Grammys - O Brother, Where Art Thou? takes 5!!
Grover C. McCoury III
sold *over* 4 million copies so far and the movie has grossed more than
double any other Cohen brothers movie. Even without Country radio
support "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" captures 5 Grammys. Great to see so
many Bluegrass artists recognized...
Here is the list:
Album Of The Year
O Brother, Where Art Thou? - Soundtrack
Various Artists
T Bone Burnett, producer; Mike Piersante, engineer/mixer
[Lost Highway Records]
Best Compilation Soundtrack Album For A Motion Picture, Television Or
Other Visual Media Award
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
(Various Artists) T Bone Burnett, producer
[Lost Highway Records]
Producer Of The Year, Non-Classical
T Bone Burnett
Down From The Mountain (Various Artists) (A)
Fan Dance (Sam Phillips) (A)
O Brother, Where Art Thou? – Soundtrack (Various Artists) (A)
Best Female Country Vocal Performance
For a solo vocal performance. Singles or Tracks only.
Shine
Dolly Parton
Track from: Little Sparrow
[Sugar Hill Records/Blue Eye Records]
Best Male Country Vocal Performance
For a solo vocal performance. Singles or Tracks only.
O Death
Ralph Stanley
Track from: O Brother, Where Art Thou? – Soundtrack (Various Artists)
[Lost Highway Records]
Best Country Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal
For established Duos or Groups. Singles or Tracks only.
The Lucky One
Alison Krauss + Union Station
Track from: New Favorite
[Rounder Records]
Best Country Collaboration With Vocals
For a collaborative performance by artists who do not normally perform
together. Singles or Tracks only.
I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow
Dan Tyminski, Harley Allen & Pat Enright (The Soggy Bottom Boys)
Track from: O Brother, Where Art Thou? – Soundtrack (Various Artists)
[Lost Highway Records]
Best Country Instrumental Performance
For instrumental recordings, with or without vocal coloring, by an
Orchestra, Group or Soloist. Singles or Tracks only.
Foggy Mountain Breakdown
Earl Scruggs, Glen Duncan, Randy Scruggs, Steve Martin, Vince Gill,
Marty Stuart, Gary Scruggs, Albert Lee, Paul Shaffer, Jerry Douglas &
Leon Russell
Track from: Earl Scruggs And Friends
[MCA Records Nashville]
Best Country Song
A Songwriter(s) Award. For Song Eligibility Guidelines see Category #3.
(Artist names appear in parentheses.) Singles or Tracks only.
The Lucky One
Robert Lee Castleman, songwriter (Alison Krauss + Union Station)
Track from: New Favorite
[Rounder Records; Publisher: Live Slow Music]
Best Country Album
For solo artists, Duos or Groups, vocal or instrumental.
Timeless – Hank Williams Tribute
(Various Artists) Luke Lewis, Mary Martin & Bonnie Garner, producers
[Lost Highway Records]
Best Bluegrass Album
For solos, duos or groups, vocal or instrumental.
New Favorite
Alison Krauss + Union Station
[Rounder Records]
Tom Kanhofer
"Grover C. McCoury III" wrote:
> New Favorite
> Alison Krauss + Union Station
> [Rounder Records]
____Reply Separator_____
Was this an award, or are you just mentioning your personal *new* favorite
artist?
The reason I ask, there is nothing *new* about Alison Krause + Union
Station. They've been associated for years.
Jon Weisberger
"Tom Kanhofer" <toa...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C7E8D71...@attbi.com...
It's the name of the album.
--
Jon Weisberger
JohnJRIII
>artist?
>The reason I ask, there is nothing *new* about Alison Krause + Union
>Station. They've been associated for years.
They've been around for years, but you evidently haven't seen the title of
their latest CD - for which they won the award.
twangfan
> The soundtrack from the movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" has
> sold *over* 4 million copies so far and the movie has grossed more than
> double any other Cohen brothers movie. Even without Country radio
> support "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" captures 5 Grammys. Great to see so
> many Bluegrass artists recognized...
>
Interesting to see how many of those winners had the power of a huge
entertainment conglomerate, Vivendi Universal, backing them. Or the
power of LA-based crossover artists like Dolly.
Apparently, conglomerates and marketing are good things too. Except
when Garth or Clear Channel is involved.
Also interesting to note how the claim that radio airplay is necessary
for records to sell is proven false. That was the case in the 80s
with "Will The Circle Be Unbroken," which won CMA Album of the Year
without radio airplay. It's true again now.
