Member Since: 9/14/2004
Posts: 79
|
The Grammy's Sales Boost: Well, it kind of helped.
The Grammys did not produce any kind of big bounce for the night’s overall winner, U2.
Indeed, the No. 1 album of the week is Jack Johnson’s soundtrack to the “Curious George” movie. Go figure. The album threw a monkey wrench into the plans of many Grammy winners who probably thought exposure on the show would pay off in sales.
U2’s “How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb” wound up selling a paltry 28,000 copies after the Grammy show aired, lodging it between 45 and 50 on the week’s chart according to hitsdailydouble.com.
Maybe the band would have been better off not performing “Vertigo,” a track from the 2005 Grammys, and “One,” their lovely ballad from time forgotten. Maybe if they’d done their current hit, “Original of the Species,” it might have triggered sales.
Of course, performing “One” with Mary J. Blige was designed to cross-promote the group into the black audience. It didn’t work for them, but it worked wonders for Mary J. Her album “The Breakthrough” was up 24 percent from last week and finished second, despite the fact that Mary J. — even though we love her — couldn’t actually sing the song.
Two other female singers who appeared on the Grammys also did well from the show. Mariah Carey’s sales were up 90 percent from last week; she sold 89,000 copies of her “Mimi” CD and jumped from 16 to 7.
Kelly Clarkson, the mall-order Linda Ronstadt of this generation, went from 23 to 8, up 107 percent, for her “Breakaway” album.
But others did not achieve such greatness from the show. Jamie Foxx should have learned something from his misbegotten “Music Man” skit with Kanye West. It didn’t help him at all. Jamie’s “Unpredictable” fell by 21 percent, from 4 to 10.
That’s weird, because all he had to do was sing “Love Changes” with Mary J. and sales would have gone through the roof. But “Gold Digger” is obviously starting to get on people’s nerves. Or maybe it’s just that they realize that without the Ray Charles song, “What I Say,” the track would be moot.
The Grammy show looked great in person, but maybe it didn’t translate on screen. Lack of a host was definitely a problem — the show didn’t have focus. And maybe there were too many performers. On paper, you’d think having Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Elvis Costello, Madonna and Mariah, in addition to Foxx, West and Blige would be a smash. But some people are telling me it looked like a mess.
I think the biggest problem is that the Grammy deadline is Oct. 1 for a show that airs in February. Music is not like the movies; it’s more ephemeral. And letting actors take advantage of the deadline rules is a huge detriment. U2 and Maroon 5 are living off of albums released a long time ago. The audience knows that; the average viewer probably thought U2 was there just to recall the 2004 release of “Bomb.”
There should be a Grammy rule that if a single is released before its album, and thus makes the deadline on its own, then the album is not eligible when it’s released later.
U2’s “Vertigo” came out before Oct. 1, 2005, making it a Grammy nominee. “Bomb” followed after that, putting in contention this year. Forget it! Artists should have to pick one or the other. To amend a saying for the rock world: You can’t always have your coke and snort it too.
And so many artists of interest are missing entirely from the Grammys and from radio: Ryan Adams is one. Ray LeMontagne. Death Cab for Cutie. Why was Chris Brown featured at Clive Davis’ party and not on the actual Grammys? Same for James Blunt, who is finally hot right now?
It’s time to rethink how some of this is done before it’s too late. Because if the Grammy show can be beaten by “American Idol” and produce dismal record sales as well, then what’s the point?
- Fox Entertainment News
|
|
|
|
J/k.
!!!