Is having hits really important?

I think hits are important for name recognition but I think if you continue to put out good music your fan base will buy it. Also, staying visible with concerts or a tour.

Many of the music legends haven't had recent hits but they can sell out venues because they have created a lasting brand with quality music.
 
cracks me up some folks on a Michael Jackson board debating the merits of Hits and sales?
The DeFranco Family, Vanilla Ice, Bay City Rollers, Bobby Sherman, Milli Vanilli, etc. had hit records. But they're long forgotten about and/or considered jokes today. But other acts like John Coltrane & Black Sabbath, who had no hit singles, still sell and are held in high esteem by some people. Having hits doesn't really guarantee a long career as the pop market is really fickle, but having memorable music does.
 
Many artists make most of their money by touring.
That's how it has always worked. Very few acts make much money from record sales. Recording contracts (or CONtract as Prince calls it, lol) are always in favor of the label and are designed to keep acts in the hole and broke. But today the record company even gets touring income like with the deal Madonna did with Live Nation.
 
AD01-01bk.gif

Some people seem to put a lot of emphasis on what is popular or number 1 or that somebody has sold more than someone else. I'm a fan of music, not a fan of hits, so labels like "one hit wonder" or "King, Queen, Prince, etc. of such & such" mean nothing to me. I don't like something just because a bunch of other people bought it or because it was on the radio. Having a hit or selling a lot of records mostly has to do with promotion and how much money and power a record label has. If the Thriller album came out on a label like Blue Note, Verve, or Malaco, it wouldn't have done anything because they don't have the distribution muscle or money to get songs on the radio and make videos. A label with big money can make almost anything a "hit", and they have. It doesn't mean it's better than something that is not on the radio. Being nominated for awards or winning them is no indicator of quality either, just music business politics.


Well Said.


I dont know why people need validation from awards and hits. Its about the MUSIC. Awards, hits and achievement does not represent the quality of the music. Music has gotten to a point now that its more so about the image and the personality of the artist rather than the music and now there are people more of a fan of the personality than the craft. I just wish the focus would go back to music and all these awards especially in todays industry because it doesnt mean anything. Alot of the greatest artists of all time have never won a grammy or have only a few.
 
AD01-01bk.gif

Some people seem to put a lot of emphasis on what is popular or number 1 or that somebody has sold more than someone else. I'm a fan of music, not a fan of hits, so labels like "one hit wonder" or "King, Queen, Prince, etc. of such & such" mean nothing to me. I don't like something just because a bunch of other people bought it or because it was on the radio. Having a hit or selling a lot of records mostly has to do with promotion and how much money and power a record label has. If the Thriller album came out on a label like Blue Note, Verve, or Malaco, it wouldn't have done anything because they don't have the distribution muscle or money to get songs on the radio and make videos. A label with big money can make almost anything a "hit", and they have. It doesn't mean it's better than something that is not on the radio. Being nominated for awards or winning them is no indicator of quality either, just music business politics.

Nice thread and nice post!
I totally agree with you on that! ;)

Nowadays I don't even care about the charts anymore, I don't even care about music on the radio or on television because I know that they're playing bad stuff, only. I just listen to music I want to listen to and music that I like, that's all!

:)
 
It's not 1970's anymore where people used to dig into many artists.Now people just want everything ready made,so if any Artist doesn't have any hits then nobody even know about the existence of the Artists.Black Sabbath came out in 1970 and really created whole new music but we know what happened to Black Sabbath once Ozzy was fired.Black Sabbath again got its glory back when Ozzy joined back.And what Ozzy has done so far is mostly producing some radio friendly songs and thats why he is still surviving in music industry.Hits are really necessary for any Artists and ya even Black Sabbath also had some of their songs in Top 40 so it means they also they had hits but it was big deal back then cuz they were very underground.Now a days you will find like millions of underground bands but they get no where cuz they never have any hits.These underground bands barely survive and all these ppl who have hits are generating millions of $$ every yr.Im not sayin that beyonce or taylor swift is amazing artist cuz by calling them Artist will be a big dis respect the word "Artist".:doh:

But bottom line is now a days money is the only thing that's must in music industry,creativity just rot and our goodie goodie beyonce sells..:rofl:
 
Hits are really necessary for any Artists
Most jazz acts never had any hits and they generally don't release singles. They don't get Top 40 airplay. Wynton Marsalis has been around for a long time and doesn't have any hits. Bobby McFerrin has been performing for over 20 years and only has one radio hit. Acts like Sonic Youth, Iggy Pop, The Grateful Dead, Phish, or Jimmy Buffett don't depend on radio play. They have more of a word of mouth following. Look at Genesis. When Peter Gabriel was the lead singer, they were an underground prog rock band with weird lyrics and Peter's crazy costumes. Genesis first album was released in 1969, but they didn't have a hit song until 1978, which was 3 or 4 years after Peter left. They basically changed their music to a more pop radio friendly sound, and that's when they started becoming popular. Having a lot of hit songs or selling big are mainly criteria for pop acts, not for other genres. Whenever somebody makes a list with the biggest selling albums or acts a bluegrass, classical, blues, or jazz act is never on them.
 
