rocket21, on 09 December 2010 - 07:46 PM, said:
I think you're missing my point.
If it's a good album worthy of attention, advanced promotion doesn't matter. So long as the album is available to be purchased when a customer decides they want to purchase it, they're set.
Doing half a year of prep work without an album for sale seems a bit...out of date. Welcome to the mainstream music business I guess. I don't buy the notion that the only way to sell albums is to trying to make a huge splash the first two weeks of availability.
Nonetheless, Radiohead dropped their album with no real advanced notice. It was good and it continued to sell.
REM is selling a fraction of what they used to sell in the United States, so one could say the old fashioned timetables aren't necessarily benefiting them. Why not shake things up a bit?
I don't think I'm missing your point, it's a pretty simple and valid one.
You said it yourself in that last line actually about R.E.M. selling a fraction of what they used to. Radiohead were/are at their height...and remember, after the initial boom of what was IN RAINBOWS release, a more traditional ad campaign started. Even up to 7 years ago many majors were doing things as stupid as overnighting tubes of posters and flats to record stores so they would hang them on their walls, many times to stores who did even bother to stock those artist.
If the new R.E.M. is truly on the level of say Automatic, then I think it will get noticed for that no matter the release strategy. It may not equate to the millions of sales R.E.M. used to have, but things are different in a lot of ways these days.
Anyway, all I am saying is I think your point is valid, and I agree with you. I wish labels were a little more adventurous, but it is pretty clear, for this record anyway, that it will be handled more traditionally.
I know I'll be buying it the second I can, because I am really excited. No one needs to promote R.E.M. to me, that's why I'm here with the rest of you.