Matt Barlow is back with Iced Earth! Good choice or bad?
- Thread starter Theandromedastrain
- Start date
rms
Active Member
skyrefuge
Member
Just curious how you guys would reconcile these claims with the last.fm numbers I posted showing that no one is listening to the last two albums.
From my side (which I admit has no more basis in fact than yours!), I would say what I've always thought, which is that individual albums sales figures are more a reflection of your PREVIOUS album than the current album. The #78 Billboard ranking could be less a matter of Iced Earth rising up the chart than the rest of the field coming back towards them, as new album sales have rather tanked in recent years. And in general, we don't know if the results could have been even BETTER if Barlow has been in the band for those two albums; without a controlled experiment, it's impossible to attribute that growth to any one factor. Iced Earth has always been growing in popularity along with the overall growth in underground metal. To again use Amon Amarth as a control, I believe they have continued a steady growth over their last two albums in the absence of any changes, so it's difficult to say that Iced Earth wouldn't have done the same.
Neil
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
Umm... because the amount of "plays" a band gets on last.fm or myspace etc doesn't correlate to album sales? Those sales figures are facts, not "claims." Your point makes no sense.
If you simply look at the facts, you'll see that Iced Earth's general notoriety in addition to sales rose considerably with the addition of Tim. Iced Earth had previously NEVER charted the Billboard top 200. To think that it's an anomaly that a dude with a freakin' movie based on him who joins a band that immediately after starts touring more heavily and starts selling more albums than previously (not to mention Headbangers Ball guest appearances and regular video play etc) is absurd. It's obviously the name recognition of Owens that helped. Let's also not forget that this was also the time where Preist reunited with Halford and did the whole Ozzfest thing. Priest had literally gone from being a club band to headlining amphitheaters in a matter of months. More name recognition in Iced Earth's favor.
Amon Amarth is not as big as Iced Earth in the States (in fact, I'd wager Iced Earth to be generally bigger everywhere). They have not made the Billboard top 200. Hell, they JUST started headlining tours in the States last month.
dcowboys311
Member
The Barlow-era Iced Earth songs have had a few more years to get increased play counts on last.fm
I see all these posts that "oh man Tim made the band more famous" and "Tim's era allowed the band to make more money" or w/e. The fact of the matter STILL remains, that Matthew Barlow is the right man for the leading vocals of Iced Earth, always was. The fans all around the world have spoken, like Jon said, and Jon realized he needed and wanted Matt back in the band. So its not about the money or the fame here guys, fuck all that, its about the fact that matthew barlow is 1. a much better singer in majority opinion and
2. the right person to front iced earth. Plus, the poll doesn't lie, 84% of the people that have voted, voted in barlows favor so far as of 5:10pm North Eastern time in the U.S.
2. the right person to front iced earth. Plus, the poll doesn't lie, 84% of the people that have voted, voted in barlows favor so far as of 5:10pm North Eastern time in the U.S.
EJC_74
New Metal Member
1st off that movie was very "loosely" based on Ripper's life. It's been stated in many places. &
2nd, unless you are psychic or have a time machine, no one could tell for absolute certainty that I.E. wouldn't have attained that level of success solely on the merit of being one of the best fucking Metal-(or any other type for that matter)-bands ever! Irregardless of WHO sang on their CD's! & if this rms guy thinks they are so damn boring, why even waste your time in this thread?
I'd not waste my time in a thread about who was a better guitarist for say Dream Theater, or whatever members might have been replaced by the band. Why? Because I they bore the shit out of me! So, who cares who was replaced by who?? Clearly, not me!
2nd, unless you are psychic or have a time machine, no one could tell for absolute certainty that I.E. wouldn't have attained that level of success solely on the merit of being one of the best fucking Metal-(or any other type for that matter)-bands ever! Irregardless of WHO sang on their CD's! & if this rms guy thinks they are so damn boring, why even waste your time in this thread?
I'd not waste my time in a thread about who was a better guitarist for say Dream Theater, or whatever members might have been replaced by the band. Why? Because I they bore the shit out of me! So, who cares who was replaced by who?? Clearly, not me!
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
No it wasn't. In fact the original title for Rock Star was "Metal God," a nod to Judas Priest. The only reason why there are differences is because the studio and Judas Priest couldn't agree on financial terms to the rights to the actual story. Regardless, even if was "very loosly based" on Owens, any basis is enough to generate more recognition.