Most jazz acts never had any hits and they generally don't release singles. They don't get Top 40 airplay. Wynton Marsalis has been around for a long time and doesn't have any hits. Bobby McFerrin has been performing for over 20 years and only has one radio hit. Acts like Sonic Youth, Iggy Pop, The Grateful Dead, Phish, or Jimmy Buffett don't depend on radio play. They have more of a word of mouth following. Look at Genesis. When Peter Gabriel was the lead singer, they were an underground prog rock band with weird lyrics and Peter's crazy costumes. Genesis first album was released in 1969, but they didn't have a hit song until 1978, which was 3 or 4 years after Peter left. They basically changed their music to a more pop radio friendly sound, and that's when they started becoming popular. Having a lot of hit songs or selling big are mainly criteria for pop acts, not for other genres. Whenever somebody makes a list with the biggest selling albums or acts a bluegrass, classical, blues, or jazz act is never on them.

Well all these groups you mentioned are not popular in general masses,specific group of people listen to them.I like jazz music but its all cuz I really dig much too deep into music..lol but the thing is none of these jazz players make 100 million $$/yr.That is my point,to make money its must to have list of hit song.Im not talkin about music quality here,ofcourse if beyonce makes millions it doesnt mean she is great artist.But it is necessary to have somethin which general public can relate to.And hit song is that connection between artist and the audience,it can't be ignored.Plus record companies do the business,not a charity.They really spend some serious money on new artists and if new artists doesnt have hit then they don't sell well and on tour without any hit song which artist can make it a successful tour when it comes to business?For us good music matters but people who invest their money on such acts for them its business.If these acts make money then everything is fine but if they don't then they are just another piece of crap atleast for people who invest their money on them.

I also like many Artists who are mostly unknown but I can't say that they are doing any good for their career cuz their ego is killing their career and after 5-10 yrs they would understand what they have lost.Plus I think music should be made for everyone not for some bunch of people.Though it is just a fantasy now,MJ was the only hope.But now we will never have any music which will rule the charts,rule the sales and rule the hearts and minds of people.:(

BUT still HITS ARE NECESAARY TO BE FAMOUS AND TO BE RECOGNISED.:cheeky:
 
BUT still HITS ARE NECESAARY TO BE FAMOUS AND TO BE RECOGNISED.:cheeky:
That's obvious, lol. But it isn't necessary to make a living. Many musicians don't even make records. They just play in bars, clubs, social events, weddings, etc. Others work as session musicians on records. Look at MJ's records. He didn't make them by himself. The musicians playing on his records made the songs happen, but they don't share in the glory, money, & fame nor any of the downsides that goes with being famous. They're basically anonymous. Everybody doesn't want to be famous. Also selling a lot of records doesn't guarantee an act will be rich if they have a really bad contract.
 
That's obvious, lol. But it isn't necessary to make a living. Many musicians don't even make records. They just play in bars, clubs, social events, weddings, etc. Others work as session musicians on records. Look at MJ's records. He didn't make them by himself. The musicians playing on his records made the songs happen, but they don't share in the glory, money, & fame nor any of the downsides that goes with being famous. They're basically anonymous. Everybody doesn't want to be famous. Also selling a lot of records doesn't guarantee an act will be rich if they have a really bad contract.

Look there is no Artist who play each and every instrument on every song of his/her album plus those session musicians get no where mostly.and if I want a guitar player for any session I can have 100's of options but we never can never have 100 Michael Jacksons..that's the impact which matters.I respect what musicians do cuz it's the toughest job in present days.Music business is falling apart day by day and all the musicians really work hard to get recognisation,everybody contribute their part but if your work is ignored by general public then honestly it is a big disappointment.We can say whatever we wanna say cuz its so easy to judge somebody but ask any underground Artist you will feel the pinch of the struggle that they have to go through and in the end they get no where.Metallica really got very very lucky cuz what they were playing at that time was totally unacceptable at that time but now when Metallica plays stadiums are sold out.But not every act gets that lucky and ya Metallica started from Thrash but now there is no Thrash,they have also changed their music for radio play or we can say evolved.Every Artist wanna have series of hits,even if they say they don't need any hits but deep down inside there's a desire to make chart topping songs:cheeky:

Its never ending argument actually but as you have started the thread so we can just put down our views here:D
 
Is not black or white in music business anymore. Hits are important if you want them to be important.

I think about Radiohead, for example. They are not a "hit group".
But last year they came to South America and it was hysteria! There were hundreds of people in the airports, and they are not used to that. They said they honestly don't see themselves as a "rock band", they're all family men with a normal life :). They can walk in the streets of England and nobody cares and stuff.
The thing is they had full stadiums in every country here and the public sang along almost all of the songs they played, even the rarities and b-sides.
So, in this case hits are not important, because it's not their goal.


I agree with you to a point. I w s just readinng this morning about George Michael who said that Michael's fame hampered his creativity. his reason for saying so was that his successive albums never sold as much as Thriller.

Even so, that doesn't mean he was no longer creative.
I happen to like Dangerous more than the other albums, but that is just my opinion. I do think when emphasis is only placed on sales volume you put yourself in a predicament where you may leave off trying to invent but just simply try to sustain.

I do think that sales are important only in terms of exposure. There are some artists that are not so very popular, but without some exposure, I would have never known about them. I guess ideally you would like to have creative integrity, and huge record sales.

I agree with everything you said! i also like better the Dangerous album :happy:
 
Back
Top