aren't interested in logic. I've seen other people make this same point, and it goes largely ignored. I will agree with Monte though, about people buying multiple copies making the number higher than it might have otherwise been. I have to wonder how many copies they would've sold without all of the extra copies being released.
At any rate, it's not the failure Netphoria would have you believe.

That doesn't change the fact that my interest in it has dwindled to nearly nothing, but I'm happy to see that the band is still doing okay, even if they probably won't ever make it back to the level of success they once enjoyed.

The way I see it, if there are enough die-hard fans out there buying multiple copies to inflate this number, that's still pretty impressive. It makes me wonder if a band like Stone Temple Pilots reunited and had a similar strategy of multiple versions of the album if it would work like it did for SP.

Besides, as I'm sure you know, how many artists that had the height of success SP did in 96 have ever had that same success 10 years later. You can count the number of bands on one or two hands tops.

The most positive thing to come out of this gold record is that it pretty much should silence those who feel that SP is irrelevant in today's music scene. Those same critics who will say SP is irrelevant will praise a band like Arcade Fire who've yet to have an album come close to being Gold. (Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Arcade Fire, I just think it's funny when you call a band irrelevant and they outsell one of the most relevant bands of that year.)

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 12:40 PM
I hadn't realized things had gotten SO bad for the music industry; check out my link above of all albums that went gold in 2007. It's a little over 175 albums.

Now do a search for all albums that went gold in 1997. It's a little over 800.

Things are not quite as bad as the RIAA will have you believe. The old model of relying on physical disc is dying, but this is one of the most encouraging charts I've seen in a long time:

http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/musicsales2.jpg

If you haven't read this article, you must: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-digital-music-2007.ars

Floppy Nono
02-01-2008, 01:12 PM
You do realize that chart is pointing to the trend that people are buying digital singles at an increasing rate as opposed to buying the actual album, which means album sales aren't increasing very much at all, right? According to that chart almost 50% of the total sales in 2007 were just digital singles, meaning picking and choosing songs off an album.

DeviousJ
02-01-2008, 01:18 PM
Things are not quite as bad as the RIAA will have you believe. The old model of relying on physical disc is dying, but this is one of the most encouraging charts I've seen in a long time:

http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/musicsales2.jpg

If you haven't read this article, you must: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-digital-music-2007.ars

Yeah exactly, you have increased digital sales and then the fact that they actually produce fewer physical CDs than they used to

Floppy Nono
02-01-2008, 01:19 PM
it's not digital sales, it's digital SINGLES, meaning single songs as opposed to whole albums. Less and less people are buying albums and just buying single songs they like off them. This chart is also in the article he linked but he didn't post this one

<img src="http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/musicsales1.jpg">

"Again, looking at data from 2002-2006, we can see that CD sales have seen sharp decreases in all but one year, with 2006 having the sharpest drop of the bunch (2007 may have been worse)."

Corganist
02-01-2008, 01:29 PM
it's not digital sales, it's digital SINGLES, meaning single songs as opposed to whole albums. Less and less people are buying albums and just buying single songs they like off them.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but wouldn't every song on an album be considered a "digital single" if it's available for individual download? I'm sure a lot of downloads are people just getting songs off albums they like and leaving the rest, but I don't think you can totally write off the possibility that people are buying albums digitally.

Floppy Nono
02-01-2008, 01:36 PM
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but wouldn't every song on an album be considered a "digital single" if it's available for individual download? I'm sure a lot of downloads are people just getting songs off albums they like and leaving the rest, but I don't think you can totally write off the possibility that people are buying albums digitally.

You can buy every song in a single way but, say on itunes, you can buy the whole album for a discounted price. I think they go under two separate categories. I agree with you though, people definitely do buy full albums but i believe that chart is just tracking digital singles against total digital and physical sales, perhaps digital album sales fall under that total sales category on the chart.



edit: under the chart in the actual article is this.

