Do sales reflect quality?

[Brand-new-123]

Do the sales of an album reflect the quality of the work?

[ArtForLovers]

no..
some people just buy an album because it's popular, but sounds like complete crap.

[Machu505]

Definitely not.

[seraph1214]

Fuck no.

[Brand-new-123]

Someone actually voted yes?

[x1onexwo1fx]

illegal downloads?

[HometownHero]

Whoever the person is that voted yes should die now

[Oddpac87]

Whoever voted yes is a fucking idiot.

[loganmmm]

Sells reflect appeal.

[blinkme]

while there may be a few exceptions, the number of sales is a direct result of how much the record label pushes it.

[Theseventhson]

http://musicremedy.com/webfiles/artists/Nickelback/Nickelback-01-big.jpg

/thread

[MattDennis]

this is probably the dumbest question i've ever heard

[Brand-new-123]

this is probably the dumbest question i've ever heard
I know. This was just to settle a dispute. Don't worry.

[sasalukac]

I know. This was just to settle a dispute. Don't worry.

i'm worried for whoever you had this dispute with.

[Brand-new-123]

i'm worried for whoever you had this dispute with.
Me too.

[HoldThatSound]

What a stupid question. obviously it doesn't..

[BulleTheory]

aaaaaaaabsolutely not...the worst question ive seen

[Deadbolt23]

I think this is a pretty obvious one.

[SuNDaYSTaR]

Funny that nobody who voted ''yes'' tried to justify themselves.

[Yellowcard2006]

Anyone who said yes doesn't understand the question. I think.

[abcdefghijake]

Funny that nobody who voted ''yes'' tried to justify themselves.

I mean it does in a way.
I voted yes, but I mean it doesn't all come down to the sales numbers.

[thehereaway]

Of course not

[jwicklun]

cobra starships hot mess was their worse but most bought album. so no.

[sleepyseanzzz]

a lot of people buy jonas brother albums, one of the most heavily marketed acts of today

a lot of people didn't buy clarity as it was a dud at first (sales-wise). most people didn't appreciate it until a few years later

[jwicklun]

and someone who said yes explain

[Hay]

Not even a little bit

[Poochemist]

I mean it does in a way.
I voted yes, but I mean it doesn't all come down to the sales numbers.
You should explain because I really see no relationship between the two.

[kbi the crowing]

however voted yes, you're wrong. flat out wrong.

[muttley]

Absolutely not.

[BulleTheory]

whoever voted yes needs a serious reality check.

[Meeze]

no, different scenes approach finding music differently...some download more than others.

[lauren1234]

Not at all.

[Say Nothing]

http://musicremedy.com/webfiles/artists/Nickelback/Nickelback-01-big.jpg

/thread

Win...lol

[bite2brkskn12]

Whoever voted yes is a fucking idiot.

hahaha...my thoughts exactly

[Alex DiVincenzo]

Absolutely not.

[TangledUp]

Definitely not. Look at the Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, etc.

[tomroth]

lil' wayne. enough said.

[FOBfanatic54]

Someone actually voted yes?
ha
I know

[Matt's Garage]

I voted yes, but if the question had read "do sales necessarily reflect quality?" or "do you personally like albums that sell more copies better than lower selling ones?" I would have voted no. It's very possible for a low-selling album to be awesome and high-selling album to be terrible, and I personally don't like most high-selling albums.

But I would agree that, disregarding personal preference, higher selling albums have, in general, higher levels of quality in musical performance and production. Personally, I like maybe 5% of albums that sell 500,000 copies or more, but based strictly on quality and from an objective standpoint, I don't see how anyone could say that album sales don't reflect quality in some way. The only case you could make is that the songwriting isn't as good in super popular albums, but you can't judge that objectively.

There are also way more terrible low-selling albums than there are terrible high-selling albums even if just for the fact that there are way more low-selling albums than high-selling albums.

Either way, there is not a formulaic process of relating quality and copies sold, but I don't see how anyone can really argue that higher selling albums are not of higher quality in general.

FACT: Higher selling albums usually have higher budgets and can therefore pay for the best production possible and pay for the best studio musicians in the world and, unfortunately, a lot of these artists, as much as I may hate their style, are very capable singers.

[liveloud4life]

I voted yes, but if the question had read "do sales necessarily reflect quality?" or "do you personally like albums that sell more copies better than lower selling ones?" I would have voted no. It's very possible for a low-selling album to be awesome and high-selling album to be terrible, and I personally don't like most high-selling albums.

