Pet Shop Boys Community

tuff enuff wrote:

skyhigh wrote:How badly did Total Pap perform in the charts then?

It did much better....than you.....ever will

Crikey. I bet Skyhigh will struggle to sleep tonight, knowing that

To answer SkyHighs question ;-

Pop40 has sold around 15,000 copies in 2 weeks and The Deluxe edition, which was chart eligible on it's own, failed to make it into the top 150.

Well I am responding to other post's of course! That's why I am talking about sales and chart positions.
And what quote have I made up exactly!
Yes, I am sure record companies drop artists due to poor sales, Have I denied that? All I said is that PSB and Erasure have a good enough fanbase and back catalogue to make sure that will not happen. Erasure still have sell out tours, in smaller venues but it is still an excellent thing to be able to do at this stage of their careers. Sorry if you think that is off topic but we are talking about Erasure here so I don't think it is.
Ive just watched the DVD from the boxset and listened to the live cd and I find both excellent. I think it is fair to say that we would all be happy if the PSB did the same thing and it could happen I suppose.
I don't want to cause another argument here but cd 2 of total pop is fantastic and I have no idea how anybody could call these songs basic or tiny or whatever it was you said. Its not as good as cd 1 but it is full of great electronic pop songs, if that is the style of music you like.

Undertaker wrote:

tuff enuff wrote:

skyhigh wrote:How badly did Total Pap perform in the charts then?

It did much better....than you.....ever will

Crikey. I bet Skyhigh will struggle to sleep tonight, knowing that

To answer SkyHighs question ;-

Pop40 has sold around 15,000 copies in 2 weeks and The Deluxe edition, which was chart eligible on it's own, failed to make it into the top 150.

It is strange that no record shop I went to had the deluxe in stock last week, 3 HMV's, 2 WH Smith and a few smaller ones. In the HMV's I saw the display case sticker for them so they must have had a few in stock which must have sold. When I went into HMV PSB were 12 and Erasure 17 in the chart. It was great to see both bands in the top 20. That was the HMV chart let's not forget.
It is a shame that more are not in stock if they have sold out.

Deluxe edition might have had to be a pre-order. Maybe they got a few copies in but no casual fan would shell out £40 for something that they wont have any interest in. Especially with money being tight at the moment.

Undertaker wrote:Deluxe edition might have had to be a pre-order. Maybe they got a few copies in but no casual fan would shell out £40 for something that they wont have any interest in. Especially with money being tight at the moment.

I agree with you, shall we call it quits there?!

JSDOUVRES wrote:

Undertaker wrote:Deluxe edition might have had to be a pre-order. Maybe they got a few copies in but no casual fan would shell out £40 for something that they wont have any interest in. Especially with money being tight at the moment.

I agree with you, shall we call it quits there?!

Agreeing is boring though.

Yeah, we can agree just this once

Undertaker wrote:
Moving on ;- Obviously i should have known that you wouldn't let this budget thing lie, which is fair enough. you think you are right and i think i am. I'm actually interested in this budget thing and as you claim to work with record labels every day, i'd like to know how it works.

So you say that record companies do not issue budgets for future releases, based on previous figures. I asked you why record companies drop artists and you never answered. That didn't look good on your part, to be honest. Anyway, being a fair guy, i'm going to let you have another go

Seriously, i'd like to know what criteria a record company uses to budget an artists next album..

I'm definitely not trying to evade any of your questions (as you can tell, I never have), but I am not interested in stating something just for you to spray all over it with ill-conceived ideas designed to prove your flimsy statements. I don't want to burst your bubble (again) but many of your beliefs aren't valid. It's like giving a child a rocket-building manual with which to construct a rocket - sure, all the info is there, but none of the physics. Hence, you always throw out chart stats and pre-conceived ideas with zero forethought and zero understanding of the bigger picture. Not to mention my biggest pet peeve: you thinking something is better merely because it sells more.

As I said, there are no "guidelines" the way you describe them on why an artist gets dumped by a label. Sometimes it has to do with an expired contract, sometimes it's internal politics when people in the label's organisation change, sometimes it is a catalogue-wide reduction in sales (rarely ever will a single record get a band dropped), sometimes it involves the label having promised too much outward flowing capital earlier and now that artist can't bring the inflow - there are more reasons to get dropped than I could mention here.

