Will Fun be Garth's last studio album

[garthcop]

With as long as it has seemed for him to release it, and the lack of success from the singles that have been released, I wonder if he will take a page from Trisha's playbook and make the eventual decision that this will be his last studio album and instead focus more on his live music with a special song here and there. Or, will the album sales numbers and the hope of over taking The Beetles continue to drive it all? But, will new albums be what even causes him to overtake The Beetles?

[Charles]

No way !!! Garth loves “the album” .. no way he goes to being a singles artist .

[Skywise]

Garth has too much of an image of 'supporting the songwriter' and being 'album friendly' to change his direction.. Maybe it'll be a wakeup call to him that he cannot continue to be the dinosaur who is trying to dig his heels in when it comes to producing new music, or perhaps he will yet again go the way of KISS (as his career has seemed to parallel theirs in a few ways) and become nothing more than a nostalgia act..


I hope not- he has a lot to offer musically and as an entertainer.. still he has a lot of room to improve too

[wimpy77]

Very well could. I don't understand why he or any other artist still make albums. It doesn't make sense anymore to do it.

[Charles]

What do you means making albums doesn’t make sense??

[Brett Dale]

I think as long as Garth is an artist, he will still make albums.

[Emerald Isle]

What do you means making albums doesn’t make sense??

They're expensive and hard to make and not very many people buy them nowadays with the prevalence streaming, by-the-song purchases, playlists, etc.

Several artists have stated (I believe Keith Urban is one, but don't quote me on it) that they may shift to a single-only approach where they release a new single to radio every 6 months or so, but with no intention to ever put those singles on an album.

Artists just don't make money off albums anymore. The real money is in touring. So if an artist can come up with 1, 2, or 3 songs a year to keep setlists fresh, that's much easier and more profitable than busting your hump for a 1 to 1.5 years to come up with an album's worth of songs only to have most people not buy it.

[Brett Dale]

That's heartbreaking.

I hope artists, think fo the album then as a piece of art, something special, get their income from other sources, but still do albums.

[rhd13]

I truly believe that the way music is consumed now (ie. focusing on single tracks, playlists, streaming, etc.) has made music fairly disposable. When you bought an album you were making a commitment to that artist. It wasn't about liking a single song, but it was about the artist.

I think that is one of the most profound issues in music today. Very few artists are establishing a foundation to a career that is going to last 30 years. Fans aren't in it for the long haul because they don't have to be. They can cherry pick a song or two, but very little commitment is being made to the artist.

What is fascinating is this is exactly how it was in the 50s and early 60s. There aren't many artists prior to the Beatles that really established a long-term, die-hard fan base outside of Elvis. Most of the music from that era was disposable and the artists were gone almost as quickly as they came. I think we are seeing that again and I don't think it is good for music.

[wimpy77]

What do you means making albums doesn’t make sense??

Artist spend about a year on making an album at a cost of at least $100,000 if not a lot more. Rhd13 can't probably tell you the exact dollar amount or close. By the time the label markets and releases the album, the artists gets pretty much nothing. Touring is where their money is made and that's why you have artists, even older artists touring on a constant schedule. That's the only way they can make money.

[wimpy77]

I truly believe that the way music is consumed now (ie. focusing on single tracks, playlists, streaming, etc.) has made music fairly disposable. When you bought an album you were making a commitment to that artist. It wasn't about liking a single song, but it was about the artist.

I think that is one of the most profound issues in music today. Very few artists are establishing a foundation to a career that is going to last 30 years. Fans aren't in it for the long haul because they don't have to be. They can cherry pick a song or two, but very little commitment is being made to the artist.

What is fascinating is this is exactly how it was in the 50s and early 60s. There aren't many artists prior to the Beatles that really established a long-term, die-hard fan base outside of Elvis. Most of the music from that era was disposable and the artists were gone almost as quickly as they came. I think we are seeing that again and I don't think it is good for music.

I could be wrong but I think the current trend in music started with Napster. That's why artists like Metallica went after the so hard. Everything that Lars Ulrich talked about then has happened. The sad thing is he was publicly bashed for it.

