Confirmed: Next album to be produced with Visconti.

WinkWink · Feb 18, 2007

Please said:
YATQ and the singles were a commercial success and catapulted Morrissey back into the spot light both with old existing fans and a new generation of youngsters.

Its bollucks to say that YATQ affected the sales of ROTT if anything they propped it up. If the albums were released in reverse i gurantee sales of both would be lower

I would say sales for ROTT would have been higher if it were released before YATQ. And if First of the Gang to Die was on ROTT, it would have sold the same; and afterwards YATQ would have sold more than ROTT as the SECOND album after the come back. This because ROTT, muscially, is the stronger album. THe musical press for one thing liked ROTT more than YATQ.

BUt yes, The First Of The Gang Effect also needs to be considered. It, along with Irish Blood helped propel an album that was mostly fluff--musically and lyrically. There was no depth which you could find in songs like Dear God and Pigsty. ANd honestly, IN the Future should have done better as a single (The First of the Gang of ROTT), but it was released in the wrong order and it was hurt by poor financial backing due to a bankrupt Sanctuary.

And Poco, Morrissey solo is better than the Smiths.

Lost · Feb 18, 2007

Poco Innocente said:
*kicks lost in the shins* oi! I'm out numbered as it is!

Ouch!

sorry mate

Lost · Feb 18, 2007

WinkWink said:
I would say sales for ROTT would have been higher if it were released before YATQ. And if First of the Gang to Die was on ROTT, it would have sold the same; and afterwards YATQ would have sold more than ROTT as the SECOND album after the come back. This because ROTT, muscially, is the stronger album. THe musical press for one thing liked ROTT more than YATQ.

BUt yes, The First Of The Gang Effect also needs to be considered. It, along with Irish Blood helped propel an album that was mostly fluff--musically and lyrically. There was no depth which you could find in songs like Dear God and Pigsty. ANd honestly, IN the Future should have done better as a single (The First of the Gang of ROTT), but it was released in the wrong order and it was hurt by poor financial backing due to a bankrupt Sanctuary.

And Poco, Morrissey solo is better than the Smiths.

I rest my case

Poco Innocente · Feb 18, 2007

WinkWink said:
I would say sales for ROTT would have been higher if it were released before YATQ. And if First of the Gang to Die was on ROTT, it would have sold the same; and afterwards YATQ would have sold more than ROTT as the SECOND album after the come back. This because ROTT, muscially, is the stronger album. THe musical press for one thing liked ROTT more than YATQ.

BUt yes, The First Of The Gang Effect also needs to be considered. It, along with Irish Blood helped propel an album that was mostly fluff--musically and lyrically. There was no depth which you could find in songs like Dear God and Pigsty. ANd honestly, IN the Future should have done better as a single (The First of the Gang of ROTT), but it was released in the wrong order and it was hurt by poor financial backing due to a bankrupt Sanctuary.

And Poco, Morrissey solo is better than the Smiths.

buwaahahaa, you little joker youuuuu

WinkWink · Feb 19, 2007

I just hope people will learn how to be more analytical when presented with data and simple observations (some more concrete than others). Obviously Poco has a lot more learning to do. The simple interpretation, in some cases, is a good place to start, but in other cases it will lead you to false conclusions.

If the $ucce$$ of an album (or movie) is determined by its quality, then the studios would take more chances. But they don't, because they know there is a safer way to get people to buy music...a formula for success. This formula consists of everything from preconceived 'safe' sound of the album, to how it and the artist will be promoted, down to its hype. YATQ was morrissey's first album to follow this mainstream formula--needed because of a long stretch out of the spotlight. DO YOU REALLY WANT MORRISSEY TO FOLLOW THIS FORMULA ALL THE TIME, IF EVER AGAIN? Everything about YATQ--from its promotion/hype as the comeback album, to a couple very popish singles, and finally mainstream Jerry Finn as producer--points to it fitting this mainstream formula for success. Not to mention tons of money was pumped into it in order for the formula to work to the fullest. It was a good idea I guess and in many ways, you are right, ROTT wouldn't have succeeded as the comeback album. Because unlike YATQ, ROTT was meant to be more artistic and free from a preconceived formula to please the ma$$e$.

ROTT didn't sell well because 1) it didn't follow the formula, the formula was even tossed out and furthermore there was a lack of money to even attempt a promotion. The sound wasn't formula $afe--the producer was someone Morrissey wanted to work with, not someone he needed to work with 2) YATQ just didn't please those listeners who expected more from morrissey. That being casual fans, on a tier slightly above the masses, but nonetheless was swept away by the hype surrounding YATQ. They ignored ROTT, and the Ma$$e$ ignored ROTT because they just pay attention to whatever is being fed to them. YATQ was fed to them, ROTT was not. And finally the lack of promotion further hurt ROTT as people didn't even know it existed.

In conclusion, I am right.

Lost · Feb 19, 2007

WinkWink said:
I just hope people will learn how to be more analytical when presented with data and simple observations (some more concrete than others). Obviously Poco has a lot more learning to do. The simple interpretation, in some cases, is a good place to start, but in other cases it will lead you to false conclusions.

