http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1623389/20091008/boyle_susan.jhtml

Does anyone even care though, let alone intend to buy it! ???

She's had her 15 minutes surely, there are plenty of far more talented
people yet to have theirs IMO.

She's had her 15 minutes surely, there are plenty of far more talented
people yet to have theirs IMO.

You realize this is the same argument the Monkees's critics made
against them in the 60s and 70s.

IF you are seriously comparing Susan Boyle to the Monkees, I suggest you are
in �the wrong newsgroup!
Maybe a psychiatric group could help?

Fortunately the Monkees got 44+ years of fame, let's see SB manage that!
If anyone remembers her name in 4 years I'll be very surprised.

IF you are seriously comparing Susan Boyle to the Monkees, I suggest you
are
in ?the wrong newsgroup!
Maybe a psychiatric group could help?

Fortunately the Monkees got 44+ years of fame, let's see SB manage that!
If anyone remembers her name in 4 years I'll be very surprised.

}I can't see people remember SB in four years for a number of reasons.

Sure, I could be wrong. I'm happy to make a bet I'm not though, are you

The least of her worries. There are MANY artists in their sixties still
going strong.
BTW the Monkees are in their sixties and still selling records.

Exactly, NOT because she could sing. That guy who did exactly the same
before her was a far better singer, and who even remembers his name now?

She has some talent, just not as much as the overused close ups of jaw drops
would pretend.

Some of them anyway. But as I said, how long will they care before the next
thing comes along.
She just isn't THAT talented.

No problem for a REAL singer, like Elvis Presley or Linda Ronstadt for
example.

Her first *maybe* on the back of her enormous publicity. I'll bet money
right now her second album, *IF* she ever gets to make one, does not get
near the charts or gold record status!

(But I'm not sure how you think she can "sell millions of albums" though
without "making a huge impression on the charts anywhere"?)

I don't think the jaw drops were overused

so much as I think the
critics/audience reacted negatively to her looks and age, and made the
assumption that because she wasn't pretty, she had no talent. The
critics and audience were shocked into silence and jawdrops because of
their own misconceptions about a person's looks and how it's related
to talent. We shouldn't be yet in entertainment, we want only
beautiful people.

The public might care for a longer period if the industry or her
management was promoting her, keeping her name before the public,
having her make public appearances.

No problem for a REAL singer, like Elvis Presley or Linda Ronstadt for
example.

Covers isn't always a bad deal but if it were me, I'd limit the number
of covers I'd put on an album. I'd rather have as many previously
unheard tunes as I possibly could on an album, regardless of whether I
wrote the songs or if others wrote the songs for me.

My guess is her debut album will see sales somewhere between 100,000
and 300,000. That's in the US. Rest of the world, I don't know.
if not most of the momentum has been lost and I think that will be a
factor in her sales. Had the album been released during all that hype
last year, a million seller might have been a possibility.

The music
biz really needs to go back to the days of the 50s and 60s when an
artist or band recorded and released the music in the same year. Being
a big sensation/hype last year doesn't mean it's going to carry over.
I think that's been part of the problem with past AI winners and
runner ups who had so-so sales. By the time their albums were
released, the public was no longer interested in them. Timing is
everything but you can wait too late to capitalize on your success or
fame.

(But I'm not sure how you think she can "sell millions of albums" though
without "making a huge impression on the charts anywhere"?)

Some artists have some nice album sales through selling their albums
on TV. The ads for some of those TV albums promotes the artists as
already having sold millions in years past or having more number ones
than this artist or that artist, yet the evidence for either claim
doesn't exist. But, they will sell a million or more albums through TV
only -- zilch/nada in the stores. None of those sales made the charts
because they were not sold through the normal store outlets.

Had they
been eligible, some of the albums that were number one albums at the
time might've been displaced by one or more of the TV albums.

One
artist allegedly sold ten million copies of their TV album, allegedly
because it was never credited for gold or platinum status -- or even
diamond status (for ten million copies sold). Course, the record label
probably didn't belong to the RIAA, which might explain its lack of
credit.