"What's happening is obvious; consumers are making far more purchases than ever before, but are often choosing to grab only selected tracks rather than complete albums. The album may not be dying in a general way, but it has certainly lost its importance as the primary way that buyers in the digital era get their music. Bands with a track record of putting out uneven albums won't be able to milk that strategy for massive profits anymore, nor will any labels that nurture such acts."

Esty
02-01-2008, 01:42 PM
The most positive thing to come out of this gold record is that it pretty much should silence those who feel that SP is irrelevant in today's music scene. Those same critics who will say SP is irrelevant will praise a band like Arcade Fire who've yet to have an album come close to being Gold. (Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Arcade Fire, I just think it's funny when you call a band irrelevant and they outsell one of the most relevant bands of that year.)

You're an idiot.


Corgan used every dirty trick in his bag and he barely got gold. Big fucking deal. Music still sucks.

DeviousJ
02-01-2008, 01:49 PM
it's not digital sales, it's digital SINGLES, meaning single songs as opposed to whole albums. Less and less people are buying albums and just buying single songs they like off them. This chart is also in the article he linked but he didn't post this one

<img src="http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/musicsales1.jpg">

"Again, looking at data from 2002-2006, we can see that CD sales have seen sharp decreases in all but one year, with 2006 having the sharpest drop of the bunch (2007 may have been worse)."

Singles are still on CDs, and they're still sales. Actually buying individual songs is an option with digital downloads, so obviously people are going to do that - but I think you'd see similar trends if you could only buy entire albums digitally. I mean you said yourself, that chart compares digital SINGLES to CD SINGLES. They're the same thing, only more people are choosing to download the single instead of buying the CD single. People's format preferences are changing

Floppy Nono
02-01-2008, 01:53 PM
no no, you misunderstood what i said (or perhaps i said it wrong myself), i think it's comparing digital single sales to TOTAL physical and digital sales (including digital and physical albums, as well as physical singles), meaning it's showing you what percent of sales of all music is digital singles, an increasing and almost a majority amount.

DeviousJ
02-01-2008, 02:14 PM
no no, you misunderstood what i said (or perhaps i said it wrong myself), i think it's comparing digital single sales to TOTAL physical and digital sales (including digital and physical albums, as well as physical singles), meaning it's showing you what percent of sales of all music is digital singles, an increasing and almost a majority amount.

Ok, well even if that's the case, so what? Subtract the digital singles amounts from the totals, and you get a constant trend of increasing sales, apart from a small drop in 2007. Non-digital singles sales are basically increasing year by year, and people are also increasingly taking the opportunity to purchase individual tracks online. Since CD sales are decreasing (again, they're actually producing fewer CDs in the first place) that means that the balance is made up of increasing (non-single) digital downloads - album sales basically.

So album sales are still generally increasing, more of them are digital sales than before, and additionally digital singles are becoming very popular

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 02:18 PM
You are all misunderstanding the point of that chart.

What it's showing is that people paying for music hasn't decreased like many would like you to believe, it has just shifted a lot to the digital space. It's all about how the overall consumption of music has increased when you factor in the digital sales AND CDs. (Declining CD doesn't mean declining interest in music.)

From the article:
...unit sales have actually been rising over the last few years, with 2007 being another strong year. Reuters recently reported that overall unit sales rose 14 percent in 2007, with digital sales jumping by 45 percent.

*UPDATE*: From the Reuters link in the article: "Overall sales -- including albums, singles, and digital tracks -- rose 14 percent to 1.4 billion units. The main driver of growth was a 45 percent jump in digital track sales to 844.2 million units."

Because the RIAA isn't factoring in the digital sales into their gold/platinum shipment totals, you're not really getting a true measure on how popular the album really is.

And Etsy, go suck a dick. You think BC is the only artist using "dirty tricks" as you call it? Show me any band/artist with a somewhat successful record on a major label that doesn't re-release the album with extra songs. It's a lot different I know than having them all available at launch, but this is the major label culture. How quickly you forget all the good shit Billy has done for the fans throughout the years (Machina II, FaEoMM Tape, Soundboard Tour Compilation.)