But I would agree that, disregarding personal preference, higher selling albums have, in general, higher levels of quality in musical performance and production. Personally, I like maybe 5% of albums that sell 500,000 copies or more, but based strictly on quality and from an objective standpoint, I don't see how anyone could say that album sales don't reflect quality in some way. The only case you could make is that the songwriting isn't as good in super popular albums, but you can't judge that objectively.

There are also way more terrible low-selling albums than there are terrible high-selling albums even if just for the fact that there are way more low-selling albums than high-selling albums.

Either way, there is not a formulaic process of relating quality and copies sold, but I don't see how anyone can really argue that higher selling albums are not of higher quality in general.

FACT: Higher selling albums usually have higher budgets and can therefore pay for the best production possible and pay for the best studio musicians in the world and, unfortunately, a lot of these artists, as much as I may hate their style, are very capable singers.

Fact: Studio musicians, although generally more talented only play what they're paid to play which takes creativity completely out of the mix.
Opinion: Production is very low on the list of things that account for quality.
Opinion (generally regarded by myself as fact): The typical musical characteristics valued by the general public (and therefore the things that are attempted in pop music) represent everything except quality in music.

[liveloud4life]

I have a friend who's a fellow music major who told me that we as musicians are first and foremost entertainers and that is our purpose so if people in general don't like our music then it's not good.
I thought he was trying to be funny. Turns out he really thinks that.

[Matt's Garage]

Fact: Studio musicians, although generally more talented only play what they're paid to play which takes creativity completely out of the mix.
Opinion: Production is very low on the list of things that account for quality.
Opinion (generally regarded by myself as fact): The typical musical characteristics valued by the general public (and therefore the things that are attempted in pop music) represent everything except quality in music.

Well, there's really only three things that can be on the list for quality and those are production, performance, and artistic merit. Again, artistic merit is impossible to judge objectively so I'm completely right.

Fact: Studio musicians get good by practicing (which includes playing a lot of things that they aren't paid to play). Plus, don't you think that when a studio guitarist is asked to play a guitar solo he probably helps write it? If somebody else could play it for him, then they wouldn't need a studio musician now would they?

[liveloud4life]

Well, there's really only three things that can be on the list for quality and those are production, performance, and artistic merit. Again, artistic merit is impossible to judge objectively so I'm completely right.

Fact: Studio musicians get good by practicing (which includes playing a lot of things that they aren't paid to play). Plus, don't you think that when a studio guitarist is asked to play a guitar solo he probably helps write it? If somebody else could play it for him, then they wouldn't need a studio musician now would they?

Don't get me wrong, I will concede that studio musicians are for the most part better than musicians in the majority of bands. Unfortunately 99% of the time they don't get to show any creative prowess in what they play. They play what they're told. I mean I'm sure that if there was to be a solo they would probably write it, but 1) how many solos do you here in music with studio musicians. Solos are a means for people in bands to show off and get their name recognized. Studio musicians don't usually get their name out and their job is to support the solo artist, not to steal their thunder. And 2) when they do play solos they're never written to emphasize the full extent of their abilities. Like I said before, they're there to support the solo artist who's paying them.

Also (and I think this is the reason we disagree) songwriting is not so easy to disregard and is not nearly as impossible to judge objectively as you would have me believe. While it is more difficult to compare 2 artists' originality and creativity of songwriting than say 2 guitarists technical abilities (which, to be fair can still involve a notable amount of subjectivity) it can be done, esp in extreme cases. That is to say, it can be stated objectively and without reasonable doubt that some music is written on a level far surpassing that of others. For example, (a very extreme example) I can objectively say that Beethoven's Symphony Pathetique has far higher quality songwriting than Ridin' Dirty. That's a huge gap, but the principle holds true for smaller gaps, too. mewithoutYou's songwriting is obviously of higher quality than Nickelback's. There are factors that can be cited objectively. And in the bulk of high-selling music the songwriting is inferior to a vast amount of lower selling music and, more importantly, has nothing to do with why it achieved those sales.

[Matt's Garage]

Don't get me wrong, I will concede that studio musicians are for the most part better than musicians in the majority of bands. Unfortunately 99% of the time they don't get to show any creative prowess in what they play. They play what they're told. I mean I'm sure that if there was to be a solo they would probably write it, but 1) how many solos do you here in music with studio musicians. Solos are a means for people in bands to show off and get their name recognized. Studio musicians don't usually get their name out and their job is to support the solo artist, not to steal their thunder. And 2) when they do play solos they're never written to emphasize the full extent of their abilities. Like I said before, they're there to support the solo artist who's paying them.