I don't think the jaw drops were overused

so much as I think the
critics/audience reacted negatively to her looks and age, and made the
assumption that because she wasn't pretty, she had no talent. The
critics and audience were shocked into silence and jawdrops because of
their own misconceptions about a person's looks and how it's related
to talent. We shouldn't be yet in entertainment, we want only
beautiful people.

The public might care for a longer period if the industry or her
management was promoting her, keeping her name before the public,
having her make public appearances.

No problem for a REAL singer, like Elvis Presley or Linda Ronstadt for
example.

Covers isn't always a bad deal but if it were me, I'd limit the number
of covers I'd put on an album. I'd rather have as many previously
unheard tunes as I possibly could on an album, regardless of whether I
wrote the songs or if others wrote the songs for me.

My guess is her debut album will see sales somewhere between 100,000
and 300,000. That's in the US. Rest of the world, I don't know.
if not most of the momentum has been lost and I think that will be a
factor in her sales. Had the album been released during all that hype
last year, a million seller might have been a possibility.

The music
biz really needs to go back to the days of the 50s and 60s when an
artist or band recorded and released the music in the same year. Being
a big sensation/hype last year doesn't mean it's going to carry over.
I think that's been part of the problem with past AI winners and
runner ups who had so-so sales. By the time their albums were
released, the public was no longer interested in them. Timing is
everything but you can wait too late to capitalize on your success or
fame.

(But I'm not sure how you think she can "sell millions of albums" though
without "making a huge impression on the charts anywhere"?)

Some artists have some nice album sales through selling their albums
on TV. The ads for some of those TV albums promotes the artists as
already having sold millions in years past or having more number ones
than this artist or that artist, yet the evidence for either claim
doesn't exist. But, they will sell a million or more albums through TV
only -- zilch/nada in the stores. None of those sales made the charts
because they were not sold through the normal store outlets.

Had they
been eligible, some of the albums that were number one albums at the
time might've been displaced by one or more of the TV albums.

One
artist allegedly sold ten million copies of their TV album, allegedly
because it was never credited for gold or platinum status -- or even
diamond status (for ten million copies sold). Course, the record label
probably didn't belong to the RIAA, which might explain its lack of
credit.

I do, it wasn't the first, or last time. Maybe the only time YOU saw it
though.
Definitely choreographed IMO.

As I said, she *doesn't* have as much talent as better looking artists. IF
you don't consider looks to be important, then her inferior looks should not
be a consideration either.

Do you *really* believe she is the best singer to come out of that show? I
sure don't.

In any case entertainers need to entertain on more than one level to stand
out from the crowd. SB is able to stand out at the moment because of her
*inferior* looks, but that novelty wears off very quickly. Just ask Tiny
Tim!

The public might care for a longer period if the industry or her
management was promoting her, keeping her name before the public,
having her make public appearances.

Bloody hell, YOU would go to see her make a public appearance?
Not Me!

Sure, that is exactly what most artists do. And most realise they need to
get at least one song they have written on each album now, so they can get a
cut of the songwriter royalties as well. That was not so well understood by
many artists decades ago, but as usual Mike Nesmith was ahead of the game..

Yeah, another million albums to be put at the back of the cabinet, and
ultimately end up as land fill.

Yeah it amazes me that now it is so much cheaper and easier to produce an
album, and on-line sales mean production and distribution are also �less
important, and yet it takes artists longer to make a record, and they make
FAR less than they used to, and the quality of performances has largely
dropped as well.

That depends totally on the chart you are looking at. The biggest selling TV
albums I remember were the K-Tel ones, and they certainly DID make the top
ten in most charts.

Didn't "Hooked on Classics" make number one from memory?

Whether we want to admit it or not, looks are taken into consideration
when it involves a performer.

Looks shouldn't matter but in the entertainment industry,

No, SB isn't my cup of tea. My original point was that she's not being
promoted by the industry or whatever management she may have by this
point.

I think it was understood but I think a good number of artists back
then couldn't write a song to save their life

or they were discouraged
from writing by their managers or record companies.