Were you there in the negotiations with the label? Billy has made it very clear how pissed he was that Warner did little to no promotion for TFE, so perhaps they told him in order to have the money to have a huge Zeitgeist push, they would need the guaranteed dollars from Best Buy and Target for the exclusive tracks.

ravenguy2000
02-01-2008, 02:24 PM
the album sucks shit who gives a fuck

450,000 of these will be in the 4.99 bargain bin by 2010

Floppy Nono
02-01-2008, 02:24 PM
i definitely think the label were the ones pimping this album and not him since it was the last one he had to record on warner and they probably were looking to sap every cent out of him and his fans they could.

Floppy Nono
02-01-2008, 02:25 PM
the album sucks shit who gives a fuck

450,000 of these will be in the 4.99 bargain bin by 2010

lol, i always check the fye used racks and there's always at least 2-3 pumpkins albums consistently. I can't wait till used zeitgeist gets its entire own display.

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 02:31 PM
i definitely think the label were the ones pimping this album and not him since it was the last one he had to record on warner and they probably were looking to sap every cent out of him and his fans they could.

There's no doubt in my mind that this was the labels idea. Billy could've put his foot down and said no, but the reality is that if Warner was going to be able to afford to do a big push for this record, they were going to need money to do it. The only way these labels get guaranteed dollars is with these exclusive deals. Why the hell else are you seeing a John Legend live album only available in Target, or Collective Soul's new record only in Target or iTunes?

Like it or not, this is the way the major labels are getting money these days, and Billy realizes it. How else do you think they got money for national commercials, a huge MySpace campaign and countless other marketing schemes for the album???

Phoenix Down
02-01-2008, 02:37 PM
That's only like 400 metal lobsters...

:rofl:

ciGarski
02-01-2008, 02:37 PM
And just because Netphoria doesn't like something doesn't mean the rest of America feels that way.

jesus christ i hate that you had to say this. the people on this board sometimes... :noway:

ciGarski
02-01-2008, 02:40 PM
This is quite logical, but it seems a lot of people aren't interested in logic. I've seen other people make this same point, and it goes largely ignored. I will agree with Monte though, about people buying multiple copies making the number higher than it might have otherwise been. I have to wonder how many copies they would've sold without all of the extra copies being released.
At any rate, it's not the failure Netphoria would have you believe.

That doesn't change the fact that my interest in it has dwindled to nearly nothing, but I'm happy to see that the band is still doing okay, even if they probably won't ever make it back to the level of success they once enjoyed.

i don't know a lot of people besides fans on this board or whatever that bought enough multiple copies. i doubt it made sales very significant. of the people i know that bought it they bought one copy. as any casual fan would rationally do.


also, how many of your 65 hundred posts are you saying almost this exact same thing?

DeviousJ
02-01-2008, 02:43 PM
You are all misunderstanding the point of that chart.

What it's showing is that people paying for music hasn't decreased like many would like you to believe, it has just shifted a lot to the digital space. It's all about how the overall consumption of music has increased when you factor in the digital sales AND CDs. (Declining CD doesn't mean declining interest in music.)

Funny, I thought that was exactly what I said

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 02:47 PM
Funny, I thought that was exactly what I said

I was replying to Etsy's asinine post when you wrote that. You understand the point of the chart.

smashapumpkin
02-01-2008, 03:18 PM
since it didnt really fail at least we can expect more records

skipgo
02-01-2008, 05:18 PM
also, how many of your 65 hundred posts are you saying almost this exact same thing?

i would guess somewhere around 6,284 of them.

and hey, you bastard, you were one of the people i was thinking of when i said that other people had made that "logical argument" before. screw YOU!

:)

Fattening Ass
02-01-2008, 05:27 PM
what no platinum? :banging:

dzhezus
02-01-2008, 06:01 PM
The Pumpkins will never go platinum again, and most artists never will, period. Money is now made from touring, and studio versions are for promotion.

