Slipknot re-count

I thought this was interesting.....



Hard rock enigma SLIPKNOT have once again made history. The band's fourth album, "All Hope Is Gone", has claimed the coveted #1 debut slot on Billboard's Top 200 chart, after an extraordinary SoundScan recount. The album was initially announced today as a #2 debut, a mere 13 units behind THE GAME's #1 debut, marking the closest margin in SoundScan history. The chart positions resulted from a reported 238,272 copies of "All Hope Is Gone" its first week in stores, while THE GAME's "LAX" reported 238,285. With such an unprecedented margin, Roadrunner Records and WEA requested an historic recount. SoundScan obliged and chart positions have been reversed, with SLIPKNOT claiming #1 and a new margin of 1134 albums. Final recount numbers are 239,516 for "All Hope Is Gone" and 238,382 for "LAX" sold during first week of release. This marks a landmark achievement for SLIPKNOT and Roadrunner.

SLIPKNOT has seen similar outstanding first week sales worldwide, with #1 debuts in Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland, #2 in Belgium, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, and a #3 debut in Norway.

Heard about that. Pretty big in terms of extreme metal's popularity in America

Gangsta rap competes with false extreme metal for Billboard chart...


We know where America is at..

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Gangsta rap competes with false extreme metal for Billboard chart...


We know where America is at..

Agreed

Um...well... OK, good for Slipknot, I guess.

Anyone rember Iann Robinson from MTV? I didn't care for him much back then, but he's got a pretty interesting take on this topic...

http://www.nonelouder.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1528828%3ABlogPost%3A126120

If y'all dig on that, check out the rest of his blog. It's a pretty good read.

http://www.nonelouder.com/profiles/blog/list?user=2g0k2t2t8rraq

Yeah MG, Iann's take mirrors my original thought which was, Great, Slipknot sold a bunch of records. It still doesn't make them listenable or memorable.

spectrefate wrote:

Yeah MG, Iann's take mirrors my original thought which was, Great, Slipknot sold a bunch of records. It still doesn't make them listenable or memorable.

Yea, and I think Ult has said something similar on his website at some point as well. Just because it's popular doesn't make it good.

I am fan of Slipknot but how well an album sells has no bearing on how good the music is or if I am interested in owning the album.

manny wrote:

I am fan of Slipknot but how well an album sells has no bearing on how good the music is or if I am interested in owning the album.

I'm not knocking anyone for liking Slipknot. It's not my bag, but someone out there likes 'em. I just thought Iann's overall take on the number's game was interesting.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

manny wrote:

I am fan of Slipknot but how well an album sells has no bearing on how good the music is or if I am interested in owning the album.

I'm not knocking anyone for liking Slipknot. It's not my bag, but someone out there likes 'em. I just thought Iann's overall take on the number's game was interesting.

Metalguy I didn't take as knock for liking Slipknot I was simply agreeing with your statement, that how well album sells doesnot make it a good album, Slipknot just happened to be the example being used to make this point.

I could give a Smurf how many albums Slipknot sold I dont like them. However, the number figures released and the fact that this debuted at number one does say that "extreme" metal is coming into the forefront a bit. I went to lunch today and this hot chick commented on the Thrash And Burn tour (went for Arsis) shirt I had. Now, this was a regular looking white girl that had a couple of tats but she knew albums, song names and the history of the band. I doubt this would have happened even four years ago.

I actually think The Game's album is better.

You all missed the point. I said it was interesting. I don't care how many copies they sell, or don't sell. I don't care if some fat bald guy says the number of records you sell doesn't make an album good, I didn't say anything like that. Because, well, I don't care. Just thought it was interesting that it had to be recounted is all.....

Sheesh.

Selvmord wrote:

You all missed the point. I said it was interesting.
I don't care how many copies they sell, or don't sell. I don't care if
some fat bald guy says the number of records you sell doesn't make an
album good, I didn't say anything like that. Because, well, I don't
care. Just thought it was interesting that it had to be recounted is
all.....

Sheesh.