I think that's why
some of those artists had their own publishing companies: if they
couldn't write or wrote very little, at least they could have access

But, when she had original material to work with
("Long, Long Time," "Love Has No Pride"), she breathed her life into
those songs and made them her own. I've heard countless versions of

MOR recording artists, lounge lizards, et al, but the song will always
be Linda's.

Her heart is in the song, she lived it and you feel her
sadness and pain, and all you can do is listen and sympathize. No
other version has the performer putting their own heart into the song
like that. And as such, the song still gets to me every time I play
it. So does Linda

...or ground up and recycled as new albums. The late Jim Croce once
lamented the fact an album he made for Capitol sold poorly and unsold
copies were melted down to make Grand Funk Railroad albums.

He took
that to heart, I think, but at least he lived long enough to have the
last laugh on Capitol.

The artists taking a long time to record was a practice that started
getting real bad in the 70s. Many claimed they were under tremendous

excellent quality in a short time.

The K-tels were widely available in the stores in the US as well as on
TV, but all of the other non-K-tel TV albums were TV only, not sold in

Clayderman, Montana Slim -- artists with no store sales whatsoever or
had been big sellers once (claimed for Whitman) but hadn't sold a

millions,

Of course I admit it, (already said as much)
I know I'd rather see an attractive performer than an ugly one in most
cases. Other things will influence my decision of course, and it won't
matter to me when purely on record, but *I* DO require they can
sing/perform, and not just be a novelty or passing fad, before parting with
my cash.

Of course they should, IF the fans paying the money think they do!
We all get to choose who we want to see and hear, and spend our money on!

Sure she is, I see her name mentioned *far* more than I care to see.
A mangager can only do so much, the rest depends on the performer. A huge
promotion budget does make up for a lack of talent in most cases, for a
while at least, but *someone* has to be prepared to risk that huge budget.

I think it was understood but I think a good number of artists back
then couldn't write a song to save their life

Most can't now, but they know enough to insist!

or they were discouraged
from writing by their managers or record companies.

Of course, just as the Idol people are. Their possible first album is
usually set in contract *before* they can even appear on the show.

Even those weren't that bad. I would consider her vesions of "Get Together"
to be inferior than the Young Bloods, and maybe "I'll be your baby tonight"
was not that great either, but I can't think of a performer whose *worst*
songs were as good!

And even though Karla Bonoff is great, Linda's versions are all as good, if
not superior. The same goes for her Jimmy Webb stuff. (another great
songwriter!) And let's not forget Blue Bayou either.

But, when she had original material to work with
("Long, Long Time," "Love Has No Pride"), she breathed her life into

Agreed, I've got many versions of the song that are good, but hers is
better!

...or ground up and recycled as new albums. The late Jim Croce once
lamented the fact an album he made for Capitol sold poorly and unsold
copies were melted down to make Grand Funk Railroad albums.

I still have mine!!!! (and bought before he died I might add)
Not a patch on his later stuff of course, but still better than GFR, IMO.

Shame he didn't get to make far more though. Like Buddy Holly, you wonder
what else he might have done.

Of course, Elvis could make a dozen albums in the time it takes some artists
to do one! And his would still be better

Even the Monkees made at least a couple every year while doing a TV show,
concert tours, and a movie. The more hands on an artsit becomes, the longer
it takes though.

Really, I'm amazed. Never did anything over here.

I suspect a good many people share your view, myself included, but
I'll take a novelty or passing fad over certain artists who strike me
as being pretentious, pompous and arrogant individuals. With those
artists, the focus becomes less on their music, which may be some of
the best music ever made, and more on the things having nothing to do
with their music. Or their actions are designed to enhance their sales
yet their posturing is total B.S. I'm thinking of a certain country
performer who endorsed President Obama last year during the election.
The performer later admitted the endorsement was just a ploy to boost
their album sales by appealing to Obama's supporters and didn't care
as to whether Obama won or lost.

You're seeing more than I'm seeing and while true, a manager can only
do so much, part of their job is to keep their client's name in the
public eye when they aren't doing anything or have nothing to promote.
But, a performer can do everything asked of them to do and still the
public won't be taken with the effort.