It wouldn't surprise me if they signed exclusively to iTunes later this year now that their Warner deal is up. There's been talk of Apple and MySpace signing artists themselves, and Apple's deal seems to involve Jay-Z as an executive of it.

I'd love to see the Pumpkins move to the three-EP online and compile-for-Christmas model. No matter what, they know they have 200,000 diehards like us on Netphoria and Blamo that will buy everything they put out and see a show or two every year.

Everyone that cared about SP already knows about SP2. Warner got the word out, they made their cash on the multiple versions, and that's pretty much that.

SP will probably end up like Pearl Jam... medium but steady sales, some cool bootleg treats and stuff for the fans, and a consistent tour schedule. They'll never disappear for three (or seven) years between albums. They'll never be as big as MCIS-era, but who cares? We got the Pumpkins back, more or less, and Billy can continue doing what he loves. I hope he understands this new business reality, and is content with that. Okay, we know he won't be.

I can't wait to download Superchrist, can you? It's worth a dollar to see how badly the violins are produced. And he's so prolific, the little EPs idea guarantees that we'll get more of his songs out, because we all disagree so much on what their best work is, the only way to satisfy everyone is to have more quantity... so we can come here and argue about the quality.

*fin*

Spaceboy88
02-01-2008, 06:07 PM
iTunes won't sign artists. They had enough legal troubles with the Beatles-owned Apple records. The whole Jay-Z thing has been a rumor that pops up every year it seems like now.

Why would they even need to sign with anyone? They are big enough where they can record music themselves and sell it through iTunes if they want without a label. Hell, I've said before that I'd much rather them just set up their own online store and sell music directly through there. Offer lossless or mp3, depending on how much of an audiophile you are and keep all the profits.

I think we'll see the band go in this direction soon.

skipgo
02-01-2008, 07:31 PM
i hope you're right spaceboy; i think that would be their smartest (and most admirable) move.

flyfire
02-01-2008, 09:24 PM
iTunes won't sign artists. They had enough legal troubles with the Beatles-owned Apple records. The whole Jay-Z thing has been a rumor that pops up every year it seems like now.

Why would they even need to sign with anyone? They are big enough where they can record music themselves and sell it through iTunes if they want without a label. Hell, I've said before that I'd much rather them just set up their own online store and sell music directly through there. Offer lossless or mp3, depending on how much of an audiophile you are and keep all the profits.

I think we'll see the band go in this direction soon.


if they do sell directly online, they will have to at the very least sort out their digital distribution setup and costs, in particular who pays for bandwidth & costs of outsourcing distribution so as not to eat up profits.

Banana
02-01-2008, 09:54 PM
ya, SP is going back to their good old days of Gish pace to gold.

obviously i assume in the US their were at least a few who bought 2 or more. myself buying 5 versions (stander, booklet, target, best buy, best buy silver) in the united states most likely inflated that album to go gold

SP albums don't sell like they use to

What the hell is wrong with you? Why would you buy 5 versions?

Anyway cool news, I think their next album does better both because I think it will be better and I think more people will know they are back and staying around by the time their 2nd album drops.

oddhandle
02-01-2008, 10:31 PM
I actually think the next record will fare much worse -- they got a lot of "reunion" press and a wave of people convincing themselves that the music is good and the Pumpkins have returned. But after a while the novelty wears off, and you're left with a record that never gets played. REM had big sales with Monster but the record didn't hold up, and it started a downward spiral in sales... even though "New Adventures" (follow-up to Monster) was a far better record. Put out a stinker and you might still sell it based on your history, but next time it'll just get downloaded in this market.

This is the first SP/Zwan/Corgan record I didn't even consider buying. After hearing it and seeing Billy's douchebaggery over the last year, I may well be done. For years I believed he was the real deal. Do you think he and Jimmy had a meeting and decided that Jeff should wear a red suit?

ciGarski
02-01-2008, 10:33 PM
i agree that the reunion press and excitement sold records. so for the next one, i think they'll really have to rely on quality, kick ass tunes to match sales of zeitgeist. regardless how many different copies warner wants to make of it

greedo
02-02-2008, 08:06 PM
I hadn't realized things had gotten SO bad for the music industry; check out my link above of all albums that went gold in 2007. It's a little over 175 albums.