You don't need radio to sell records or win awards. You need to have
a great idea, market it well, and organize all the synergies in your
conglomerate to ram it down people's throats. It's exactly the evil
everyone hates being used for bluegrass music. Are you sure Bill
Monroe done it this way?
Jeff Wall
>Interesting to see how many of those winners had the power of a huge
>entertainment conglomerate, Vivendi Universal, backing them. Or the
>power of LA-based crossover artists like Dolly.
What helped Oh Brother and Dolly wasn't radio. It was the video's that
each did. Those video's did a whole lot to expose their music to
people who would have never heard any of it. That's also a tool that
is being used sucessfullly by Nickle Creek. Sugar Hill Records is not
a huge entertainment conglomorate. Nickle Creek is their first gold
record (Not counting Skagg's Don't Cheat in our Hometown which was
licensed out to Epic, Epic did all the promotions nad other work)
ANother thing is that 50,000 records in Bluegrass can be considered
phenominal sales. The recording budgets aren't as high. There's no
tour support, or a whole bunch of voodoo math necessary in order to
figure out recoupment.
>Apparently, conglomerates and marketing are good things too. Except
>when Garth or Clear Channel is involved.
A lot of it depends upon how those marketing strategies are done. I
have no problem with the way Garth Brooks has marketed himself. I did
thing the Chris Gaines project was idiotic, but that's just my
opinion. Clear Channel charging labels money in order for them to have
access to their PD's sounds a little Napoleonistic to me though.
>Also interesting to note how the claim that radio airplay is necessary
>for records to sell is proven false. That was the case in the 80s
>with "Will The Circle Be Unbroken," which won CMA Album of the Year
>without radio airplay. It's true again now.
If that is Will the Circle Be Unbroken Vol1, then it was done in the
70's and with Maybelle, Merle Travis, Doc Watson, Vassar Clements,
Earl Scruggs, Roy Acuff, and others. That sumbitch is the GREATEST
COUNTRY RECORD OF ALL TIME at least in my opinion, Will teh Circle Be
Unbroken II which came out in the 80's had some decent tracks on it,
but was by no stretch of the imagination, anywhere close to being the
powerhouse it's predecessor was. I have no idea which one won the
award
>You don't need radio to sell records or win awards. You need to have
>a great idea, market it well, and organize all the synergies in your
>conglomerate to ram it down people's throats. It's exactly the evil
>everyone hates being used for bluegrass music. Are you sure Bill
>Monroe done it this way?
If in his prime, Bill Monroe had the tools available to people today,
then I think Monroe would have made Garth Brooks look like a Girl
Scout trying to sell cookies at Wal-Mart. Monroe had two objectives.
Playing his music the way he wanted to play it, and selling records.
Well, there's women too, but that's a different topic.
Radio says that it's listeners aren't calling up screaming for Ralph
Stanley the way they call up screaming for Tim McGraw. That's because
Radio long away drove away the majority of their fans who would even
know who Ralph and Carter are. You don't drive to 7-11 to pick up
Filet Mignon. and the people who eat Filet Mignon know this.
Jon Weisberger
"twangfan" <twangf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:622ff18f.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "Grover C. McCoury III" <gmcc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<3C7E5D7F...@mindspring.com>...
> > The soundtrack from the movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" has
> > sold *over* 4 million copies so far and the movie has grossed more than
> > double any other Cohen brothers movie. Even without Country radio
> > support "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" captures 5 Grammys. Great to see so
> > many Bluegrass artists recognized...
> >
>
>
> Interesting to see how many of those winners had the power of a huge
> entertainment conglomerate, Vivendi Universal, backing them.
Are you under the impression that their competition didn't? You think maybe
Jamie O'Neal is on Sugar Hill and Dolly Parton on Mercury?
> Or the power of LA-based crossover artists like Dolly.
Right. Because everyone knows Dolly's got a lock on whatever Grammy
category she qualifies for.
> Apparently, conglomerates and marketing are good things too. Except
> when Garth or Clear Channel is involved.
>
> Also interesting to note how the claim that radio airplay is necessary
> for records to sell is proven false. That was the case in the 80s
> with "Will The Circle Be Unbroken," which won CMA Album of the Year
> without radio airplay. It's true again now.
This is wrong on three counts.