That, I think, is where a
performer is failed by their management, as well as their record
company or movie studio when applicable.

A good manager should always
have some idea as to what went wrong and what to do different next
time.

Most still rely on the songwriters with the track record for writing
the hits. That's not a bad policy, except that it makes it more
difficult for the songwriters looking for that first, all important
break. And the fact that for the hit songwriter, everyone coming to
you for their next hit song puts pressure on you to keep producing
those hit songs.

It would've been great if Elvis had written his own songs.

That
would've stopped a lot of his manager's greedy B.S. in the studio in
trying to get part of the publishing on a song already published.
Elvis's publishing companies in the 50s and 60s frequently had 100% of
the publishing but as the songwriters left because they didn't want to
keep giving up half (or more) of their part of the publishing,

Presley
had to start relying on songs from outside publishers and songwriters
or covering other artist's hits.

I think he was capable of writing
songs but didn't have the time to sit down and write or maybe didn't
want to because he didn't want his manager taking any more of his
income than what he was already taking.

You ever heard the version of "Get Together" by Smith ("Baby It's
You")?

Linda's version was much, much better.

A lot of artists and
bands recorded that song, all close to the same time but even the hit
version by the Youngbloods wasn't a hit when it was first released in
1966. Maybe because it had a four and a half minute run time had
something to do with that. Radio was still very resistant to songs
with run times longer than three minutes. Even after "Hey Jude" and
"MacArthur Park," and a few other long running songs had made their
marks, radio still adhered to the three minute rule. I know of one 45
by a band on which the A-side had a run time listed as 3:12 yet
actually ran 4:20, on both DJ and regular stock copies. The deception
was intentional and surprising because radio either didn't catch on or
didn't care.

Karla Bonoff's songs were and are a good match up for Linda. Same for
Jimmy Webb. I've sometimes wished she would do an entire album by a
songwriter like Bonoff or Webb or even Nez, but Linda's albums rarely
have large contributions from the same songwriter.

Maybe she wouldn't
be comfortable having the same songwriter write every song or write a
lot of the songs?

I remember seeing -- and hearing -- Andy Williams singing "Long, Long
Time" on his TV show a couple of times, including once when Linda
guested. Andy was a good performer but his reading of the song was all
wrong. He should've let Linda sing her own hit when she was on.
Instead, she performed the single she had out at the time -- "(She's
A) Very Lovely Woman," which to date, has never been included on any
of her albums that I'm aware of. Not even Capitol's reissue of the
four solo albums she did for them.

No question about that. There was something very honest and real in
Jim's songs. A lot of sadness.

One of his next to last concerts was where I live. Two days, in fact,
before the plane crash. That kind of freaked a lot of people here at
the time.

Elvis literally had no choice. His manager had committed him to
releasing four or five new albums per year, at a time when most
artists released only one new album per year, or maybe two. That
contract was agreed to when Elvis was doing all those movies in the
60s, so there was some justification for it then but in the 70s, when
Elvis started cutting back in the studio? RCA got through the 70s by
reissuing older material and Colonel Greed Parker got through the 70s
by having RCA release more and more live albums in lieu of studio
albums.

And the one truly bad embarrassment in 1974: "Having Fun with
Elvis On Stage: A Talking Album Only!" RCA should've fired Col. Parker
on Elvis's behalf for that embarassment. Instead, they released the
album, which wasn't funny at all.

But, in the 60s, most artists and bands didn't have that many hands in
the mix all trying to stir the creative pot. The bands had themselves
plus their producers and if they were unlucky, their managers, getting
involved. Managers stayed out of the creative process while it was
being produced, most of the time. Where it got complicated was when
everyone wrote songs, sang them and wanted representation on albums
and their songs considered for singles. John and Paul were two of the
greatest songwriting partners of all time but their prolific efforts
made it difficult for George to have more than one or two songs per
album. And he didn't have an A-side until 1969, the very last year the
Beatles were together. He must've felt the victory was somewhat ironic
given than Ringo had been given an A-side with "Yellow Submarine,"
three years before. Course, John and Paul wrote the song but still,
George should've had an A-side long before "Something" was released as
an A-side.