Now do a search for all albums that went gold in 1997. It's a little over 800.

I probably bought 20+ CDs in 1997...in 2007 I think I bought 2 (in terms of albums released those years). I have bought 1 so far this year (Radiohead), and will definitely get the new REM...bands I was listening to in 1997.

I bought a handful of iTunes Plus tracks last year, but mostly old stuff released years ago.

I will add that I didn't download any new music in 2007 nor in 1997, so I've not replaced buying with piracy.

The music industry is putting all their effort into crap music and making it difficult to buy online...there simply isn't any music reaching my ears that I like...I'm sure it's out there, but I'm not hearing it and therefore not buying it. I can't stand what passes for mainstream music these days (hip hop, etc.). In fact, the constant loud r&b in the music stores just makes me grab what I went in there for and leave rather than look around for anything else.

Radio is awful...the same 4 or 5 songs over and over again...I'd rather listen to a Zwan bootleg or a podcast on my zune.

ciGarski
02-02-2008, 09:09 PM
yeah most of the albums i buy are either released in previous years, or are from bands already established in the nineties.

Corganist
02-02-2008, 09:24 PM
i agree that the reunion press and excitement sold records.

I disagree. I really don't think once BC and JC announced that Zeitgeist was a two man record and that James and Darcy would not be involved in the reunion in any way, that there was really enough excitement to artificially drive sales the way you guys are making out. It's not like BC and JC got a bunch of glowing press prior to the record's release. Most everybody knew that this wasn't going to be a "true" reunion worthy of getting all swept up in nostalgia for, and that point was driven home in nearly every review of the album and article about the band that got put out last spring and summer.

I'm sure a lot of people were curious to see what BC and JC would do back under the SP mantle, and I'm sure that drove many sales of the album amongst people who could get over James and Darcy's absences...but I don't think that curiosity alone explains the album going gold. Otherwise, you'd think that same sort of curiosity would have driven MSOTS's sales higher than they ended up.

srt4b
02-03-2008, 01:21 AM
I bought Gish, SD, * MC about 20 times total from 90-2000 so I can't believe a few double purchases of Z had any impact on sales.

Also, fwiw Z is the 1st album i paid for since Napster. Too many formats & DRM. mp3, mp4, m4a, flac, ogg, wav, wma, rm, aiff, vox, acc, gsm, dct, etc. I am not a fan of staying in the itunes world or the WMP world so DRM free mp3's are the only way to go.

ciGarski
02-07-2008, 09:57 PM
I disagree. I really don't think once BC and JC announced that Zeitgeist was a two man record and that James and Darcy would not be involved in the reunion in any way, that there was really enough excitement to artificially drive sales the way you guys are making out. It's not like BC and JC got a bunch of glowing press prior to the record's release. Most everybody knew that this wasn't going to be a "true" reunion worthy of getting all swept up in nostalgia for, and that point was driven home in nearly every review of the album and article about the band that got put out last spring and summer.

I'm sure a lot of people were curious to see what BC and JC would do back under the SP mantle, and I'm sure that drove many sales of the album amongst people who could get over James and Darcy's absences...but I don't think that curiosity alone explains the album going gold. Otherwise, you'd think that same sort of curiosity would have driven MSOTS's sales higher than they ended up.

MSOTS debuted at 2 or 3. im sure corgan and jimmy's name had plenty to do with it. but where in my post did i say that curiousity alone made that album gold?

however if album 2 was zeitgeist it wouldn't have come close to this.

but being the first album and a huge marketing scheme, tv commercials ads in magazines, thats sort of thing sold the record enough that some people out there thought, "this bands back? ill check it out."

Corganist
02-07-2008, 10:48 PM
MSOTS debuted at 2 or 3. im sure corgan and jimmy's name had plenty to do with it. but where in my post did i say that curiousity alone made that album gold?