Similarly, there are a cornucopia of considerations when it comes to a label deciding on how much money to pump (or not pump) into a project. It's quite a complex issue. Not to mention, now there are times where the label won't put money into the artist, but the artist will set up a system where other outside sources fund the project. I've seen deferred payments through a label and the exchange of artist's services who are on the same label. I've also just seen a label funnel massive funds into an artist simply based on what they hear of the new material, even if that artist didn't do well commercially previously.

The reasons are endless, and they won't be found on the walls of your blinkers.

pulse wrote: Not to mention my biggest pet peeve: you thinking something is better merely because it sells more.

Please quote me where i have said X is better than Y because X sold more.

pulse wrote: I'm definitely not trying to evade any of your questions (as you can tell, I never have), but I am not interested in stating something just for you to spray all over it with ill-conceived ideas designed to prove your flimsy statements

Cheers. you have no facts. I knew it.

pulse wrote:
As I said, there are no "guidelines" the way you describe them on why an artist gets dumped by a label. Sometimes it has to do with an expired contract, sometimes it's internal politics when people in the label's organisation change, sometimes it is a catalogue-wide reduction in sales (rarely ever will a single record get a band dropped), sometimes it involves the label having promised too much outward flowing capital earlier and now that artist can't bring the inflow - there are more reasons to get dropped than I could mention here.

An expired contract So if sales were really high, that contract wouldn't be renewed? The highlighted part is the best though. It's just a shame we have wasted several pages of ink for this to be resolved. You have been digging a hole for several posts and managed to make yourself a grave. The lack of facts and the post above are the nails in your coffin

You carry on ranting from beyond the grave. It makes for good entertainment.

Next chapter.....


.

Undertaker wrote:

pulse wrote: I'm definitely not trying to evade any of your questions (as you can tell, I never have), but I am not interested in stating something just for you to spray all over it with ill-conceived ideas designed to prove your flimsy statements

Cheers. you have no facts. I knew it.

pulse wrote:
As I said, there are no "guidelines" the way you describe them on why an artist gets dumped by a label. Sometimes it has to do with an expired contract, sometimes it's internal politics when people in the label's organisation change, sometimes it is a catalogue-wide reduction in sales (rarely ever will a single record get a band dropped), sometimes it involves the label having promised too much outward flowing capital earlier and now that artist can't bring the inflow - there are more reasons to get dropped than I could mention here.

An expired contract So if sales were really high, that contract wouldn't be renewed? The highlighted part is the best though. It's just a shame we have wasted several pages of ink for this to be resolved. You have been digging a hole for several posts and managed to make yourself a grave. The lack of facts and the post above are the nails in your coffin

You carry on ranting from beyond the grave. It makes for good entertainment.

Next chapter.....


.

Funny how you chose to highlight "reduction in sales" but failed to see (due to blinkers) "catalogue-wide reduction in sales."

Let me go on to say that you are the absolute worst type of person to have a discussion with. Not only are you ignorant to facts, but when facts are presented to you (as you asked, from my experience), you choose to ignore them, then belittle them, then act like a child and try to settle old scores using information that has nothing to do with the past.

I have never seen anyone make themselves look like fools so often and so blatantly. Let me just say that you are an embarrassment to your forum - truly the "village idiot."

Bravo again.

Yes pulse, the dude selects what fits to his arguments and chooses out what doesn't. Or suddenly " doesn't care " when it neither fits anywhere

tuff enuff wrote:

skyhigh wrote:How badly did Total Pap perform in the charts then?

It did much better....than you.....ever will

Just asking a simple question, no need for making things personal.....


Thanks Undertaker. It did s h i t?

Steph stop using big words, had to look up cornucopia for the meaning.

skyhigh wrote:

tuff enuff wrote:

skyhigh wrote:How badly did Total Pap perform in the charts then?

It did much better....than you.....ever will

Just asking a simple question, no need for making things personal.....


Thanks Undertaker. It did s h i t?

Yep. Very poor indeed.

Don't worry about Tuff Enuff. Other members have pointed out why he is here, so i think it's a case of everyone pointing at him and laughing, rather than taking him seriously

skyhigh wrote:

tuff enuff wrote:

skyhigh wrote:How badly did Total Pap perform in the charts then?

It did much better....than you.....ever will

Just asking a simple question, no need for making things personal.....


Thanks Undertaker. It did s h i t?

Yeah you can go and have a nice big w*** based on the Erasure chart position!
Enjoy!

Undertaker wrote: Don't worry about Tuff Enuff. Other members have pointed out why he is here, so i think it's a case of everyone pointing at him and laughing, rather than taking him seriously

Says the major stirrer. Classic example of hypocrisy.