1. CMA Album of the Year is not a sales award, hence winning it doesn't
relate to the question of whether you can sell a lot of albums without
airplay.
2. Circle 2, which was the CMA Album of the Year, generated two top 20
singles, one of which was a top 10. It didn't win without radio airplay.
3. The idea that two cases of Album of the Year awards out of the more than
30 that have been given constitutes a refutation of the proposition that
it's extremely hard to sell lots of records without airplay is silly in and
of itself. When you consider that one of those cases *did* have singles
with airplay and the other had a connection to a hit feature movie to get
the ball rolling, it becomes one of the more absurd things I've read on this
board.
--
Jon Weisberger
Jeff Wall
least. "it becomes one of the more absurd things I've read on this
board. that didn't come from that dumbass Jeff Wall"
Tribe
Jon Weisberger wrote:
>
>3. The idea that two cases of Album of the Year awards out of the more than
>30 that have been given constitutes a refutation of the proposition that
>it's extremely hard to sell lots of records without airplay is silly in and
>of itself. When you consider that one of those cases *did* have singles
>with airplay and the other had a connection to a hit feature movie to get
>the ball rolling, it becomes one of the more absurd things I've read on this
>board.
>
If you're referring to the "O Brother" film as a "hit feature movie," I
think that it was hardly a "hit."
Tribe
>
Grover C. McCoury III
sold over 4 million copies so far and the movie has grossed more than
double any other Cohen brothers movie.
bman
Of all the films released in 2000 (it was in limited release in
December), the total domestic gross was 55th of 299 according to the
Movie Times website. It was in the top 10 in weekly video sales a few
times (couldn't find a list for the year). It was never the number
one movie or video but you could certainly make an arguement that it
was a hit movie.
Jon Weisberger
"Tribe" <johnc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C825BC...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Jon Weisberger wrote:
>
> If you're referring to the "O Brother" film as a "hit feature movie," I
> think that it was hardly a "hit."
I suppose that would depend on your definition of a hit with respect to
films. It did spend a considerable amount of time in the top 10 in gross
box office receipts during the period when the soundtrack was selling its
first million or so <g>.
--
Jon Weisberger
Vernon Ursenbach
well. Also, video sales and rentals did well. However, the movie at the
box office did only okay. I agree with Tribe here, it was not a big hit in
the theaters. It only had moderate success.
"Grover C. McCoury III" <gmcc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C826794...@mindspring.com...
Tribe
Jon Weisberger wrote:
>
>I suppose that would depend on your definition of a hit with respect to
>films. It did spend a considerable amount of time in the top 10 in gross
>box office receipts during the period when the soundtrack was selling its
>first million or so <g>.
>
"ET" was a hit, "Jaws" was a hit. While it may have spent some time in
the top ten during some period of time, I don't think it qualified as a
"hit" by box office receipt standards. I guess one would have to
compare to the other films released during the same period of time.
What I was responding to was the view, and of course I may have misread
your post, that somehow the movie drove up sales for the soundtrack. In
fact, it's entirely possible that it was the other way around...that the
soundtrack drove up the box office receipts.
That it may have been the highest grossing Cohen Bros' film doesn't say
much...their films may make money for the producers because the Cohen's
work relatively cheap (which is something like saying that Roberto
Alomar plays for chump change when you compare his salary to Alex
Rodriguez), but their movies have never been huge money-making "hits."
I happen to like a lot all of their films, but at best their movies
have become "cult films" with a small, but strong following, and
generally good reviews.
Tribe
>
bman
>>
>>I suppose that would depend on your definition of a hit with respect to films.
it is a hit in some circles. The dictionary definition that seems to
fit for "hit" is "a great success". That is subject to interpretation
but since this movie exceeded anyones expectations that might qualify
as "a great success" and therefore a hit.
>"ET" was a hit, "Jaws" was a hit.
I would have called those blockbusters. By analogy, you wouldn't
consider any song a hit unless it sold in the league with "White
Christmas"
> What I was responding to was the view, and of course I may have misread
>your post, that somehow the movie drove up sales for the soundtrack. In
>fact, it's entirely possible that it was the other way around...that the
>soundtrack drove up the box office receipts.
>
One or two observations aren't definitive but everyone that I know who
bought the soundtrack bought it after seeing the movie. One went
directly from the theater to a music store.