You didn't exactly. You seem to be saying excitement and press for the reunion did it. What I'm saying is that the kind of excitement you're talking about really didn't seem to exist as far as I can tell (unless you count all the constant press about how disappointed people were that James and Darcy weren't back and how Billy was cashing in on the SP name as "excitement"). And when you take away that mythical "reunion excitement," you're left with just another album being sold merely on the reputation of BC and JC and people's curiosity about whether they'd make something decent...pretty much just like MSOTS was. Yet, Zeitgeist is selling better. I'm sure the SP name has something to do with that to an extent, but enough to take the record to gold? I'm not sure about that.

but being the first album and a huge marketing scheme, tv commercials ads in magazines, thats sort of thing sold the record enough that some people out there thought, "this bands back? ill check it out."

Look at it this way: MSOTS sold something in the neighborhood of 300,000 copies. Zeitgeist has hit 500,000 and counting. Do you really think that the promotion you're talking about really accounted for 200,000 extra people picking up a BC/JC album that didn't do so in 2003? I find that hard to believe.

I could understand if the press the band got leading up to Zeitgeist was very extensive and highly positive, but it wasn't. The album was mediocre-ly reviewed and the reunion was shit upon extensively for not including James and Darcy. I just can't fathom that 200,000 people bought Zeitgeist just because they were somehow caught up in any kind of artificial "Smashing Pumpkins are back" hype. Like I said, most of the hype was considerably deflated the minute it became clear to everyone that Zeitgeist was a two man project.

Maybe it's just my own personal feelings speaking here...but maybe, just maybe, this album has sold fairly well (or at least better than expected here) because it's good and people like it.

ciGarski
02-07-2008, 11:50 PM
ok its kinda late so im not going to respond to all of that yet however the 200,000 number is pretty arbitrary. i know you're comparing with zwan, but given the music climate of 4 years ago, the name change, non rocking single, blah blah blah lots of things played a part to zwan's sales, good or bad. i think a lot of those things are not transferable to the success of zeitgeist.

im a fan of the band, and within the nature of being a fan of anything, sports, movies music, i want to see them succeed. and i personally think if they are going to remain somewhat relevant and sell records like they did this last year they are going to have to step it up a notch. as billy said, zeitgeist was a "hello". ok he said hello, come on (lets go) was cute, so was pomp and G&C. now lets get serious.

Tribute2JohnnyB
02-08-2008, 07:59 AM
That's only like 400 metal lobsters...

pure gold, sir

oddhandle
02-08-2008, 08:38 AM
They weren't getting "the new album is great" press, but they WERE mentioned in every 2007 reunion article along with The Police and Co. For a casual of fallen-away fan, that might have been responsible for some people getting back into the band. What I'm saying is because the record was horrible, divide that 500,000 by two and that's what you'll have buying the next one... unless by some fluke Billy gets a hit single or something.

IWishIWasBlank
02-08-2008, 09:02 AM
They *did* get a lot of the "reunions" press, I recall.

Corganist
02-08-2008, 01:39 PM
They weren't getting "the new album is great" press, but they WERE mentioned in every 2007 reunion article along with The Police and Co. For a casual of fallen-away fan, that might have been responsible for some people getting back into the band.

But almost all of that press mentioned that only half the band was returning. Sure, maybe there were people who said "Oh, Smashing Pumpkins have a new record out? I haven't heard anything from them since 2000. I'll check it out." But I don't see how anyone can think that alone would account for the numbers this album has put up.

What I'm saying is because the record was horrible, divide that 500,000 by two and that's what you'll have buying the next one... unless by some fluke Billy gets a hit single or something.