[Charles]

Still isn’t a good reason to stop making art . An album is art , and music isn’t just background music for every body .

[wimpy77]

Artist spend about a year on making an album at a cost of at least $100,000 if not a lot more. Rhd13 can't probably tell you the exact dollar amount or close. By the time the label markets and releases the album, the artists gets pretty much nothing. Touring is where their money is made and that's why you have artists, even older artists touring on a constant schedule. That's the only way they can make money.

Just a note because I can't edit my reply. I meant that Rhd13 probably can tell you how much artist spend on an album. I hate that you can't edit post after a certain point.

[wimpy77]

Still isn’t a good reason to stop making art . An album is art , and music isn’t just background music for every body .

Artists have to make a living just like you and I. A lot of artist recently including Sheryl Crow said they will never make another album again because it's not worth it. You might see it as "art' but let's be honest their main reason to get into the music business is to make money.

[randa16]

but let's be honest their main reason to get into the music business is to make money.

I disagree with you on this. I know a lot of people who perform and they don’t dream about getting rich, they just want to make a living doing what they love.

[randa16]

I will admit I don’t buy a lot of albums. The reason is because I don’t really like enough artist to buy their album. The only artist I buy without hesitation is Garth and dierks.

I can’t see Garth not doing an album. If anything I can see him putting out singles then dropping an album or putting out vault stuff.

[rhd13]

Artist spend about a year on making an album at a cost of at least $100,000 if not a lot more. Rhd13 can't probably tell you the exact dollar amount or close. By the time the label markets and releases the album, the artists gets pretty much nothing. Touring is where their money is made and that's why you have artists, even older artists touring on a constant schedule. That's the only way they can make money.

I appreciate your confidence in me, but to be honest I really don't know anymore. I worked in radio in the late 90s/early 2000s and obviously a lot has changed since then. Back then the general rule of thumb was that an album had to go Gold (500,000 units sold) in order to basically "break even". What a lot of people don't understand is that usually (at least back at that time) the artist was on the hook for all the costs of the album. In other words, the record company made the investment for the recording costs, promotion (which usually included videos, radio, etc.), etc. As the album sold the label recouped that money. It wasn't until their costs were covered that the artist would begin to make money on the project and even then it was a certain percentage (or points as it was often called). The bigger the artist the more that usually was, but not always. Every contract is different. Only a handful of artists would get in the 50% range (like Garth, Michael Jackson, etc.). Most were more like 10-20%.

Since Gold was the number I have to think it would actually be closer to Platinum (1 million units) now. The reason is because a Gold certification today includes streaming and streaming makes significantly less money than a raw album sale. Of course, there are other factors. My guess is in many instances the cost of recording is less than it used to be. You can make a great sounding record now on smaller equipment and many videos/promotional budgets don't have the crazy, expansive budgets that they used to. I still think it probably takes at least Gold and probably closer to Platinum though to make an album worth it. Of course, unless the recording/promotional budget is not very big. Again it would be a case to case basis really.

Long story short, in many instances it costs a lot of money and there is much less money to be made now. That is why so many artists are taking the route of just releasing a single or playing live. As I said in another thread it is a real shame too. I think streaming is such a smaller commitment that we have a whole generation that don't buy into artists, but buy into a song or a playlist. I think that means that we have less people at the top and all those mid-level and below artists will struggle a lot more to stay relevant and make significant money. I just think the album era created a focus on artists. Today that is gone. No reason to be loyal. Just move on to the next song. Why? Because you aren't making a financial commitment to an artist (buying an album) and you aren't living with their music the way we used to be listening to albums front to back.

I think that also creates the trends we see in radio. Think about it. If the goal is not to sell albums, but to have a hit single that stifles creativity a lot. Now the goal is to have a hit. I'm not saying having a hit hasn't always been important, it has. But there have always been those artists that had loyal fan bases who sold big albums with less radio play. Now that is gone. So having a hit, not selling an album is the goal (at least for mainstream artists/formats). That means you will get even more trend chasing than normal and they will run those trends in the ground milking it for every dollar. Again, not saying this hasn't always gone on, but it becomes even worse if an artist is relying on a hit/live performances to survive. This is especially true in more mainstream formats. Not as true for underground artists, but you get the picture.

