Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan
I heard on the radio this morning that the new AC/DC album will probably sell 800,000 copies in its first week of release, given the first two days of sales. And it's only available at Wal-Mart. Apparently there were concerns that since one of the songs had already been illegally downloaded over a million times that the album wouldn't sell well, cuz really, who wants to go to Wal-Mart. The morning DJs speculated that the Guns 'n Roses album that comes out next month at Best Buy will probably sell around 1.2 millionish in the first week given the AC/DC numbers.
Both bands refuse to get involved with iTunes or other digital download sites, perfering instead to sell full albums.
And Sebby's been to Wal-Mart or Sam's Club recently.
|
Wal Mart. The record is pretty remarkable in terms of commercial appeal. The sound on the thing is flawless and somehow the singer is once again able to stretch into those super-high ranges he had on Back in Black.
The song titles and lyrics are predictably idiotic, but as always, the riffs are infectious and the drum/bass click as well as Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman ever did.
I think Radiohead and the Beatles also refuse to do Itunes.
It's not a bad business model. Currently AC/DC and the Beatles are two of the top five selling bands in history, worldwide. Makes sense for certain groups. I couldn't imagine buying Abbey Road or OK Computer in bits and pieces. And I never liked the way the Zeppelin boxed set scattered bits of I and II over various discs. The songs on those records had a unique sound and stood together on albums much better than they stand apart as singles.