If the $ucce$$ of an album (or movie) is determined by its quality, then the studios would take more chances. But they don't, because they know there is a safer way to get people to buy music...a formula for success. This formula consists of everything from preconceived 'safe' sound of the album, to how it and the artist will be promoted, down to its hype. YATQ was morrissey's first album to follow this mainstream formula--needed because of a long stretch out of the spotlight. DO YOU REALLY WANT MORRISSEY TO FOLLOW THIS FORMULA ALL THE TIME, IF EVER AGAIN? Everything about YATQ--from its promotion/hype as the comeback album, to a couple very popish singles, and finally mainstream Jerry Finn as producer--points to it fitting this mainstream formula for success. Not to mention tons of money was pumped into it in order for the formula to work to the fullest. It was a good idea I guess and in many ways, you are right, ROTT wouldn't have succeeded as the comeback album. Because unlike YATQ, ROTT was meant to be more artistic and free from a preconceived formula to please the ma$$e$.

ROTT didn't sell well because 1) it didn't follow the formula, the formula was even tossed out and furthermore there was a lack of money to even attempt a promotion. The sound wasn't formula $afe--the producer was someone Morrissey wanted to work with, not someone he needed to work with 2) YATQ just didn't please those listeners who expected more from morrissey. That being casual fans, on a tier slightly above the masses, but nonetheless was swept away by the hype surrounding YATQ. They ignored ROTT, and the Ma$$e$ ignored ROTT because they just pay attention to whatever is being fed to them. YATQ was fed to them, ROTT was not. And finally the lack of promotion further hurt ROTT as people didn't even know it existed.

In conclusion, I am right.

Hilarious!....absolutely hilarious!

nightandday · Feb 19, 2007

mspendl828 said:
No! Generally speaking ROTT got about the same sort of professional reviews that Quarry got. There was the odd place that said it was better, the odd one that said it was worse, but generally speaking everywhere gave it 7 or 8 out of 10 that that gave Quarry.

Now when the 'casual' music fan who bought Quarry sees there's a new Morrissey album out he does not know what it's like before he buys it as he didn't download it off solo like us lot did . So when making the choice of whether to buy it or not all he has is how much he liked Quarry or not. My thinking is that if he loved Quarry he would go and buy ROTT. Thus ROTT would sell well regardless of how good it is. If they then thought ROTT was crap, they would not buy the next Morrissey album.

I think that's the way it works. That may be 10000000% wrong, but I honestly feel that's how this sort of thing happens.

The sales of a new album do not so much reflect the quality it has, as it does how much people like the last album. So if the next Morrissey album is a huge flop I will hold my hands up and say "hey, I guess I was only one who liked Ringleader then".

For example! VaI gets to Number 1 and everyone loves it. Southpaw is the follow up and gets to number 4. Everyone hates it. Maladjusted then comes out and everyone says it's a lot better than Southpaw. Only gets to number 8 as the more casual fan who bought Southpaw on the back of Vauxhall aren't interested as they didn't like Southpaw.

(Obviously, the use of 'everyone' in the example means the general consensous rather than actually 'everyone' as I for one love Southpaw, as do several others)

Oh, please. You talk as if people buy albums they haven't heard. We all know that in this day and age everyone who uses Internet has the chance to hear and download any new album weeks, if not months before its release.

I usually buy CDs that I have already heard, downloaded, and loved so much that I've decided they're worth having on CD.

nightandday · Feb 19, 2007

...and even if we decide to pretend that people don't download songs before they actually buy the album, I still don't believe that most people (most ardent fans not included) will just go and buy an album before they've even heard any songs from it. It's far more likely that the sales of an album will be affected by the 1) popularity of its singles, 2) amount of publicity, 3) amount of airplay that it gets on radio and TV, 4) how much people like the songs they've heard played on the radio/TV. Out of these factors, 1) and 4) certainly depend on the album itself and not on the previous album by the same artist.

Zenith Nadir · Feb 20, 2007

sonof77 said:
You obviously listen to crap radio stations...

That I cannot deny. I do not live in the UK or the USA. We do not have good radio stations in the arse end of the world.

Multi · Feb 20, 2007

Poco Innocente said:
I'll just run off and create a second account too!

Wrong, once again.

Danny · Feb 20, 2007

nightandday said:
...and even if we decide to pretend that people don't download songs before they actually buy the album, I still don't believe that most people (most ardent fans not included) will just go and buy an album before they've even heard any songs from it. It's far more likely that the sales of an album will be affected by the 1) popularity of its singles, 2) amount of publicity, 3) amount of airplay that it gets on radio and TV, 4) how much people like the songs they've heard played on the radio/TV. Out of these factors, 1) and 4) certainly depend on the album itself and not on the previous album by the same artist.

Doesn't really work for Morrissey as he doesn't get his records played on the radio. Reviews and whether you liked the last album are probably more influential.

Rupert · Feb 20, 2007

nightandday said:
...and even if we decide to pretend that people don't download songs before they actually buy the album, I still don't believe that most people (most ardent fans not included) will just go and buy an album before they've even heard any songs from it.

I do all the time.

achtungjamie · Mar 5, 2007

When can we expect to see the next album?

I hear Morrissey's working with Tony Visconti again, but so far that's all I've heard. Will it be out before the end of next year? Or will I have to make do 'til 2008, or possibly later?

bored · Mar 5, 2007

Re: When can we expect to see the next album?

I really don't see it coming out any sooner than 2008.. but what do I know?

Maurice E · Mar 5, 2007