|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 10, 2023 14:45:11 GMT -5
If it was any one else, sure, but it's Taylor Swift. No one outside the top 10 most popular artists at this stage in her fame could catch her, especially a reissue of The Masterplan. In her first week of sales I would agree. Second week her numbers will obviously come right down. Without knowing the sales, I'd still say it's a long-shot. Her album sold 184k copies its opening week. Let's say had a normal 50% drop, she'd still be clearing 90k+. Even on second week sales, she's still among the top 10 biggest acts in the world. And for reference, Knebworth 1996 sold 60k copies in its entire charts run. Even in her second week, her sales would have needed to fall off a cliff (like a 75% drop) for this to have had a chance at #1. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 10, 2023 14:46:39 GMT -5
At least the Beatles got it done on the single side of things, both in the UK and the USA. It is kind of ironic and a bit funny that a lazy reissue got beaten by a re-release. Shame on Oasis management. Really says something about the state of music that a reissue and re-release were "battling" it out for #1. |
|
|
|
Post by queenblougaredoc on Nov 10, 2023 14:48:12 GMT -5
Stop over analyzing and over negativizing things ppl!
|
|
Goosey
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 184
|
Post by Goosey on Nov 10, 2023 14:48:53 GMT -5
In her first week of sales I would agree. Second week her numbers will obviously come right down. Without knowing the sales, I'd still say it's a long-shot. Her album sold 184k copies its opening week. Let's say had a normal 50% drop, she'd still be clearing 90k+. Even on second week sales, she's still among the top 10 biggest acts in the world. And for reference, Knebworth 1996 sold 60k copies in its entire charts run. Even in her second week, her sales would have needed to fall off a cliff (like a 75% drop) for this to have had a chance at #1. I don’t mean to sound rude, this is a genuine question. Have you not looked at this thread at all and just come straight in and posted this? Masterplan was number 1 on Wednesday, it lost out on the final day. It had EVERY CHANCE of number 1. Unfortunately the management who run Oasis brand are not fit for purpose and have squandered this opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 10, 2023 15:37:58 GMT -5
Without knowing the sales, I'd still say it's a long-shot. Her album sold 184k copies its opening week. Let's say had a normal 50% drop, she'd still be clearing 90k+. Even on second week sales, she's still among the top 10 biggest acts in the world. And for reference, Knebworth 1996 sold 60k copies in its entire charts run. Even in her second week, her sales would have needed to fall off a cliff (like a 75% drop) for this to have had a chance at #1. I don’t mean to sound rude, this is a genuine question. Have you not looked at this thread at all and just come straight in and posted this? Masterplan was number 1 on Wednesday, it lost out on the final day. It had EVERY CHANCE of number 1. Unfortunately the management who run Oasis brand are not fit for purpose and have squandered this opportunity. Opportunity for what? This is a famous and well respected b-sides comp from 25 years ago. Its legacy is already made. It doesn’t need a #1 stamp to change any of that. Oasis was always gonna jump out to a huge lead early due to an older fan base that buys physical copies. They had no idea is a softer week it would do so well but Taylor was out there and this new 1989 is her biggest selling album of her entire career. tall task to knock her off. |
|
|
|
Post by glider on Nov 10, 2023 15:59:03 GMT -5
There wasn't really anything to celebrate. Why would Noel promote a reissue of a reissue of a compilation? To get a #1 album maybe? Noel doesn't give two 💩 about The Masterplan landing a number one spot. |
|
|
|
Post by Aman on Nov 10, 2023 19:49:35 GMT -5
The charts are done. Why's everyone fussing.
No one knows the weekly number ones anymore, it's not part of the public consciousness.
Even if it got number one, it's not that big a deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlober on Nov 11, 2023 3:12:25 GMT -5
You just can't beat Taylor Swift.
And these oasis numbers are impressive nevertheless. It's a cash-grab, no-extras reissue of a 25-years old compilation of b-sides: and it still sold lots of copies. I don't think the management is to blame this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by tiger40 on Nov 11, 2023 13:28:19 GMT -5
The Oasis management can be lazy with some of the reissues though like it has been recently with these 25th anniversary ones.
|
|
freek
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 177
|
Post by freek on Nov 12, 2023 2:59:39 GMT -5
In her first week of sales I would agree. Second week her numbers will obviously come right down. Without knowing the sales, I'd still say it's a long-shot. Her album sold 184k copies its opening week. Let's say had a normal 50% drop, she'd still be clearing 90k+. Even on second week sales, she's still among the top 10 biggest acts in the world. And for reference, Knebworth 1996 sold 60k copies in its entire charts run. Even in her second week, her sales would have needed to fall off a cliff (like a 75% drop) for this to have had a chance at #1. Taylor Swift actually ended her week with about 23k sales. The Masterplan 2nd with about 17k. Maybe if they really tried, a no 1 would have been possible, but they played it safe I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Panic on Nov 12, 2023 5:16:48 GMT -5
A very easy way for this is to have gone to #1 would have been for Noel to have done a special intimate Masterplan acoustic solo gig.
