Zeitgeist - Album Chart Thread

[Dogfighter28]

Originally Posted by ratking17

so of that 121,000 the record made, how much goes into Billy/Jimmy's pockets assuming the rest of the band doesn't get record sales?

I guess my point it is kind of a question. How much money do bands make for doing tours? 121,000 is not much more than my household income, but yet you get the perception that bands make tons of money. Are even name brand musicians not able to make money in today's industry?

Don't forget that Billy is making money off of all 10 albums he has ever released, not just Zeitgeist. Not to mention touring and merchandise.

[hummer26]

Originally Posted by Dogfighter28

If Tool can sell 500k+ I would assume SP could sell at least 250k in the first week, but I'm sure the shittiness of the album coupled with horrid reviews had something to do with that

I agree, but tool fans know what they are getting in an album. Despite 5 year wait times and meaningless musical interludes between each track....a tool album will not dissapoint fans because the music does not change drastically between albums. Not knocking tool, aenima and lateralus are quite good

I think old sp fans have seen a lot of differnent corgan through the years and are hesitant to get on the bandwagon again.

Gene Parmesan

[redhawk]

Yeah, I bet everytime he puts out something new, sales from his old albums go up also. Don't they usually sign some kind of upfront bonus as well. I think SP did this before SD.

[ratking17]

Oh, I understand dog fighter. I am sure he banked quite a bit of it. I recall the interview where he said he was still sleeping in the parking garage even after SD made it big...

I guess where my thinking is leading me to is this: by the time a band records an album, pays producers (I am sure terry date, RTB, Flood, Butch do not produce an album for free), records it, promotes it, ...etc...a band must make very little profit it at all. So why even record new music? Why not go the Dave Matthews/Bon Jovi route which is make a new album every five years, and just tour and play the same meaningless songs all the time.

[Dogfighter28]

Originally Posted by ratking17

Oh, I understand dog fighter. I am sure he banked quite a bit of it. I recall the interview where he said he was still sleeping in the parking garage even after SD made it big...

If you believe this, you're a bona-fide Corgan cock sitter.

Just think about how huge MCIS was. He is set FOR LIFE.

[ratking17]

Explain what a corgan cock sitter is?

[You Said]

Originally Posted by The Trashbirds

$.84 x 145,000 = $121,800

Someone should've pointed these numbers out to the ass clowns who keep insisting that Billy Corgan is trying to make loads of money

$80 hoodies.

[i_adore_adore]

$20 tickets.

[severin]

#8 in austria (mcis peaked at 36, adore at 7, machina at 10, rotten apples on 22)

#5 in switzerland

[mackina]

Originally Posted by bigleaguechew

not at all. selling a million copies of an album for a band nowadays is a fairly hard task unless they are a trl favorite type of group.

the pumpkins are an established act and record labels dont care if its hard to sell a mill . thats the point they start to actually make money. so an act like the pumkins should reach a mill withing 6 months if they dont it will be considered a failure. also they made less than projected.

[i_adore_adore]

how many have been sold worldwide?

Just curious... I'm not about to look myself.

[uncannyy]

I'm guessing Top Five or Top Ten next week for the US... and it'll probably hold most of the same positions in the international charts.

Are iTunes sales counted in the US charts? It's been falling slowly thanks to the MySpace whores taking up the Top Ten spots.

[SpFission]

It looks like Zeitgeist will not make a drastic fall down the charts afterall:

From Hits Daily Double:

"Disney’s Hannah Montana 2 remains strong at #2, with between 120-125k, leapfrogging repeat winner T.I.’s Grand Hustle/Atlantic album, which drops to #3, followed by last week’s runner-up, Reprise’s Smashing Pumpkins, at #4."

[I Like Birds]

Originally Posted by paranoid

the industry standard: Artists make $.84 cents per record sold.