Jon Weisberger
>
>
> Jon Weisberger wrote:
>
> >
> >I suppose that would depend on your definition of a hit with respect to
> >films. It did spend a considerable amount of time in the top 10 in gross
> >box office receipts during the period when the soundtrack was selling its
> >first million or so <g>.
> >
> "ET" was a hit, "Jaws" was a hit. While it may have spent some time in
> the top ten during some period of time, I don't think it qualified as a
> "hit" by box office receipt standards.
Like I said, it depends on your definition of a hit with respect to films.
Within weeks of its release, they were adding screens, theaters and markets
like crazy.
> I guess one would have to
> compare to the other films released during the same period of time.
It was in the top 10 in box office receipts for much of its run.
> What I was responding to was the view, and of course I may have misread
> your post, that somehow the movie drove up sales for the soundtrack. In
> fact, it's entirely possible that it was the other way around...that the
> soundtrack drove up the box office receipts.
It's possible, but it doesn't jibe with the sequence of events. Obviously
there was a point at which the soundtrack phenomenon took on a life of its
own, but during the first few months it's almost certain that most people
were seeing the movie, then buying the CD.
--
Jon Weisberger
walterlane
Ebert and Roeper feel about that? They both gave the movie thumbs down
as I recall.
--
Fearmonger, a novel: http://www.walterlane.com/fearmonger
Soul~Eaters, a short story: http://www.walterlane.com/souleaters
Imperials fans: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_imperials
snip
twangfan
> "twangfan" <twangf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:622ff18f.02030...@posting.google.com...
> > "Grover C. McCoury III" <gmcc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3C7E5D7F...@mindspring.com>...
> > > The soundtrack from the movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" has
> > > sold *over* 4 million copies so far and the movie has grossed more than
> > > double any other Cohen brothers movie. Even without Country radio
> > > support "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" captures 5 Grammys. Great to see so
> > > many Bluegrass artists recognized...
> > >
> >
> >
> > Interesting to see how many of those winners had the power of a huge
> > entertainment conglomerate, Vivendi Universal, backing them.
>
> Are you under the impression that their competition didn't? You think maybe
> Jamie O'Neal is on Sugar Hill and Dolly Parton on Mercury?
>
This gets to the point I made in the previous post that (when it comes
to country) Grammy voters make their decisions based on criteria other
than the music. If you study Grammy winners over the last few years,
the voters have selected familiar names (Dolly, Cash, Jones, and
Nelson) rather than lesser known artists. Or they've chosen country
artists with ties to the rock world, such as Shania and Mutt or Faith
and Dann Huff.
In the specific category you selected, the decision was made more on
familiar name than label affiliation. And since Sugar Hill isn't one
of the majors, Universal had little to lose by allowing their own
artist to be outvoted by Dolly.
> > Or the power of LA-based crossover artists like Dolly.
>
> Right. Because everyone knows Dolly's got a lock on whatever Grammy
> category she qualifies for.
>
Not always. But she certainly has more familiarity to non-country
voters than Jamie O'Neal.
You keep assuming that these voters are forced to listen to this music
before they're allowed to vote. That's not the case.
> > Apparently, conglomerates and marketing are good things too. Except
> > when Garth or Clear Channel is involved.
> >
> > Also interesting to note how the claim that radio airplay is necessary
> > for records to sell is proven false. That was the case in the 80s
> > with "Will The Circle Be Unbroken," which won CMA Album of the Year
> > without radio airplay. It's true again now.
>
> This is wrong on three counts.
>
> 1. CMA Album of the Year is not a sales award, hence winning it doesn't
> relate to the question of whether you can sell a lot of albums without
> airplay.
>
I never said that it was. However, in another post, you're trying to
tell me that Grammy voters carried out the will of the album buying
public.
> 2. Circle 2, which was the CMA Album of the Year, generated two top 20
> singles, one of which was a top 10. It didn't win without radio airplay.
>
OK...then neither did O Brother. Because Man of Constant Sorrow got
radio airplay. Granted, not enough for a Top 10, but enough to get
noticed.
> 3. The idea that two cases of Album of the Year awards out of the more than
> 30 that have been given constitutes a refutation of the proposition that
> it's extremely hard to sell lots of records without airplay is silly in and
> of itself. When you consider that one of those cases *did* have singles
> with airplay and the other had a connection to a hit feature movie to get
> the ball rolling, it becomes one of the more absurd things I've read on this
> board.
You take a few selected quotes from program directors who are critical
of O Brother as being representative of the whole of country radio.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
My point is a simple one: people like you find a lot of fault in the
system, except when it works in your favor. Then it's great.
