|
Post by Bingo on Aug 1, 2013 7:01:35 GMT -8
I agree with Tom Sawyer in preferring the first CYH album to the second - but I can also see the argument that the lighter, more "breezy" sound of some of the songs could make them more radio friendly, and (potentially) attract a wider audience.
As that doesn't seem to be happening though - at least in the early stages, I agree it's hard to put a finger on exactly why. If these early signs continue, their audience appears to be shrinking, rather than expanding (and that's despite making a stream available, "seeding" four advance tracks on a variety of sites with good readership, using Twitter reasonably actively (Emily), and getting some of the usual TV promotional slots)
One possibility is that the first launch was (despite the implied unfairness in undervaluing the new project on its own terms) seen by many people as a "Dixie Chick substitute" - so inheriting the sympathy, nostalgia, image and interest associated with a still-missed band. This year, however, comments that were widely repeated and publicized have (frankly) shattered much of that nostalgia, and I suspect that many people are no longer expecting the Chicks back. That rather cuts the Hounds adrift as a "holding band" for casual music fans, and leaves them to stand alone on their own terms. And (much as I dislike saying it) their music is not really what currently attracts large chart- and star-focused Mainstream listeners, in either Pop or Country.
I suspect that another factor may be not focusing clearly enough on the market sectors that are most likely to want their music for what it actually is (rather than as a substitute for something remembered). They've flirted with Country radio, without committing to Country radio (a recipe for attracting only a small number of maverick Mainstream DJs who sometimes work outside the promotional system). The way they describe their music suggests that they hope to appeal to individuals across the spectrum, who don't categorize what they listen to (a recipe for attracting adventurous niche listeners - not a mass audience). Last time - e.g. with Telluride and AmericanaFest - they appeared to be ready to commit to the Roots sector - but this time, I feel they've been more ambivalent, and seem to be still hoping for acceptance in General Music.
It's the latter that I question. These are mature artists, with well sung, thoughtfully written songs that often come close to Progressive Folk, accompanied by roots instruments. I can't speak with any confidence about the Pop world - but that profile sadly gets nowhere in Mainstream Country today. What I see in the Hounds strongly suggests to me Americana or Adult Album Alternative. I think expectations about what they sell should take that into account - and I see that as realistic, not defeatist.
|
|
|
Post by bill451 on Aug 1, 2013 10:10:38 GMT -8
I agree with Erik. Both are pretty good albums and should be selling more. CYH Amelita falls to number 189 this week. Dead in the water.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 1, 2013 11:33:44 GMT -8
Quote by bill451:
There just isn't much we can do about poor album sales by our favorites. People will buy what they will...according to how much they've been brainwashed by the corporate media (IMHO).
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Aug 1, 2013 11:37:57 GMT -8
I think radio is old-skool now. . . the internet will draw more people than the radio.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 1, 2013 14:34:48 GMT -8
Quote by SandraC:
I can vouch for that. That was how I found out about Tift Merritt and Caitlin Rose; it wouldn't have happened the "old-fashioned way." It still depends on word-of-mouth to a certain extent, however (IMHO).
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Aug 1, 2013 17:46:20 GMT -8
If the first album sold 67,000 in the first week and the second has sold 5000 in it's first week, I get the feeling that 62,000 who bought the first album didn't think it good enough to buy the second one.......
|
|
|
Post by redbarron on Aug 1, 2013 19:11:16 GMT -8
Tony, I agree. I was all excited I was going to get to hear Martie and Emily go back to their bluegrass roots and was very disappointed in the Hounds sound on the first album. Disappointed on the second too. I still bought them, better than nothing at all, but I tend to play the pre-Natalie Chicks more than the Hounds.
|
|
|
Post by sthdvs2012 on Aug 1, 2013 20:23:42 GMT -8
I meant Mother... not Natalie in general. lol. Typed the wrong word.
|
|
|
Post by peppermintpatti on Aug 2, 2013 5:38:20 GMT -8
Well maybe just maybe the disappointing sales will be motivation for the 3 to get back together.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 2, 2013 6:08:58 GMT -8
I don't know that we can really judge the worth of either Natalie (solo) or Martie and Emily (as the Hounds) as artists on the basis of these admittedly very slow sales for their non-Chicks projects. As I've said, the public will buy what it wants based not necessarily on artistic worth or even mere name recognition, but on how much hype gets generated, much of which is generated for reasons that haven't a thing to do with the music (IMHO).