Artists with a 'name', however, will make rather a lot more than that. Despite Corgan being past his commercial prime he still sells more records than the average 'indie' band, and will therefore be on a better contract. Rest assured, Smashing Pumpkins will be bringing in much more than $.84 per record sold.

I recall reading in the late '90s about Paul McCartney earning around £4 per album sold from his new releases (which were hardly chart smashes at the time) in the UK. Now due to something or other he did in the 60s Paul McCartney can probably name his deal despite not being a multi-platinum artist in this era, but still, if faded superstars like the Pumpkins are on contracts even half as lucrative, they're sitting very pretty indeed.

[I Like Birds]

Originally Posted by SpFission

It looks like Zeitgeist will not make a drastic fall down the charts afterall:

From Hits Daily Double:

"Disney’s Hannah Montana 2 remains strong at #2, with between 120-125k, leapfrogging repeat winner T.I.’s Grand Hustle/Atlantic album, which drops to #3, followed by last week’s runner-up, Reprise’s Smashing Pumpkins, at #4."

If that holds firm, they're probably looking at another 70k +, which really isn't bad at all considering the hardcore are now out of the way. If that proves the case the next couple of weeks will really show whether or not this has any sort of staying power in the US chart - 70k-ish followed by a couple of 50k-ish weeks would bode well.

[wilch]

billy will make 10 million from this album and all the tours and merchandise methinks

[nii-o]

Originally Posted by paranoid

there are talks amongst the labels to write up digital release only contracts with artists..

this has been happening since 2004

Originally Posted by Dogfighter28

Just think about how huge MCIS was. He is set FOR LIFE.

this guy knows wassup lol

[schmokes]

I'm sure SP signed a similar deal to the original TLC deal...they are making 0 off of this album....

[blue_june_destroyer]

I was reading the SP news on their site and they list the album debuting at #8 in Australia. Warner don't know where those figures came from because they usually get those before the band...
Official figures are released on Monday 23rd July... I guess it will definitely be a top 10.

[starlaluna]

http://entertainment1.sympatico.msn....c/Charts/index

Top 10 Albums

The Smashing Pumpkins may have been gone, but they weren't forgotten, as their comeback album Zeitgeist went straight to the top of the Canadian charts, displacing Bon Jovi who had sat in the No. 1 position for three weeks. The home-grown illScarlett's first full length effort came in at No. 8 while controversy over Avril Lavigne’s album has only helped push The Best Damn Thing up the charts

[stephen_bayne]

Just went to the ARIA site and Zeitgeist has officially debuted at #7 in Australia. Looks like a lot of crap like Pink, Fergie and Michael Buble got boosts from ad campaigns that have been running while I didn't see one ad about Zeitgeist all week. Nice job Warner.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by starlaluna

Bon Jovi who had sat in the No. 1 position for three weekss

oh my god canada is so lame

i bet the new bon jovi album wasn't even #1 in new jersey

[memories_unwind]

#7 in Germany

[You Said]

Originally Posted by i_adore_adore

$20 tickets.

$65

[blue_june_destroyer]

Originally Posted by stephen_bayne

Just went to the ARIA site and Zeitgeist has officially debuted at #7 in Australia. Looks like a lot of crap like Pink, Fergie and Michael Buble got boosts from ad campaigns that have been running while I didn't see one ad about Zeitgeist all week. Nice job Warner.

I'm actually in regular contact with the label rep from Warner Australia and I brought this point up a few weeks ago. Basically, the amount of promo marketing is up to Warner US and they don't see the album doing well in Australia, so they didn't do things like promotional packs/giveaways, posters, street press (very little street press anyway! I did see one in Perth's street mag, X-Press this week) and all that because they saw it as a waste of time. It's one of those Catch 22 situations - if they advertise and it's for nothing and the album doesn't sell well, then they've wasted time and money, but if they don't advertise, then they don't make as many sales as they could have...