Coop
twangfan wrote:
> You don't need radio to sell records or win awards. You need to have
> a great idea, market it well, and organize all the synergies in your
> conglomerate to ram it down people's throats.
Did people vote for O Brother because it was ramed down their throats as opposed to every other nominee or
because it was an excellent project and they felt it was ignored by country radio?
Coop
Jon Weisberger
"twangfan" <twangf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:622ff18f.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "Jon Weisberger" <jonwei...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message
news:<u835cpb...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "twangfan" <twangf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:622ff18f.02030...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > entertainment conglomerate, Vivendi Universal, backing them.
> >
> > Are you under the impression that their competition didn't? You think
maybe
> > Jamie O'Neal is on Sugar Hill and Dolly Parton on Mercury?
> >
>
> This gets to the point I made in the previous post that (when it comes
> to country) Grammy voters make their decisions based on criteria other
> than the music.
Nice move. What about the point you made with respect to the backing of a
huge entertainment conglomerate? Do you think that O Brother was the only
nominee for Album Of The Year that had that? Ralph Stanley the only nominee
with that kind of backing in his category?
> In the specific category you selected, the decision was made more on
> familiar name than label affiliation. And since Sugar Hill isn't one
> of the majors, Universal had little to lose by allowing their own
> artist to be outvoted by Dolly.
"Allowing?" You think the Grammys this year were decisively controlled by
UMG? Based on...?
> > > Or the power of LA-based crossover artists like Dolly.
> >
> > Right. Because everyone knows Dolly's got a lock on whatever Grammy
> > category she qualifies for.
> >
>
> Not always. But she certainly has more familiarity to non-country
> voters than Jamie O'Neal.
Then what do LA-based and crossover have to do with it? And doesn't Johnny
Cash, whose nomination was on a UMG imprint, have more name recognition than
Ralph Stanley, also on a UMG imprint? Isn't Bob Dylan more familiar to
non-country voters than Dan Tyminski? His release was on a huge
conglomerate's label, too.
> You keep assuming that these voters are forced to listen to this music
> before they're allowed to vote.
I assume nothing of the sort. I know the voting process as a participant.
You keep offering your opinion as to what motivated the Grammy voters as
"fact." What's the basis for it?
> > > Also interesting to note how the claim that radio airplay is necessary
> > > for records to sell is proven false. That was the case in the 80s
> > > with "Will The Circle Be Unbroken," which won CMA Album of the Year
> > > without radio airplay. It's true again now.
> >
> > This is wrong on three counts.
> >
> > 1. CMA Album of the Year is not a sales award, hence winning it doesn't
> > relate to the question of whether you can sell a lot of albums without
> > airplay.
> >
>
> I never said that it was.
Then what is the relevance of the (mistaken) claim that Circle "won CMA
Album of the Year without radio airplay?"
> > 2. Circle 2, which was the CMA Album of the Year, generated two top 20
> > singles, one of which was a top 10. It didn't win without radio
airplay.
>
> OK...then neither did O Brother. Because Man of Constant Sorrow got
> radio airplay. Granted, not enough for a Top 10, but enough to get
> noticed.
You think that it was the smattering of country radio airplay (you still
haven't shown that it cracked the top 40) and the spins on bluegrass
specialty radio that caused it to get noticed? This is the same in your
mind as two top 20 singles on country radio while it was in the middle of a
growth spurt, one of which was recorded with John Denver, by a band which
had 15 consecutive top 10 singles in the 6 preceding years? Its being one
of the most popular videos of the year on CMT isn't worth mentioning in this
respect? Nor the press coverage? Nor the fact that it was a soundtrack for
a major motion picture that played on more than 800 screens around the
country for months? You think they're similar in that respect?
> My point is a simple one: people like you find a lot of fault in the
> system, except when it works in your favor. Then it's great.
The "system" *I* (as opposed to people like me, whatever you mean by that)
have found a lot of fault with is post-consolidation country radio with its
relatively narrow conception of what's suitable for airing on country radio.
It certainly didn't work in O Brother's favor.
--
Jon Weisberger
twangfan
>
> What about the point you made with respect to the backing of a
> huge entertainment conglomerate? Do you think that O Brother was the only
> nominee for Album Of The Year that had that? Ralph Stanley the only nominee
> with that kind of backing in his category?