And just try to explain why you're a fan of the Chicks, whether as a trio or with these side projects that they have, regardless of what Natalie said ten years ago, and you may hit a brick wall with those who aren't. It's kind of like what Memphis DJ George Klein once said about a very good friend of his (that good friend being Elvis Presley): "If you're a fan, no explanation is necessary. If you're not, no explanation is possible."
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Aug 2, 2013 7:43:35 GMT -8
Well maybe just maybe the disappointing sales will be motivation for the 3 to get back together. Regardless of sales, I think that's still unlikely - mainly because the signs seem to suggest that they wouldn't find it artistically fulfilling. I think M & E would see the likely nature of a reunion project as pushing them into more marginal "speciality" musical roles, and I think N would see it as identifying her with the "always Country" image that taints the Dixie Chicks symbolically for her. "Taking the Long Way" was both critically and commercially successful. The 2007 Grammys would have been an ideal launch point for a follow-up project. They didn't take the opportunity then, and I think the reasons that influenced them in not doing so still apply today. I don't think they seem to see a path to a form of new music they'd all find satisfying) I think the Hounds are the more likely to continue doing what they are doing. They have a background in off-Mainstream music, they seem to have retained or developed more links to the Alternative music scenes, and they seem happy with more intimate performance venues. In Natalie's case, there are fewer signs to suggest how she'd react to the reception of her first project. I do get the impression that the process of making the album was more gradual and partially unplanned - and I also get the impression that she's been fairly laid back about promoting it. I don't see it as a bad album by any means, and I hope she makes a follow-up in due course - but only time will tell if she's motivated to do that.
|
|
|
Post by sam625 on Aug 2, 2013 18:59:48 GMT -8
It's really hard to say why the album isn't doing well. I expected a dropoff but not such a huge one. Part of the reason for good sales for the first album may have been hype as the first project from part of the Dixie Chicks in years. They got a lot more publicity because of that. I also think CYH didn't build on their success. I think they waited too long to release Amelita. I consider them a new artist. Three years between albums is an eternity for new artists. I think the album would have done a little better if they released a cd at least a year ago.
I also disagree that Amelita is a pop/mainstreem album. It's slightly lighter than their debut but not close to being mainstreem. I do think they could some airplay on AC stations but I doubt they would hit in larger formats.
|
|
|
Post by Kallie on Aug 2, 2013 19:03:46 GMT -8
I have to say that I think the CYH debut album was much better than Amelita. Amelita just sounds so forced to me and more pop-like which has always been up Nat's alley but neither Martie or Emily. Remember when Martie was told that TTLW would be more of a rock-pop album and she said the idea freaked her out....... They should have gone to more of their roots and put an instrumental on this album, such as Phoebe instead of adding those lyrics, which I don't care for. It ruined the whole instrumental, which sucks. They changed "When you Wake" to "Divided" and put Emily on lead vocals....which is a divine song I must say. That was a good choice, sorry Martie. But both Phoebe and Sunshine sound somewhat familiar to me as far as production goes with the "Heyyyyy", I hope the next album has little to no "hey's"..... Also is it just me or does Sunshine's overall theme remind you of Lori Mckenna's "Mr Sunshine"
|
|
|
Post by sthdvs2012 on Aug 2, 2013 21:21:19 GMT -8
I like the lyrics to "Phoebe." I do agree that they should have included an instrumental. It would have been nice to have a studio version of "Roanoke" or something. I'm also a little upset that "Happy Days" wasn't included on the album. That and "Caged Bird" were killer songs. I'm not a big fan of "Watch Your Step" that's the only song on the album that I somewhat dislike. It falls in the "Fairytale" category for me. Not Great. It sounds like a contemporary, redneck, country song. They need to promote their videos a little more. The "Live Acoustic" Sunshine video has 125,000 views on youtube. They need to make one for one of their stronger songs like "Phoebe" or "Rock All Night." Also, whether they like it or not, Country Radio would have been a great opportunity for them. They don't have to go to the CMA's or have the word "Redneck" in their songs to send their music to them. Just a thought. I don't know why I typed this much. I never do. I have no life I guess.