[garthcop]

Good info. Thanks again for the insight. I find it very interesting.

[gbkubfan]

Great info. It is sad that the music business has become that. I think we will still see albums but in smaller numbers. People love listening to albums like Hotel California, Sgt. Peppers etc. Artists like Bruce Springsteen, Green Day and U2 do albums with messages. So I think you will see albums but in much smaller amounts much like the business is doing now. But their is an increase in vinyl so maybe we will see something.....

[wimpy77]

Great analysis.

[rhd13]

Official confirmation that Fun has been pushed back to 2020.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bil...legacy-box-set

[gbkubfan]

So only 500,000 for sale.

Legacy, which comes in three configurations, is limited to around 500,000 sets, roughly 15 percent of which have already sold direct-to-consumer through four pre-sales conducted via online social-selling network Talk Shop Live.

In one way, it is truly limited if only 500,000 copies. I am bad at math but that means only 21 million shipped. How does that effect the Diamond Award status's and will he get catalog certified?

And only 15 percent sold through Talk Shop. How many numbers is that I wonder? Less than 2 weeks to see how it does through the holiday.

[Emerald Isle]

Official confirmation that Fun has been pushed back to 2020.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bil...legacy-box-set

Boo!!! Whatever... Just hope that next year's inevitable Legacy 2 collection doesn't bump it again.

And please oh please, please let this set get Garth his %$#& Diamond awards for The Chase, In Pieces, and Fresh Horses so that he can focus on something new for a change.

Sorry... this news just makes me grumpy, especially since the article also confirmed that the only bonus tracks are the same ones for the Limited Series box. Sigh. It's hard being a Garth fan sometimes.

[fences2312]

Official confirmation that Fun has been pushed back to 2020.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bil...legacy-box-set

WOW a year and a halF LATER? And HE. Couldn’t of said something during INSIDE? What the hell is that show for?

[Brett Dale]

First off, thats a great article!!!! Thanks for posting it!!!

Okay then if my math is right (Wheres sheldon cooper when you need him)

They have made 500K and sold 15%, which means they have sold 33 thousand copies of the legacy. There is 85% to sell.

I cant see him selling 467K more copies. I think he may sell another 30K, Which means 60K added to soundscan, and a sh*tload to
his riaa numbers.

[Brett Dale]

So no Fun this year and no triple live. (maybe hes waiting for the stadium tour to be finish to release triple live, that would make sense)

We do have the doco to look forward too though!

Boy oh boy, Fun better be worth the wait when its released.

[Skywise]

Official confirmation that Fun has been pushed back to 2020.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bil...legacy-box-set

good article find- the FUN comment buried in the article at the bottom.. .. let the speculation and complaining (I'll be guilty of it somewhat I'm sure as well) commence, along with the focusing on Legacy..

I'm telling ya- gArth's sticking to his Dinosaur roots in music delivery... but eh- it is what it is.. bought my set- don't plan on ever opening it, it's for collection- but still miffed he dropped the ball on the cd aspect (IMO)

[Skywise]

So no Fun this year and no triple live. (maybe hes waiting for the stadium tour to be finish to release triple live, that would make sense)

We do have the doco to look forward too though!

Boy oh boy, Fun better be worth the wait when its released.

Brett, you know darn well with all the hype that happens here and other places, and the speculation that is or will be rampant, there's no way that it will live up to expectations...

[Skywise]

WOW a year and a halF LATER? And HE. Couldn’t of said something during INSIDE? What the hell is that show for?

it's for stroking Garth's ego, promoting his projects, and the lobbying of softball questions by the majority of fans who apparently haven't been fans for a long time... it's not for the hardcore Garth fan anymore- used to be though... now it's not news it's just another 5-30m on a monday

[Charles]

But maybe we’ll get another couple of songs from Fun prior to its release on amazon !!

At this point , maybe Fun can be a double album