You don't sell albums for being one of the "best metal bands ever" since that's an opinion (albeit, an opinion I indeed share with you). There are plenty of bands I consider to be some of the "best metal bands" that do not sell nearly as well as IE. Evergrey is a prime example. The fact that Owens and Priest were very well known names helped elevate Iced Earth to a level previously unachievable. The fact also, that Iced Earth had sold more while signed to a German label filled with bands that have very little popularity in the US when they were previously on an AMERICAN label with extremely high selling bands like Shadows Fall, Lacuna Coil, Arch Enemy, and Nevermore says something about the addition of Owens as well. Even today, SPV only has a handful of bands that regularly tour the US. Aside from their distribution, their focus on this country is minimal.
skyrefuge
Member
Yes, of course. The "claim" part of it is the particular hypothesis you're using to explain those facts: "It's obviously the name recognition of Owens that helped".
I'm just saying that it's not anywhere near that obvious to me. There are too many other plausible ways to explain those facts, too many variables changing simultaneously. Especially when I factor in the seemingly contradictory facts from last.fm. Now, maybe on closer examination, they really don't have to be contradictory (selling more records doesn't necessarily translate into people actually listening the music on those records more), but it just makes me more skeptical of the "Owens gave IE a big boost" hypothesis. So I was just curious how you eliminated all those other variables.
Just for fun, at least I was right on one point:
Framing Armageddon's record chart position is not reflective of record album sales. Though it hit #78 vs. #145 for TGB, it only sold 7800 in the first week, vs. TGB's 8626. I wonder if it's the first IE album to ever see lower first-week sales than the previous one. Again, however, there are still way too many variables for me to make any sort of claim about the reason.
I wasn't comparing Amon Amarth's popularity to Iced Earth's. I was comparing their *changes* in popularity relative to each other.
Neil
skyrefuge
Member
Oops, sorry, I should have clarified. The chart I was using was "Top Tracks, Last Six Months". There is also "Top Tracks, Last Week", but that only has one Owens-era song ("Ten Thousand Strong" at #7), so I used the longer list.
Neil
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
The thing is though, Amon Amarth never underwent a drastic a change in popularity as Iced Earth. AA since 2001-2002 ish had been touring the states and slugging it out to make it to where they are now. While they are seeing an amount of success that is definitely commendable, it's not even close to what happened to Iced Earth between the years 2002 and 2004. It took them like 5-6 years to headline the US. By contrast, it took Children Of Bodom half that time.
Let's put it this way, Owens gave IE a boost but it's the level of boostage that is being questioned. That I understand. However, I'm sure we can agree that the boost is indeed sizable.
skyrefuge
Member
I've been to 19 Iced Earth shows, 17 in the US, starting in 1997. All but three were headlining shows: one at the Milwaukee Metalfest, and two opening for Megadeth. Their last two shows in Chicago, one with Barlow, one with Owens, were both at the same place, and they both filled it up. In the five years since 2002, Iced Earth has played a single show here. In the five years prior to 2002, they played 9.
Sorry.
Digging up some posted Soundscan numbers:
Burnt Offerings: 13,067 (5 years after release)
The Dark Saga: 21,011 (4 years after release)
Something Wicked: 41,590 (4 years after release)
Horror Show: 53,000 (10 months after release)
The Glorious Burden: 70,000 (3 years after release)
The sales increases in percentages come out to 61%, 98%, 27%, and 32%. So I'm not quite sure where you're getting the "drastic change in popularity" from, because it sure isn't the record sales.
Neil
I'd disagree with that. The last tour with Barlow sold out Jaxx, and I think capacity there was 600. They were well on their way with Barlow.
Jason
EJC_74
New Metal Member
What I MEANT was for the immense talent & originality of a band! Not to mention strong songwriting & song structure! They have slugged it out since 1986 to be the BEST FUCKING BAND in the world! & while they may still be underground in the USA, they will be as BIG here as in Europe very soon! the next year will see a HUGE turnaround in Metal in the USA! Back in '91, the "Revolution" was coming'. Now, it has arrived! & yes, I.E. has lead the way in that Revolution
Reconcile? I don't see where anything needs to be reconciled. While your claim may have no basis in fact the numbers I provided do. Quoting last.fm listens is as pointless as using MySpace views to determin a band's popularity. As you can glean for yourself from that thread apparently Nightwish is twice as popular as either Iron Maiden or Megadeth. Apparently Lacuna Coil is six times more popular than Queensryche. I think not.