That was the thing about the power of television and record companies
not recognizing its potential as a direct to the consumer marketing
tool. I think it was claimed the Whitman album was one of the TV
albums that sold ten million copies but sales of three to five million
were claimed for many of the other albums. Given the population of the
US was around 250 million at the time and more people were watching TV
than listening to radio, selling albums on TV
should've been a no brainer. Companies had been making millions
selling cheap gadgets on TV, and once certain record companies started
offering artists like Whitman, well, without the competition of other
artists, having to compete for space on store shelves and radio
airplay, an artist selling in the millions through such exclusiveness
shouldn't have been that much of a surprise.

That might affect what I think of them, may even affect whether I go to
their concerts, but wouldn't stop me buying their records if it was "some of
the best music ever made"!

Novelty acts I can leave well enough alone however. Amazes me how many
people buy stuff like the Crazy Frog, but it's their money!

And often for good reason, they just don't think the artist is THAT good.

Or possibly the management et al are sometimes failed by the artist?

Absolutely. But after one failure the budget declines and the chances of
turning it around reduces, unless the performer *really* comes up with the
goods.

I see the opposite, a lot more artists these days write many of their songs,
and a lot of them are pretty crap unfortunately.

Nah, his talent lay elsewhere, despite the fact he did co-write a couple of
good ones, like Love Me Tender for example.

You keep saying that, but it really applies mostly to the crap songs written
for the movies, NOT all the covers Elvis did in the fifties, or the covers
he did at his concerts in the seventies. I sure can't imagine Bob Dylan
saying sure you can have 100% of the publishing

He always did that, from the very beginning right up until the end, and
since he didn't get 100% of the publishing for them, I'm not sure what your
point is?

50% of something is always better than 100% of nothing!

You ever heard the version of "Get Together" by Smith ("Baby It's
You")?

Nope. Melanie's is OK, and Mindy McCready. Can't think of the others off the
top of my head.

Linda's version was much, much better.

I might be biased, but nobody can touch Linda at her best!

I'm amazed how bad things were in the USA then. In Australia the longer
songs were well regarded by DJ's when the needed a loo break!
You'd often get the shorter versions of course when they were on rapid
rotation, but the long versions usually got a play every now and then. Even
when there was no short version, they'd just fade it out if they wanted to.

I can't see the point. It's easy to make your own compilation these days,
and she has probably done enough of Karla's songs, (I must do that, thanks
for the suggestion

although I doubt the others would make a full album.
I can't see the benefit of her releasing an album of their songs like many
artists have done with Dylan songs however.

However I would *certainly* buy and album of hers doing Jimmy Webb or Neil
Young! Two of her common choices I certainly hope she does more of that
style of material at least.

She always picks the best ones/her favourites at the time. Artists usually
do a complete album of songs when there is cachet in the songwriters name,
ala Dylan. Or they have a long involvement with one Songwriter already.
Dionne Warrick with Bacharach and David comes to mind.

Or even on the box set. I really wanted "Lago Azul" on that too.
Far too many of her standard album tracks for the real fans IMO.
Unfortunately all too common with the box sets.

Yes, and I loved those songs better than his more popular ones like "Don't
Mess around with Jim" and "Bad Bad Leroy Brown".
Even "Time in a Bottle" wasn't a hit until after he died, and it was used in
a movie.

One of his next to last concerts was where I live. Two days, in fact,
before the plane crash. That kind of freaked a lot of people here at
the time.

Did you see it?

I always remembere seeing him on "the old grey whistle test" before he died,
and it took over 30 years before I saw it again when they put it on his DVD.
How I wish we had the technolgy back then that we do now!

Yeah the number of concert releases with mostly the same songs did get
beyond a joke IMO.

Never heard it, and although I'm a huge fan, I never wanted to!
I sure hope they lost money on that one. I bet they didn't though. The
laughing was probably Colonol Tom on his way to the bank!