Actually it is interesting I have never heard of this ever happening
before, who knows how many albums released since Soundscan had been
introduced have under reported the number of albums sold.

yea for slipknot...new albums pretty good.

the one song i saw on tv sounded good actually

Here's a nugget of wisdom from SLipknot. And that isnt me being sarcastic:

Corey Taylor:
"People wanna blame the decline of album sales on downloading, I
think it's actually the record companies' fault," he added. "I think
it's the quality of the product. If record companies would stop giving
any smurfing mook on the street with a fringe a record deal or their own
record label, maybe you would sell more smurfing albums, dipshits."


Don't like Slipknot, don't like Stone Sour but the man is correct.

If coke sniffing exec's would lower the price of their cd's and instead of the quality of the music than people would probably buy more cds, if they didn't devalue the artist and music in general to the point that their is a generation that feels entitled to free music, than maybe people would start buying more music.

If these same greedy coke sniffing exec's didn't set up unrealistic sales expectations the music industry would be in better shape, maybe if these bean counters would give an artist more than one album to allow them to build up a career and following than maybe and just maybe IMO people would buy more CD's. Of course that is just my opinion.

You make a good point, manny,and Corey Taylor's statement is vaild somewhat as well, but I think it's too little too late. Once someone can get it for free, noone is gonna change their minds and decide to pay. We're older and we understand. But there is a whole generation growing up that have no problem "sharing" their muisic and I can't think of anything that will change their opinions of that practice.

remember that the "KIDS" have very little money until they get jobs probably in their late teens so younger kids who have accsess to the internet are likely to download stuff for free.

luckily i am able to afford cds of my own.

you also have to remember that the "kids" have grown up into a digital culture and are not as used to physical media formats as older people are like the cd or record and are likely to favour downloads which can be free

TheGooch wrote:

remember that the "KIDS" have very little money until they get jobs probably in their late teens so younger kids who have accsess to the internet are likely to download stuff for free.

luckily i am able to afford cds of my own.

you also have to remember that the "kids" have grown up into a digital culture and are not as used to physical media formats as older people are like the cd or record and are likely to favour downloads which can be free

That is all true but it doesn't help when the record companies have no respect for the artist and music they are selling let alone the fans, so a whole generation of fans feel they are entitled to get their music for free, the record companies with their pricing policies, radio with restrictive playlists, MTV with their silly reality shows all helped devalue music to the point that they some people feel it is ok to get their music for free, the record companies helped foster in this cultural. Doesn't matter what medium someone prefers to receive their music, but an artist who put many hours to create a song or album deserve to get paid, but again I blame the record companies more than anyone else.

manny wrote:

TheGooch wrote:

remember that the "KIDS" have very little money until they get jobs probably in their late teens so younger kids who have accsess to the internet are likely to download stuff for free.

luckily i am able to afford cds of my own.

you also have to remember that the "kids" have grown up into a digital culture and are not as used to physical media formats as older people are like the cd or record and are likely to favour downloads which can be free

That is all true but it doesn't help when the record companies have no respect for the artist and music they are selling let alone the fans, so a whole generation of fans feel they are entitled to get their music for free, the record companies with their pricing policies, radio with restrictive playlists, MTV with their silly reality shows all helped devalue music to the point that they some people feel it is ok to get their music for free, the record companies helped foster in this cultural. Doesn't matter what medium someone prefers to receive their music, but an artist who put many hours to create a song or album deserve to get paid, but again I blame the record companies more than anyone else.

yes i agree that artists should be paid adamantly or else msuic would die

i dont see how it can change though

please note that what i stated above was only my take on the minds of illegal downloaders

I heard this moring on the radio that Walmat/Sam's Club has already purchased 3 million AC/DC albums which they will then sell exclusively through their stores. Hypothetically speaking, even if they don't sell 3 million cd's to the public, wouldn't Black Ice go to the top of the Sound Scan charts just based on that sale? I'm sure there are a lot of other factors that I'm missing here, but from AC/DC's standpoint, if they've already struck a deal, printed & shipped the merch and got paid, can they claim that their album sold 3 million right off the bat?

Someone obviously smarter than me care to explain?