34 replies to this topic

[MAK]

I didn't expect the album to be on the top 5 places maybe but ranking on place 55 on its debut week its IMO very very low for a band with so much great history in music.

http://www.billboard...&order=position

I'd just liked to see this album to sell at least as good as IN TIME (ranking 8 and 16 on its limited edition)

Does anybody else has the ranking of the album in Europe and other countries?

[Stoffel]

number 19 in belgium(flemish part)
http://www.ultratop....chart.asp?cat=a

[thomas08]

19 in the UK too

[Remixomatosys]

7th in Italy
http://www.fimi.it/c...fiche_album.php

[ThunderRoad]

Well, in the end it's just another best of / greatest hits collection.
Nothing that hasn't been released yet.
I honestly don't think that this collection will introduce many new fans to the band, on the other hand, the three new tracks have already been heard and are actually pretty bad, so apart from the completist / die hard fan, there is really no incentive for the "established" R.E.M. fans to buy that record.
Only maybe the liner notes, but I am not really willing right now to spend money for a few anecdotes / tidbits of information.

As for anyone, who wants to get into R.E.M., I'd recommend to get Out Of Time, Automatic and Murmur and go from there.

So who is left to buy that compilation?
No wonder, it's not doing well in the charts.

[2headedcow]

Not even in the top 100 in Australia.

Susan Boyle is number 1.  OMG!!!!!

[Driver Nate]

I bought it, listened to the three previously unreleased songs (which I'd already heard online), read the liner notes and filed it away without even listening to the rest of the collection (all of which I own several times over at this point). I imagine I'm not alone in doing that. How well it does on the charts doesn't even matter to me.

[kizmatica]

Because they have released two Greatest Hits or whatever in the past 10 years, which combined, have at least 80% of the songs on this compilation anyway. There was no reason to release it.

I realise it was probably not the bands decision, but if they were truly against it, they probably wouldn't have bothered with the three new songs (which seem a little pointless now due to the chart position).

[Driver Nate]

kizmatica, on 24 November 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

I realise it was probably not the bands decision, but if they were truly against it, they probably wouldn't have bothered with the three new songs (which seem a little pointless now due to the chart position).

From what I understand it was just to fulfill their contract with Warner Brothers and according to the interviews they've done, the band fully cooperated with it, right down to selecting what songs would be included.

[thomas08]

Driver Nate, on 24 November 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

From what I understand it was just to fulfill their contract with Warner Brothers and according to the interviews they've done, the band fully cooperated with it, right down to selecting what songs would be included.

but they also fully cooperated with the "...and i feel fine" compilation, and that wasn't their choice.

[Driver Nate]

thomas08, on 24 November 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

but they also fully cooperated with the "...and i feel fine" compilation, and that wasn't their choice.

Same thing for Eponymous. Since I.R.S. was going to release it anyway, they took part in it. In regards to And I Feel Fine, I didn't realize it was going to be released without their consent.

[bflood]

It is a tough sell for compilations in the era of iTunes.  People can already pick and choose the 'big hits' a la carte.

[iskra]

I'll never understand why some people here get so worked up over how well the band does on the charts. The charts and record sales have always been a terrible indicator of quality. If it's any consolation to you insecure fans, there's sure to be an R.E.M. revival in the future where 30-somethings rediscover the stuff their parents used to listen to. As it stands now, most people under the age of (say) 18 probably see R.E.M. as being inconsequential dinosaurs-- assuming they even know who they are in the first place.

[Driver Nate]

iskra, on 24 November 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:

I'll never understand why some people here get so worked up over how well the band does on the charts. The charts and record sales have always been a terrible indicator of quality. If it's any consolation to you insecure fans, there's sure to be an R.E.M. revival in the future where 30-somethings rediscover the stuff their parents used to listen to. As it stands now, most people under the age of (say) 18 probably see R.E.M. as being inconsequential dinosaurs-- assuming they even know who they are in the first place.

Considering the amount of press their disbanding generated (and continues to generate) they are still very well remembered and very well thought of. That is much more heartwarming to me than where Part Lies, Part Heart, Part Truth, Part Garbage lands on the charts. I'm sure down the road there will also be some more books written about them and maybe even memoirs from members of the band. Perhaps with some fans the desire to see something like Part Lies, Part Heart, Part Truth, Part Garbage charting at #1 on Billboard is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees as far as how well thought of R.E.M. still is in the eyes of the public. I don't feel a desire to see it hit the #1 spot to know what R.E.M. means to me. After all, I think that's the most important part, what R.E.M. means to each of us and what we have all taken away from that experience. When it comes to that, things like chart positions are completely inconsequential. At least that's how I feel about it.

[robbbin]

Should have given it some publicity that was not online. No ads, no promos, no radio, no TV, how could you expect it to sell?

Should have held it over for a xmas release.

[beatadrum]

Driver Nate, on 24 November 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

I bought it, listened to the three previously unreleased songs (which I'd already heard online), read the liner notes and filed it away without even listening to the rest of the collection (all of which I own several times over at this point). I imagine I'm not alone in doing that. How well it does on the charts doesn't even matter to me.

basically 'snap'. Though it is currently one of two 'dishwashing' CDs in the kitchen. I don't do the dishes much.

[fredrik]

MAK, on 24 November 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Does anybody else has the ranking of the album in Europe and other countries?

Norway: 30 in week 1, 25 in week 2. In Time was number 1 for 9 weeks. ..

[Remixomatosys]

bflood, on 24 November 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

It is a tough sell for compilations in the era of iTunes.  People can already pick and choose the 'big hits' a la carte.

True. This is, probably, the main explanation of the low sales.
Part lies and In time are incomparable: 8 years run between them

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

Q magazine didn't  bother with an article, tribute or  even mention of REM's disbandment on their pages. All they did was publish a couple of letters about it on their readers mail page. 2 were written by fans and the third was by someone who had clearly never liked REM.
They were generous enough to say they had a "tremendous mailbag" about REM as letters to the editor, and a 2 line reply from said editor about REM which was so noncommital I wondered if he'd ever listened to any of their music.
Really sad.

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

That's reminded me to cancel my subscription to Q. When I look back at what a great music mag it once was and see  what it's turned into now, I'll keep my cash TYVM.
I don't care about Shmucko from X factor struggling with a hangnail or Jedward's hair styling tips, which is more or less what every issue consists of now. Losers.