On the other hand 70,000+ copies is a Nielsen SoundScan sales figure. Billboard ranked "Framming Armageddon" #78 in their Top 200, not me. If you care to dispute those "claims" I can only suggest you take it up with those entities.
It's also rather convoluted logic you applied to that ranking. Are we supposed to assume that Iced Earth only attained their all time highest Billboard position because all other artists in the Top 200 had low sales figures? Are we to extrapolate that Iced Earth's sales figures were the only ones to stay stable or rise slightly, while those of every other artist in the US suffered declining figures? Once again I think not.
Your position is rather demeaning to the band, by the way, as it negates the remote possibility that maybe on some off chance Iced Earth actually may have earned that ranking based on their own merits, talent, and hard work. Clearly that can't be the case since Tim "Ripper" Owens sang on that album, and of course no one listens to Iced Earth with Ripper Owens. So say the last.fm numbers. And... Oh... Yeah... Ripper sucks.
Ripper was a household word in the Metal community. He fronted one of the most famous Metal bands in history and recorded 3 albums with them. He's toured the world a few times, and had his face on the cover of every major Metal magazine on several continents. Yet when you plug a personality like that into a band that couldn't sell out bars in their own country, one shouldn't attribute that band's rise in popularity to that factor without some controlled experiment? Right.
As I've stated I like both Barlow and Owens in Iced Earth. Barlow is back and I'm fine with that. If Ripper had stayed I'd have been fine with that. Had Shaffer replaced Ripper with Lance King or Andy Franck I'd probably have been okay with that too.
However, there are those who have been pining over Barlow since- and make no mistake about this- he walked out on Iced Earth and them, and have never given Ripper any acknowledgment for stepping to save the band to which Barlow now returns. Nor will he be accredited with raising the success of the band to the point that made it possible for their beloved Barlow to rejoin. It's well beyond time credit was given where it's due.
...AndTimeBegan
Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 543
- 0
- 16
I've been to 19 Iced Earth shows, 17 in the US, starting in 1997. All but three were headlining shows: one at the Milwaukee Metalfest, and two opening for Megadeth. Their last two shows in Chicago, one with Barlow, one with Owens, were both at the same place, and they both filled it up. In the five years since 2002, Iced Earth has played a single show here. In the five years prior to 2002, they played 9.
Sorry.
Digging up some posted Soundscan numbers:
Burnt Offerings: 13,067 (5 years after release)
The Dark Saga: 21,011 (4 years after release)
Something Wicked: 41,590 (4 years after release)
Horror Show: 53,000 (10 months after release)
The Glorious Burden: 70,000 (3 years after release)
The sales increases in percentages come out to 61%, 98%, 27%, and 32%. So I'm not quite sure where you're getting the "drastic change in popularity" from, because it sure isn't the record sales.
Neil
I meant that it took 5-6 years for Amon Amarth, not IE... lol duh
I NEVER said that the band didn't sell well during the Barlow era. They indeed did. The difference is that they had seen a huge spike in both notoriety and sales because of Owens.
That Horror Show figure is wrong. 10 months after that album came out it had sold 31,967copies. (source: Blabbermouth posting Soundscan numbers from April 2002) As a result, so is your argument hehe.
EJC_74
New Metal Member
Fuckin' A! I agree Just like I said. No one could tell for absolute certainty such things. & I.E. could have attained that success even if Matt had stayed. Did "Ripper"'s name add some hlep to that? well, to some degree yes. But, solely? Hell no! It'd take a hell of alot more than just some famous great singer to make a band successful!
dcowboys311
Member
Not true at all. Look at supergroups in the modern rock community. Do you really think that bands like Audioslave, Velvet Revolver, and Alter Bridge would have reached anywhere near the popularity that they have if they didn't have the whole "RATM/Soundgarden, GNR/STP, Creed" labels attached to them? They might make good music, but in today's world they would not have enjoyed the popularity that they currently have had it not been for the name recognition of the members.
EJC_74
New Metal Member
What I meant was not on the 'name' of the singer alone. If Slash sucked ass on guitar & was some nobody, who'd listen to V.R.? You have to have talented band members all round & the strong songs & whatnot.
If everyone in Zeppelin sucked but Plant, would they have been any good? & their songs were lame, but had great vocals!? I.E. were great w/all singers. Better w/Barlow & Ripper of course, but still! They'd have continued to gain more attention for themselves due to strong songs & full albums too!
Similar threads