So true, and "Yellow Submarine" as an A side
Even "A Little Help from my Friends" was better than that.

Whitman may have been a surprise! But I agree, once the precedent had been
set, you would imagine more record companies would jump on the bandwagon. Of
course if to many did, the novelty would soon wear off. �These days MTV
probably has a big influence on the young market, the TV ad's are simply an
attempt to capture those older customers who often don't even listen to
music on radio, and rarely go to concerts etc.
However getting your act on Letterman or a dozen other similar talk shows,
is still the second best advertising you can get IMO. That has not changed
much since the days of Ed Sullivan, and even his predecessors!

Better to be on late night TV than on the morning talk shows. I don't

The best advertising of course is having your own TV show or movie, like
Rick Nelson, The Monkees, and more recently Miley Cyrus.
Not forgetting the Idol type shows either.

Sometimes, I don't think it's the artist so much as it's the times.
Listen to any record that you liked from the past that wasn't a hit,

artist shouldn't have been able to have gotten a hit.

That sometimes happens, such as when an artist doesn't want to tour or
make appearances on TV or do radio interviews. An artist can make a

never have the opportunity to judge.

True to a degree, but in the record business, artist management is
often playing with the record company's money in promoting their

you.

Artists these days having to use outside songwriters and music
publishers is mostly limited to the country genre. But, for the

written by its author was likewise considered a gem?

The "Love Me Tender" songs were actually "written" by Ken Darby, who
was the musical director of the movie. He put the songs in his wife's

publisher and Elvis at the time only had a BMI publisher.

Elvis had
some genuine songwriting credits (cowriting credit on "That's Someone

one around him suggested he try doing.

Not every song that was published by one of Elvis's publishing
companies was meant for the movies. Like Screen Gems requiring songs

by Elvis to be published by Elvis Presley Music or Gladys Music.

Parker had most if not all of the publishing on the vast majority of
songs Elvis recorded in the 50s and 60s. You either agreed or it

did.

True, Elvis didn't have 100% of the publishing on every song, but on a
good majority of the songs in the 50s and 60s, his publishing

This is what many of Elvis's songwriters said in the 50s. They could
give up the publishing and have 100% of their song and potentially

could've demanded half of their income.

Charlie Daniels cowrote
Elvis's 1964 hit "It Hurts Me" and complained in the 90s that his

consideration.

I've never heard Melanie's version, and I'm a fan. She's had so many
recordings that I didn't know about that I missed out on many of them.

which I wish she would get away from doing.

I'm not familiar with the
version by Mindy McCready either. She's more known here for the
personal troubles in her life than her music, which is a shame.

Lot of double standards. The DJs would kick up about playing a four
minute song but not a word if it was the Beatles or Bob Dylan or some

they were in need of the loo.

She's always had a very strong opinion as to what she would or
wouldn't do and one would be hard pressed to question her choices.

a joke.

I don't know who compiled the box set. I'd guess someone consulted
with Linda on what she wanted on the box set but that's no guarantee

on to another record company.

"Next Time, This Time" gets to me because it has the sense of there
being someone real who inspired the song. I can relate to the song
because there has been someone in my life that I feel that way about.

"Photographs and Memories" and "The Hard Way Every Time" both put
lumps in my throat as the former became a memorial for him while the
latter became an eulogy for his way too short life.

Unfortunately, no, as tickets were gone pretty fast. I live in a town
of no great importance. We don't get too many celebrities performing

and he lived up to his word,

even though it cost him his life.

Elvis didn't need to be on the road that much. He played almost the
same cities year after year, although there were some variations. But,

out of the recording studio.

I don't think they made any money on the deal.
Funny enough, Parker

the joke album, no other artists or albums ever appeared on the label.

Better to be on late night TV than on the morning talk shows. I don't
know why artists are booked on the morning talk shows as I rarely hear

hour of the morning are getting ready for work or have left for work.

I think there's less hypocrisy these days on the part of critics when
it comes to artists having their own TV shows. Disney namedropped the

the critics but most remained tight lipped, thankfully.