Also (and I think this is the reason we disagree) songwriting is not so easy to disregard and is not nearly as impossible to judge objectively as you would have me believe. While it is more difficult to compare 2 artists' originality and creativity of songwriting than say 2 guitarists technical abilities (which, to be fair can still involve a notable amount of subjectivity) it can be done, esp in extreme cases. That is to say, it can be stated objectively and without reasonable doubt that some music is written on a level far surpassing that of others. For example, (a very extreme example) I can objectively say that Beethoven's Symphony Pathetique has far higher quality songwriting than Ridin' Dirty. That's a huge gap, but the principle holds true for smaller gaps, too. mewithoutYou's songwriting is obviously of higher quality than Nickelback's. There are factors that can be cited objectively. And in the bulk of high-selling music the songwriting is inferior to a vast amount of lower selling music and, more importantly, has nothing to do with why it achieved those sales.


That's a pretty legit rebuttal. You're pretty much right, but 1) your studio musician critique doesn't hold for all genres because different genres are created and marketed in different ways (look into country music) and 2) there are still a ton people who, unfortunately, would maintain that "Ridin' Dirty" is better than "Symphony Pathetique" and that Nickelback is better than mewithoutYou. This poll is a for a generalized question and, in general, there is a very loose relationship between quality and sales.

I will concede defeat though. lol I can't bear to argue on the behalf of Nickelback and Miley Cyrus any longer.

[liveloud4life]

That's a pretty legit rebuttal. You're pretty much right, but 1) your studio musician critique doesn't hold for all genres because different genres are created and marketed in different ways (look into country music) and 2) there are still a ton people who, unfortunately, would maintain that "Ridin' Dirty" is better than "Symphony Pathetique" and that Nickelback is better than mewithoutYou. This poll is a for a generalized question and, in general, there is a very loose relationship between quality and sales.

I will concede defeat though. lol I can't bear to argue on the behalf of Nickelback and Miley Cyrus any longer.

Lol. Touche

[Oh_Snap!:O]

Definitely not. Look at the Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, etc.

this

[doppelganger]

no

[Thrice4Life]

i'm worried for whoever you had this dispute with.


I had to dispute this with my local radio station's DJ who said they wouldn't play thrice and brand new because they "suck and can't sell records".

This radio station plays horribly shitty bands like, hinder, nickleback, Rev Theory, buckcherry and like 20 other bands that sound like that.

Sadly they are the only rock station in my area.

[drpepper09]

while there may be a few exceptions, the number of sales is a direct result of how much the record label pushes it.

Not in all cases. Both city and colour albums went platinum with ZERO push. D Green just put the albums on shelves and 2 weeks later it hit gold. But then again, Dallas Green is a god...

[blinkme]

Not in all cases. Both city and colour albums went platinum with ZERO push. D Green just put the albums on shelves and 2 weeks later it hit gold. But then again, Dallas Green is a god...

i did say there where a few exceptions.

[TangledUp]

I had to dispute this with my local radio station's DJ who said they wouldn't play thrice and brand new because they "suck and can't sell records".
This DJ just lost all of my respect.

[drpepper09]

i did say there where a few exceptions.

ah my bad. i read it and my mind didn't read that part before the comma. My mistake.

[blinkme]

ah my bad. i read it and my mind didn't read that part before the comma. My mistake.

No worries and you are completely right, Dallas Green is a God.

[Thrice4Life]

This DJ just lost all of my respect.

Yeah mine too, I told him he wouldn't know talent if it punched him in his face.

[TangledUp]

Yeah mine too, I told him he wouldn't know talent if it punched him in his face.
:ok:

[p0isonedgames]

Hello. look at Miley Cyrus. Her stuff is flying off the shelves. (As we fear for the future of our society)

[eriatarka24]

I had to dispute this with my local radio station's DJ who said they wouldn't play thrice and brand new because they "suck and can't sell records".

This radio station plays horribly shitty bands like, hinder, nickleback, Rev Theory, buckcherry and like 20 other bands that sound like that.

Sadly they are the only rock station in my area.
:-|

[fourletterword]

no

[Feenucks]

Nope. People will sometimes (or many times) buy a shitty album because it's popular.

On the other hand, many incredible albums don't get many sales at all because the artists are relatively unknown, among other reasons.

[JGood4]

NO. look at pop music today.

[phil19]

not at all