>
It's obvious by looking at the list of winners that UMG made an
organized effort to win Grammy Awards. Moreso than the other major
labels. It's happened before.
> > In the specific category you selected, the decision was made more on
> > familiar name than label affiliation. And since Sugar Hill isn't one
> > of the majors, Universal had little to lose by allowing their own
> > artist to be outvoted by Dolly.
>
> "Allowing?" You think the Grammys this year were decisively controlled by
> UMG? Based on...?
>
The winners.
> > > > Or the power of LA-based crossover artists like Dolly.
> > >
> > > Right. Because everyone knows Dolly's got a lock on whatever Grammy
> > > category she qualifies for.
> > >
> >
> > Not always. But she certainly has more familiarity to non-country
> > voters than Jamie O'Neal.
>
> Then what do LA-based and crossover have to do with it? And doesn't Johnny
> Cash, whose nomination was on a UMG imprint, have more name recognition than
> Ralph Stanley, also on a UMG imprint? Isn't Bob Dylan more familiar to
> non-country voters than Dan Tyminski? His release was on a huge
> conglomerate's label, too.
>
I didn't make these decisions. UMG made them. Ask them why they
chose Ralph over Johnny.
> > You keep assuming that these voters are forced to listen to this music
> > before they're allowed to vote.
>
> I assume nothing of the sort. I know the voting process as a participant.
> You keep offering your opinion as to what motivated the Grammy voters as
> "fact." What's the basis for it?
>
The list of winners. And my knowledge of how flawed this process is.
I imagine you are a bit more principled than most voters. I'd ask you
if you listened to all the music you voted for, but I imagine you
probably did. And my hat's off to you. I don't think the majority of
the voters have your principles.
On the other hand, we all have read the articles about block voting.
We've all read "Hit Men." And "Broken Record: The Inside Story of the
Grammy Awards." So you must admit that it's very possible that
conglomerate influence had an effect on this year's Grammys.
> > My point is a simple one: people like you find a lot of fault in the
> > system, except when it works in your favor. Then it's great.
>
> The "system" *I* (as opposed to people like me, whatever you mean by that)
> have found a lot of fault with is post-consolidation country radio with its
> relatively narrow conception of what's suitable for airing on country radio.
> It certainly didn't work in O Brother's favor.
It's the very same system that made O Brother the sales and awards
phenomenon that it is. Because if it was based solely on the music,
we would have seen a lot more of the bluegrass-related music getting
the sales and awards. But instead, we have the anomoly that is O
Brother. It stands out like a sore thumb. But you refuse to admit
it.
By the way, country radio is not narrowly defined when you compare it
to other radio formats. In fact, it's broader than any other popular
radio format. It just doesn't happen to include some of the smaller
niches of the genre that you prefer. I also don't believe it would be
substantially different if there hadn't been consolidation. Because
the country boom, based on the replacement of legends from the 70s and
80s by new artists from the 90s took place prior to 1997.
Ol' BattleMonkey
> "ET" was a hit, "Jaws" was a hit. While it may have spent some time in
> the top ten during some period of time, I don't think it qualified as a
> "hit" by box office receipt standards. I guess one would have to
> compare to the other films released during the same period of time.
> What I was responding to was the view, and of course I may have misread
> your post, that somehow the movie drove up sales for the soundtrack. In
> fact, it's entirely possible that it was the other way around...that the
> soundtrack drove up the box office receipts.
That it didn't do the business of ET or JAWS is unimportant -- those movies
were not hits. They were blockbusters. By any professional definition of the
word, O BROTHER was indeed a hit. It made money, it had a sustained run in the
top 10, audience demand resulted in a limited release being expanded, and it
garnered high critical and fan praise. Being a hit film doesn't require
setting global box office records. And these days, whether or not a film is
considered a hit is also linked to overseas success and video/DVD sales. As
far as the rental/retail market is concerned, O BROTHER has continued to
sustain and build upon its popularity.
It may be that your definition of a hit is loftier than the industry standard,
but right now, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in "the business" who
wouldn't consider the movie a hit. A blockbuster? Certainly not, but that's
not the same thing as being a hit.
And just to answer a potential question, yeah, I am involved in said industry.
--Keith
Scott
> By the way, country radio is not narrowly defined when you compare it
> to other radio formats. In fact, it's broader than any other popular
> radio format. It just doesn't happen to include some of the smaller
> niches of the genre that you prefer. I also don't believe it would be
> substantially different if there hadn't been consolidation. Because
> the country boom, based on the replacement of legends from the 70s and
> 80s by new artists from the 90s took place prior to 1997.