|
|
|
Post by DCXMMXVI on Aug 2, 2013 22:15:39 GMT -8
CYH Self-Titled > Mother > Amelita
|
|
|
Post by DCXMMXVI on Aug 2, 2013 22:21:28 GMT -8
not liking the direction in which my preferences are going...
as far as Natalie's albums sales go, I believe doing mostly covers affected the low sales. as a newly solo artist, she needed to make her own music to show what artist she is. I love her, but I don't know what artist she is anymore. definitely multi-genre, but that's not what I mean. I just know what artists she likes...
|
|
|
Post by DCXMMXVI on Aug 2, 2013 23:49:20 GMT -8
The "Live Acoustic" Sunshine video has 125,000 views on youtube. which happens to be their highest viewed video on YouTube. that's at least one positive and goes along the ideas from above that radio is not as big as the internet now-a-days
|
|
|
Post by sthdvs2012 on Aug 3, 2013 22:34:35 GMT -8
I watched the stream. Emily cracks me up. She has to realize by now that people want to hear her play the banjo. They need to do a HOME style album next.
|
|
|
Post by b@@b on Aug 4, 2013 8:45:46 GMT -8
That woman can certainly just about do it all. 4 different instruments generally. At Lollapalooza yesterday the crowd was verrry reactive when she got on that banjo. Especially after when there was some audio troubles with it lol.
|
|
|
Post by peppermintpatti on Aug 4, 2013 15:41:35 GMT -8
I wonder if Amelita was an attempt to move to a more commercial sound. They both have said in interviews they wanted the album to be happier than the last. As for them returning to their bluegrass roots, I think they've moved past that. They've had two attempts now and both are very poppy sounding when they could've gone straight bluegrass. You'd think they'd want to after seeing the success of The Lumineers and Mumford and Sons but maybe after years of doing it they've musically moved on.
|
|
|
Post by b@@b on Aug 4, 2013 16:29:11 GMT -8
When they perform, they play their own songs but they often finish with Lil Jack Slade. They did it at Summerfest however did not at Lollapalooza but I think it was because they selected certain songs of their own to perform, had a lesser time slot, and Martin told Dee and I they were focused on "rocking out" for this gig. I'm just saying they certainly can and DO do the twang thing still, even if they haven't been writing new songs that are dominated by a bluegrass sound. They add to their solos and do use the banjo but perhaps Emily just doesn't speed pluck it that much. I guess if people want the new stuff like that. ...well, I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by Kallie on Aug 14, 2013 18:54:04 GMT -8
I think that with more promotion and a little time that the sales will be just fine. Look how long it took TTLW to reach 2 mill when it looked like it wasn't going to hit 1 mill at first. And look how long it took their debut to reach 825,000...I bet Amelita is selling better than Mother which is estimated at 56,000
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 15, 2013 6:20:25 GMT -8
Quote by Kallie:
Perhaps, but it's hard to really know for sure, given how much the Internet and digital downloads have turned the music industry upside down over the last ten years.
And as Bingo has rightly pointed out, really neither act's style (Nat's or the Hounds') is conducive to massive sales on either side of the Pop/County fence. As much as we may want them to sell tons, I think their focus is right on what it should be--quality, not quantity.
|
|
|
Post by DCXMMXVI on Aug 16, 2013 7:55:07 GMT -8
I'm loving Amelita more and more each time I listen to it. Just like with their first album. I didn't think much of it at first but ended up loving it more than some Dixie Chicks albums. Amelita should have sold more its first week. It seems like they did just as many TV appearances this time as last time. I guess people just aren't buying CDs anymore like they used to. That, or like I said earlier, they were just too disappointed with the first CYH album...
|
|
|
Post by b@@b on Aug 17, 2013 14:34:41 GMT -8
They just gotta keep touring. Start small and maybe get big. However, on a side, as Dee and I conferred with eachother at Lollapalooza, if it weren't for them being small time-still yet, we very likely wouldn't have met and gabbed with them this year....twice!!
|
|