Pre-order the album for a chance to buy tickets. Boom, thousands of instant extra sales.
Noels literally on tour right now anyway so he could have easily squeezed in an acoustic show somewhere.
I consider myself a die hard oasis fan & collector and I've given up on all these pointless reissues. All I bought was the cassette as it was inexpensive and at least looks a bit different. They need to up their game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamond in The Dark on Nov 12, 2023 7:06:19 GMT -5
And once again Noel is using Oasis' social pages to promote himself and not the Oasis album. Now it's HTWA's turn again. As if he had sung it all the album with his voice. He is only publishing fragments or songs sung by him. It's making me sick of following the Oasis page
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Nov 12, 2023 8:43:34 GMT -5
And once again Noel is using Oasis' social pages to promote himself and not the Oasis album. Now it's HTWA's turn again. As if he had sung it all the album with his voice. He is only publishing fragments or songs sung by him. It's making me sick of following the Oasis page You've made your point in this thread and other thread again and again. Now it's time to move please. Both Liam and Noel have a great profit of Oasis songs. Both of them have Oasis songs which are a half of the entire set lists. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 12, 2023 11:23:08 GMT -5
Without knowing the sales, I'd still say it's a long-shot. Her album sold 184k copies its opening week. Let's say had a normal 50% drop, she'd still be clearing 90k+. Even on second week sales, she's still among the top 10 biggest acts in the world. And for reference, Knebworth 1996 sold 60k copies in its entire charts run. Even in her second week, her sales would have needed to fall off a cliff (like a 75% drop) for this to have had a chance at #1. Taylor Swift actually ended her week with about 23k sales. The Masterplan 2nd with about 17k. Maybe if they really tried, a no 1 would have been possible, but they played it safe I guess. They weren't going to get #1. Her fans are quite simply nuts. If it had been closer, they would have gone out and went on a spending spree (they've done it before). They're so rabid, they've literally been supporting whatever local economy she's playing a show in. It was over before it started. |
|
|
|
Post by carlober on Nov 12, 2023 13:01:49 GMT -5
And once again Noel is using Oasis' social pages to promote himself and not the Oasis album. Now it's HTWA's turn again. As if he had sung it all the album with his voice. He is only publishing fragments or songs sung by him. It's making me sick of following the Oasis page You're a broken record. |
|
|
|
Post by Manualex on Nov 12, 2023 13:26:39 GMT -5
🪑
|
|
|
|
Post by tiger40 on Nov 12, 2023 13:49:26 GMT -5
I still have the cassette version of the original of the album along with the band's first three albums somewhere. I just remembered that I have those.
|
|
|
|
Post by Officer Jim Kurring on Nov 12, 2023 16:16:01 GMT -5
Taylor Swift actually ended her week with about 23k sales. The Masterplan 2nd with about 17k. Maybe if they really tried, a no 1 would have been possible, but they played it safe I guess. They weren't going to get #1. Her fans are quite simply nuts. If it had been closer, they would have gone out and went on a spending spree (they've done it before). They're so rabid, they've literally been supporting whatever local economy she's playing a show in. It was over before it started. has a similar rabid fanbase….. God bless. |
|
|
|
Post by capo2ndfret on Nov 14, 2023 13:27:36 GMT -5
Who the fuck wrote this shit? It aged badly. Michael Sandlin is the author of this piece of shit. Judging by the content of this review, he's a right prick. I always get second hand embarrassment when I read pitchfork reviews. They're clueless, crass and painstakingly asinine with their prose, prefering to recant and pass judgement on the recent activities and proclivities of an artist rather than accurately describe and evaluate the music - the entire point of the "review". Much like the Sun, the best place for them is down the toilet. |
|
|
|
Post by The Chief on Nov 14, 2023 15:42:27 GMT -5
Who the fuck wrote this shit? It aged badly. Michael Sandlin is the author of this piece of shit. Judging by the content of this review, he's a right prick. I always get second hand embarrassment when I read pitchfork reviews. They're clueless, crass and painstakingly asinine with their prose, prefering to recant and pass judgement on the recent activities and proclivities of an artist rather than accurately describe and evaluate the music - the entire point of the "review". Much like the Sun, the best place for them is down the toilet. Woah, that review is some serious horseshit from a clearly ignorant prick... while it's true that most bands use outtakes as b-sides and Oasis certainly did in their latter days, when you're doing a review on Oasis, you have to know that in the 90's, those songs could have been on their full-length records had they been written before the recording sessions. 80% of this record is comprised of actual songs, not outtakes. So his premise is wrong from the get go. Also, what's with the attack on Paul? Or did the reviewer not know there was an actual third Gallagher brother? Not being a fan does not excuse talking out of your ass and Pitchfork publishing it... |