I think to debut at #7 in a chart where the places are predominantly filled by mass produced/mass marketed cookie cutter acts is still pretty impressive in 2007. This is the first week. Warner are happy with the exposure that the album is getting in Australia right now - it's been elevated to medium rotation on Triple J which is the target demographic, rage and JTV have been playing the Tarantula clip at least 5 times throughout the weekend, and even a few commercial stations have played Tarantula a few times over the weeks.

[soulofbass]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

oh my god canada is so lame

i bet the new bon jovi album wasn't even #1 in new jersey

this coming from the guy who supports TI VS TIP?

[brendo_91]

Originally Posted by blue_june_destroyer

I think to debut at #7 in a chart where the places are predominantly filled by mass produced/mass marketed cookie cutter acts is still pretty impressive in 2007. This is the first week. Warner are happy with the exposure that the album is getting in Australia right now - it's been elevated to medium rotation on Triple J which is the target demographic, rage and JTV have been playing the Tarantula clip at least 5 times throughout the weekend, and even a few commercial stations have played Tarantula a few times over the weeks.

Well hopefully Warner US see this as encouragement to actually spend the damn money to promote over here, then?

[spank_thru101]

Originally Posted by I Like Birds

Artists with a 'name', however, will make rather a lot more than that. Despite Corgan being past his commercial prime he still sells more records than the average 'indie' band, and will therefore be on a better contract. Rest assured, Smashing Pumpkins will be bringing in much more than $.84 per record sold.

I recall reading in the late '90s about Paul McCartney earning around £4 per album sold from his new releases (which were hardly chart smashes at the time) in the UK. Now due to something or other he did in the 60s Paul McCartney can probably name his deal despite not being a multi-platinum artist in this era, but still, if faded superstars like the Pumpkins are on contracts even half as lucrative, they're sitting very pretty indeed.

You also got to remember that the band MUST pay back the label every penny that the label invested in them (through advertisements, recording costs, touring costs, videos, artwork, and of course...the advance) and they have to pay them through their royalties, i.e. If a band is a million in debt to a label and they receive $.25 an album, they have to sell 4 million album before they see penny one. Also take into consideration that producer will take points for the tracks they work on. I am merely ranting about this because Billy will not see a dime from actual record sales. He will from touring, airplay, merchandise, but not from record sales.

If I am not mistaken didn't he and jimmy pay for the recording costs, they didn't have a label when they first went into the studio? Someone correct me if I am wrong on this.

[blue_june_destroyer]

Originally Posted by brendo_91

Well hopefully Warner US see this as encouragement to actually spend the damn money to promote over here, then?

Hopefully being the operative word.
(Sorry I've been cagey with my info and sources!)

[stephen_bayne]

Originally Posted by blue_june_destroyer

I'm actually in regular contact with the label rep from Warner Australia and I brought this point up a few weeks ago. Basically, the amount of promo marketing is up to Warner US and they don't see the album doing well in Australia, so they didn't do things like promotional packs/giveaways, posters, street press (very little street press anyway! I did see one in Perth's street mag, X-Press this week) and all that because they saw it as a waste of time. It's one of those Catch 22 situations - if they advertise and it's for nothing and the album doesn't sell well, then they've wasted time and money, but if they don't advertise, then they don't make as many sales as they could have...

I think to debut at #7 in a chart where the places are predominantly filled by mass produced/mass marketed cookie cutter acts is still pretty impressive in 2007. This is the first week. Warner are happy with the exposure that the album is getting in Australia right now - it's been elevated to medium rotation on Triple J which is the target demographic, rage and JTV have been playing the Tarantula clip at least 5 times throughout the weekend, and even a few commercial stations have played Tarantula a few times over the weeks.

I was disappointed that Triple J didn't make it it's feature album but I suppose Triple J isn't the same network I used to listen to religiously. I can barely stand to listen to it for more than one or two songs these days. I think if Warner actually start spending a bit the album could go up. No doubt there will be people who'll look at the charts and will be the first they've heard that the Pumpkins have a new album out. It was the same with me and A Perfect Circle's eMotive.