I can just as easily say that because I think the record is awesome, that 500,000 people will buy the next album and the next one after. But I guess if you want to move on and say the next album will sell bad, that's your right. If at first you don't succeed...try, try again. Right?

daevil1
02-08-2008, 02:11 PM
Tarantula was a hit single in the rock world so I am sure that helped plus performances at Live Earth and other US festivals.

ciGarski
02-08-2008, 02:33 PM
totally. tarantula was played on our radio to death. so was thats the way actually. alot of people were exposed to the new songs by our state's rock stations. in fact tarantula was the biggest pumpkin/corgan affiliated hit since ava adore IMO. although i still think record sales is a pretty shallow method of measuring success i think its pretty cool this record got gold status. and i wouldn't see why it couldn't happen again, as long as there's storong material thats approachable

oddhandle
02-09-2008, 01:28 PM
But almost all of that press mentioned that only half the band was returning. Sure, maybe there were people who said "Oh, Smashing Pumpkins have a new record out? I haven't heard anything from them since 2000. I'll check it out." But I don't see how anyone can think that alone would account for the numbers this album has put up.



I can just as easily say that because I think the record is awesome, that 500,000 people will buy the next album and the next one after. But I guess if you want to move on and say the next album will sell bad, that's your right. If at first you don't succeed...try, try again. Right?

I think casual fans of the band far outnumber the diehards who have hung in there for 7 years, and they wouldn't exactly be all up in arms over the "lesser" members being absent. I think BC/JC knew this, which explains replacing the hot chick with a hot chick, and the asian guy in a red suit with TAGIARS. You're saying repeated mentions in the press had little effect because some mentioned the lack of James and D'arcy. Okay.

You can say the record was awesome, and I respect that. I can disagree, as you've said. This is all a guessing game. We'll know when the next record is out for a year who is correct. And honestly... I hope you're right. The band gave me a lit of enjoyment in it's heyday.

MisterSquishyHalo
02-09-2008, 01:47 PM
Pumpkins are played to death up here in seattle, Mostly not zeitgeist stuff, mostly siamese dream and mellon collie.

themadcaplaughs
02-09-2008, 08:12 PM
I think casual fans of the band far outnumber the diehards who have hung in there for 7 years, and they wouldn't exactly be all up in arms over the "lesser" members being absent. I think BC/JC knew this, which explains replacing the hot chick with a hot chick, and the asian guy in a red suit with TAGIARS. You're saying repeated mentions in the press had little effect because some mentioned the lack of James and D'arcy. Okay.

You can say the record was awesome, and I respect that. I can disagree, as you've said. This is all a guessing game. We'll know when the next record is out for a year who is correct. And honestly... I hope you're right. The band gave me a lit of enjoyment in it's heyday.

You took the words out of my mouth. The average fan reads about Zeitgeist in a magazine, or sees the album on display in a record shop, and buys it; the average listener does not know or care that James Iha or D'arcy Wretzky did not play on the record.

Corganist
02-09-2008, 09:25 PM
I think casual fans of the band far outnumber the diehards who have hung in there for 7 years, and they wouldn't exactly be all up in arms over the "lesser" members being absent. I think BC/JC knew this, which explains replacing the hot chick with a hot chick, and the asian guy in a red suit with TAGIARS. You're saying repeated mentions in the press had little effect because some mentioned the lack of James and D'arcy. Okay.

I don't know. It's seems most of the casual fans I talked to or whose opinions about I'd see posted on other sites did seem to care quite a bit about James and Darcy's absence. Not all, but most. I just don't buy this theory that there are thousands of people out there who haven't as much as thought about SP since 2000 who yet still run out and buy the album en masse despite it being well documented that only half the band were actually on the album.

I could understand the argument that the reunion hype was the driving factor in these sales if the album had quickly jumped out to something near these numbers in the first month or two. But it seems to me that for the album to reach gold 7 months after it was released, it has to have had fairly steady sales after the initial burst of sales stemming from all the hype surrounding the album's release. It's not like they sold 300,000 copies the first week or something like that. I don't even think they sold that many in the first month. I think it's much more likely that things like positive word of mouth and touring would explain the sustained sales of the album better than media hype.

IWishIWasBlank
02-09-2008, 11:57 PM
I know some will think this is lame, but once I get a new job I'm buying all three versions of Zeith, then replacing my missing CD's that have been stolen or ruined. I guess B0lly can count on me... or something.