|
|
|
Post by tiger40 on Nov 15, 2023 13:40:15 GMT -5
Pitchfork is a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChampagneHypernova on Nov 15, 2023 16:28:48 GMT -5
Pitchfork should stick the fork where the sun don't shine.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 15, 2023 18:22:42 GMT -5
Who the fuck wrote this shit? It aged badly. Michael Sandlin is the author of this piece of shit. Judging by the content of this review, he's a right prick. I always get second hand embarrassment when I read pitchfork reviews. They're clueless, crass and painstakingly asinine with their prose, prefering to recant and pass judgement on the recent activities and proclivities of an artist rather than accurately describe and evaluate the music - the entire point of the "review". Much like the Sun, the best place for them is down the toilet. Weirdly, this is when Pitchfork quite proudly wore that self-indulgent pretentious hipster arsehole image as some kind of badge of honour. I think it was a general trend to be offensive and use it as a badge of honour back in the day (see even NME reviews up until to around the 2010s, compare and contrast to today's more polite critical reviews). These days, critiques are much more nuanced and professional. Horribly outdated, borderline offensive with its autistic jibe... it's the kind of superior and pretentious attitude to culture that Gen Z has outright rejected. If there's one thing about the younger generation that I think is superior to millennials like me, its that cultural criticism is not so cynical and pseudo-intellectual. They might not listen to the music I listen to (I don't expect them), indeed I think its a load of rubbish (but I'm old to them at the age of 33!) but publications, and their culture, rarely encourage such vile attitudes as it used to be. That might have lended itself to the whole 'cancel culture' generation but generally, I look back at media and culture from the 90s and 2000s, and I'd quite happily live in a time of sensitive cancel culture if it means avoiding horrible writing like that. |
|
|
|
Post by tiger40 on Nov 16, 2023 13:38:00 GMT -5
Pitchfork should stick the fork where the sun don't shine. Agreed they should. |
|
|
|
Post by themanwholivesinhell on Nov 17, 2023 8:57:44 GMT -5
Michael Sandlin is the author of this piece of shit. Judging by the content of this review, he's a right prick. I always get second hand embarrassment when I read pitchfork reviews. They're clueless, crass and painstakingly asinine with their prose, prefering to recant and pass judgement on the recent activities and proclivities of an artist rather than accurately describe and evaluate the music - the entire point of the "review". Much like the Sun, the best place for them is down the toilet. Weirdly, this is when Pitchfork quite proudly wore that self-indulgent pretentious hipster arsehole image as some kind of badge of honour. I think it was a general trend to be offensive and use it as a badge of honour back in the day (see even NME reviews up until to around the 2010s, compare and contrast to today's more polite critical reviews). These days, critiques are much more nuanced and professional. Horribly outdated, borderline offensive with its autistic jibe... it's the kind of superior and pretentious attitude to culture that Gen Z has outright rejected. If there's one thing about the younger generation that I think is superior to millennials like me, its that cultural criticism is not so cynical and pseudo-intellectual. They might not listen to the music I listen to (I don't expect them), indeed I think its a load of rubbish (but I'm old to them at the age of 33!) but publications, and their culture, rarely encourage such vile attitudes as it used to be. That might have lended itself to the whole 'cancel culture' generation but generally, I look back at media and culture from the 90s and 2000s, and I'd quite happily live in a time of sensitive cancel culture if it means avoiding horrible writing like that. The problem Ive always had with Pitchfork is that they constantly give off the impression that they look for what’s bad about a record rather than good. Sort of like Robert Christgau of the Village Voice. In addition, all youve got to be is intellectual/eccentric and theyre obliged to get drippy over you. I’m not trying to be petty but some of their Radiohead and Blur reviews came off as straight up arse kissing. Heck, Damon himself has knocked Think Tank, and they still gave it more than Definitely Maybe. In truth it really does reek of favouritism. Theres cynicism, and there’s taking it too far. More often than not, Pitchfork did the latter back then. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5