Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2011 20:00:45 GMT -5
It has never been necessary to have a hit on pop radio to sell lots of albums. It certainly doesn't hurt but it is not necessary, never has been
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,927
|
Post by jebsib on Aug 26, 2011 22:42:43 GMT -5
2m, I don't mean acts that 'just' sell lots of albums. There were plenty of instances in the early 70s for example where progressive rock bands and the like were selling like hot cakes and top 40 was not in touch with the sales trends. CHR almost always 'tried' to find a hit from those top acts, sometimes with success, sometimes without. But for the #1 selling act of the whole decade (Garth in the 90s) not to have a single major crossover hit was a little surprising to we who lived through the 80s hit album / hit single synergy model.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2011 23:00:33 GMT -5
In general, I agree.
However, at least to me, Garth Brooks not having a major pop hit is not surprising.
For one simple reason, a major artist whose core genre is not pop, his singles were released only to country radio and not to stores (well with one exception I guess)
At least in my opinion, there have been enough instances of major stars not on pop radio that the Garth thing is not surprising.
A pop hit certainly doesn't hurt for exposure though, and as you said, for the most part, music stars do have hits on pop radio at one time or another regardless on genre.
|
|