You're just as clueless using this screen-name as you were using the others.
Jon Weisberger
> "Jon Weisberger" <jonwei...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message
news:<u87ej12...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > What about the point you made with respect to the backing of a
> > huge entertainment conglomerate? Do you think that O Brother was the
only
> > nominee for Album Of The Year that had that? Ralph Stanley the only
nominee
> > with that kind of backing in his category?
> >
>
> It's obvious by looking at the list of winners that UMG made an
> organized effort to win Grammy Awards.
Very convincing.
> On the other hand, we all have read the articles about block voting.
> We've all read "Hit Men." And "Broken Record: The Inside Story of the
> Grammy Awards." So you must admit that it's very possible that
> conglomerate influence had an effect on this year's Grammys.
Sure, it's possible. So are a lot of other things; perhaps UMG bought a
couple of million copies of the album, too, in order to boost the sales
figures. What's not just possible, but actually an established fact (as
opposed to your bogus "facts") is that you have nothing to offer in the way
of proof of your contention.
> > > My point is a simple one: people like you find a lot of fault in the
> > > system, except when it works in your favor. Then it's great.
> >
> > The "system" *I* (as opposed to people like me, whatever you mean by
that)
> > have found a lot of fault with is post-consolidation country radio with
its
> > relatively narrow conception of what's suitable for airing on country
radio.
> > It certainly didn't work in O Brother's favor.
>
> It's the very same system that made O Brother the sales and awards
> phenomenon that it is.
Country radio had very little to do with making O Brother the phenomenon
that it is. By and large, it missed the boat - hence the embarrasment at
seeing music it rejected as "that stuff nobody wants to hear" do so well.
> Because if it was based solely on the music,
> we would have seen a lot more of the bluegrass-related music getting
> the sales and awards.
I haven't said its success was based solely on the music; I've just pointed
out that your claim that it's based solely on UMG's alleged bloc voting in
the Grammys is spurious. On the other hand, since you brought it up,
several non-O Brother bluegrass and bluegrass-related recordings also did
well at the Grammys, and sales of bluegrass and bluegrass-related albums are
up - a trend that started well before O Brother was released.
> By the way, country radio is not narrowly defined when you compare it
> to other radio formats.
I don't listen much to other formats, but I'm skeptical of this claim. And
even if it were true, so what? That's not a plus for country radio, it's a
minus for the other formats, too. In case you hadn't noticed, many of them
are going down the toilet right beside country radio.
--
Jon Weisberger
Bob
> were seeing the movie, then buying the CD.
Well I bought the CD before the movie came out! But I knew about because I
love the Coen bothers. I am also a big Allison Krauss fan and bought it for
the tracks by her.
As for the movie being a "hit" it grossed $45,506,619. That is 1/10 of Star
Wars, but better than most movies. Just not better than the "big" ones. It
is over twice as good as "Fargo" which won an Oscar.
The Coen bothers have never been "hit" film makers. "O Brother" did better
than normal for them. To them it was a hit!
Grover C. McCoury III
Art Thou?"(over 4 million sold so far) the Coen brothers said (and I
paraphrase), "We made the video for a great CD"...
Jon Weisberger
"Bob" <thebas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6qeh8.14491$IN3.2...@kent.svc.tds.net...
> >but during the first few months it's almost certain that most people
> > were seeing the movie, then buying the CD.
>
> Well I bought the CD before the movie came out!
As did some other folks. But at the time the film went into general release
in early/mid January, the CD had been out for about six weeks and had sold
about 70,000 copies in the US in that time. Within two or three weeks of
the film's release, the CD was selling more than 70,000 a week.
--
Jon Weisberger
Ad absurdum per aspera
> own, but during the first few months it's almost certain that most people
> were seeing the movie, then buying the CD.
One might interestingly compare and contrast another soundtrack album
from last year, mostly featuring tour-de-force performances[*] of
old-timey music by some artists whose names are household words and a
few more whose should be. I refer of course to "Songcatcher," which I
believe the Grammy nominators overlooked entirely.
--Joe
[*] Maria McKee at 70 mph with the car windows open and the volume
cranked up all the way to 11 may not have been something those
mountaineers quite envisioned, but it sure makes the Interstate fly by
on a summer night...