The Petra Zone

sickasadog wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:08 pm

curt wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:10 pm

brent wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:31 pm

From a record label stand point, there are two records that never sell well, 1) Live records, 2) double records.

Only one live record broke that rule: Peter Frampton.

That is not correct. The Wall by Pink Floyd was a double record, and:

Nevertheless, the album topped the Billboard charts for 15 weeks, selling over a million copies in its first two months of sales and in 1999 was certified 23x platinum. It remains one of the best-selling albums of all time in the US, between 1979 and 1990 selling over 19 million copies worldwide.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall

The Wall is not a live album.

Correct. But the statement was: "From a record label stand point, there are two records that never sell well, 1) Live records, 2) double records."

It is not correct that double records never sell well.

curt wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:04 am

sickasadog wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:08 pm

curt wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:10 pm

brent wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:31 pm

From a record label stand point, there are two records that never sell well, 1) Live records, 2) double records.

Only one live record broke that rule: Peter Frampton.

That is not correct. The Wall by Pink Floyd was a double record, and:

Nevertheless, the album topped the Billboard charts for 15 weeks, selling over a million copies in its first two months of sales and in 1999 was certified 23x platinum. It remains one of the best-selling albums of all time in the US, between 1979 and 1990 selling over 19 million copies worldwide.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall

The Wall is not a live album.

Correct. But the statement was: "From a record label stand point, there are two records that never sell well, 1) Live records, 2) double records."

It is not correct that double records never sell well.

Correct, but the statement that you responded to was Brent's, and he said "Only one LIVE record broke that rule: Peter Frampton", to which you responded "That is not correct. The Wall by Pink Floyd was a double record..."

I was obviously pointing to the part about double records since I clearly pointed out The Wall is a double record. His statement with regard to that was not correct.

curt wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:04 am

sickasadog wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:08 pm

curt wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:10 pm

brent wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:31 pm

From a record label stand point, there are two records that never sell well, 1) Live records, 2) double records.

Only one live record broke that rule: Peter Frampton.

That is not correct. The Wall by Pink Floyd was a double record, and:

Nevertheless, the album topped the Billboard charts for 15 weeks, selling over a million copies in its first two months of sales and in 1999 was certified 23x platinum. It remains one of the best-selling albums of all time in the US, between 1979 and 1990 selling over 19 million copies worldwide.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall

The Wall is not a live album.

Correct. But the statement was: "From a record label stand point, there are two records that never sell well, 1) Live records, 2) double records."

It is not correct that double records never sell well.

First of all, why are you responding to a thread that's 16-years old?

Second, Brent was obviously being hyperbolic. It's not that they never sell well, but they don't sell well reliably enough to be attractive to the labels.

Mountain Man wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:54 pm

First of all, why are you responding to a thread that's 16-years old?

What difference does that make? In other contexts I comment on books that are more than 2000 years old. And if you really think it is irrelevant after 16 years, then why are you commenting yourself?

I took interest in the context, found a statement that was inaccurate and pointed that out. No big deal.

curt wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:27 am

Mountain Man wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:54 pm

First of all, why are you responding to a thread that's 16-years old?

What difference does that make? In other contexts I comment on books that are more than 2000 years old. And if you really think it is irrelevant after 16 years, then why are you commenting yourself?

I took interest in the context, found a statement that was inaccurate and pointed that out. No big deal.

As the Joker would say, "Why so serious?"

Mountain Man wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:04 pm

curt wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:27 am

Mountain Man wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:54 pm

First of all, why are you responding to a thread that's 16-years old?

What difference does that make? In other contexts I comment on books that are more than 2000 years old. And if you really think it is irrelevant after 16 years, then why are you commenting yourself?

I took interest in the context, found a statement that was inaccurate and pointed that out. No big deal.

As the Joker would say, "Why so serious?"

I like eggs.

Dang. 16 years. We have to find something better to do with ourselves. I STILL stand by that statement. Labels HATE double records. Costs them twice as much money for half as much revenue, which is why few if any are done now unless they are money-grab boxed set reissues of crap.

Sorry for those of you who have had a hard time with my posts. It seems some of you are both very eager to point out it is an old thread and then go straight ahead and post in it yourself. I liked Brent's answer and did not mean to cause any trouble.

curt wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:25 am

Sorry for those of you who have had a hard time with my posts. It seems some of you are both very eager to point out it is an old thread and then go straight ahead and post in it yourself. I liked Brent's answer and did not mean to cause any trouble.

No worries. Sometimes a lot of the meaning of the post is hard to understand over the internet, it can cause misunderstandings.

George Harrison wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:36 pm

curt wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:25 am

Sorry for those of you who have had a hard time with my posts. It seems some of you are both very eager to point out it is an old thread and then go straight ahead and post in it yourself. I liked Brent's answer and did not mean to cause any trouble.

No worries. Sometimes a lot of the meaning of the post is hard to understand over the internet, it can cause misunderstandings.

Yeahhh ahahaha I know that all to well

brent wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:31 pm

From a record label stand point, there are two records that never sell well, 1) Live records, 2) double records.

Only one live record broke that rule: Peter Frampton.

I think Johnny Cash and Cheap Trick had successful live albums.

I think brent is making a distinction between a live album merely selling well, and a live album selling as well as a new studio album. I think the average consumer looks at a live album and says, "I already own these songs. Why should I buy them again?" Also, it's not uncommon for someone to be disappointed with the live sound versus the slick studio production (even though a lot of slick studio production goes into live albums, too; Pink Floyd, for instance, is known for putting as much post production into a live release as a regular studio album even going so far as to record new instruments and vocals to be layered on top of and in some cases completely replace what was captured live). Live albums, I think, tend to primarily appeal to the hardcore fan and music lover, and there's a lot fewer of those than regular Joe's.

I just don't like live albums (even Petra's) as much because they usually sound more pitchy. The only live songs that are better than the others are Let The Whole World Know by Ferrell and Ferrell and Bob's Turn The Page.