SickthingsUK

mattjcodd wrote:correct - musical fad.

although, i will not place the ENTIRE blame on the change in music scene, like some people here. there were other logistical problems that you guys don't know about.

I don't blame it on the musical scene at all. The Grunge movement didn't begin to breakout until later that year. "Hey Stoopid" was already gone by the time albums like "Nevermind" were even released.

To me, there is two major reasons why "Hey Stoopid" did not match the level of success of "Trash"

1. Poor choice of first single

2. Operation Rock 'N Roll - which essentially doubled as a 'Hey Stoopid' tour - was a disaster.

When those two things fell through, there was no rebounding. Playing in parking lots or giving the album away was not going to turn the tides. By the time "Wayne's World" came about - 7 months after the release of the album - that good fortune came too late unfortunately.

It's a shame that "Hey Stoopid" couldn't have been as big as "Trash" because, quite frankly, I think "Hey Stoopid" is a much, much better album. Unfortunately for Alice - which has often been his biggest enemy - the album suffered due to poor management.

>I don't blame it on the musical scene at all.

No, I think mattjcodd is right - it had something to do with it, but was not the only reason.

> The Grunge movement didn't begin to breakout until later that year. "Hey Stoopid" was already gone by the time albums like "Nevermind" were even released.

Those two albums were released less than three months apart. Sure, it all exploded with Nevermind, but it didn't just happen from out of nothing. The "Lollapolooza" festival was happening around the time of the "Operation Rock N' Roll" tour and the former was a big success. How do you explain that? There was a definite change happening 'underground' (and if you want, you can trace it back to "Nothing's Shocking" by Jane's Addiction whch was a good three years before the time we are discussing).

>When those two things fell through, there was no rebounding. Playing in parking lots or giving the album away was not going to turn the tides.

What "tides"? All you can do is 'go with the flow'. That's how most careers go. By your logic ("there was no rebounding"), during the period 1996 - 1999, when Alice had no new albums out, he would have only been able to play very small venues. That obviously was not the case, so he did indeed 'rebound', in terms of the venues he played (some quite large, some quite small). I wish people would look at the facts objectively, rather than take their perceptions (or other people's, in this case) and give them the same status as facts.

> Unfortunately for Alice - which has often been his biggest enemy - the album suffered due to poor management.

Now you're just speculating. Just because you prefer Hey Stoopid" to "Trash" doesn't mean everyone else thought the same way and besides, nothing you have said supports your original statment which I challenged.

Stuart wrote:Hello,
Hey Stoopid was the first album by Alice that really caught me. How come it never took off in the same way that Trash did just a few years beforehand. I see it as being a much stronger album. Any thoughts? Was the changing music scene the main thing that stopped it from being a great seller like Trash?

This is just pure speculation, but considering how huge success Trash was, I'm quite certain that there were great expectations for the follow-up album. Whether it was that Hey Stoopid didn't include Poison (Part 2) or that grunge had really started to affect record sales of "hair-and-leather" bands, it's hard to tell why Hey Stoopid didn't hit the jackpot the same way as Trash did. However, judging from these chart positions, Hey Stoopid didn't do that bad: http://www.rockdetector.com/discography,301.sm

MovieDemon wrote:the album suffered due to poor management.

hmmmm..... how so?

mattcoddington wrote:

MovieDemon wrote:the album suffered due to poor management.

hmmmm..... how so?

what, label management?
or his personal management??

that's what i'm trying to figure out - what management and exactly how did they do a poor job?

My belief was,and i'm steadfast that if HS would of sold in the neighbourhood of
Trash,that things would of played out a quite differently.I always figured at that time,that is was great that he made the "comeback",but what he needed was back to back hit albums to solidify his comeback status,akin to what Aerosmith did with Permanent Vacation and Pump.If so,i think SONY would of done alot more,and would have subsequently paved the way for the TLT.I thought at the time,that HS was a very pivital album(make or break as far as a big label goes). Trash's 2 predecessors sold about the same as HS,and wo Poison,probably Trash would of sold that too..its hard to say.I truthfully believe that,another "hit" cd would have boded well for Alice staying with SONY till this day.Just my dogma!!and i'm sticking to it!

>Trash's 2 predecessors sold about the same as HS

I assume you mean together.

A_MichaelUK wrote:>Trash's 2 predecessors sold about the same as HS

I assume you mean together.

When Constrictor was still on the charts back in 1986, I read an article about Alice's comeback which said that Constrictor had sold over 300,000 units in the US which was a vast improvement over his early 80s albums. Hey Stoopid has sold about 350,000 units in the US although this is a cumulative figure. So it appears that Constrictor and Hey Stoopid have sold similar amounts in the US.
It is possible that Hey Stoopid has sold much more than Constrictor in Europe but that doesn't seem to be the case in the US.

According to metal-sludge constrictor has sold 90 000!! copies between 1991-2004 in the US.
So if the album had sold 300 000 copies shortly after the release in 86,I would guess the album now has sold well over 400 000 copies,maybe close to gold status.

Constrctor charted for 21 weeks,hey stoopid got 13 weeks on the billboard 200.
In Europe Hey stoopid charted really well and was the most successful.

>When Constrictor was still on the charts back in 1986, I read an article about Alice's comeback which said that Constrictor had sold over 300,000 units in the US which was a vast improvement over his early 80s albums.

Interesting. That does strike me as a bit of an inflated figure, but it's possible. Do they have 'silver' certifications in America (for sales of 250,000 or more)? If they do, then "Constrictor" would have qualified for it and I'm not aware that it ever has.

A_MichaelUK wrote:>When Constrictor was still on the charts back in 1986, I read an article about Alice's comeback which said that Constrictor had sold over 300,000 units in the US which was a vast improvement over his early 80s albums.

Interesting. That does strike me as a bit of an inflated figure, but it's possible. Do they have 'silver' certifications in America (for sales of 250,000 or more)? If they do, then "Constrictor" would have qualified for it and I'm not aware that it ever has.

It's possible that the article mistakenly inflated the figure, I don't know. But in the US, Constrictor charted about the same as Hey Stoopid and the charts used to mean something back then! Furthermore, Constrictor (as Steven pointed out) lasted on Billboard's chart much longer than Hey Stoopid did. I think Constrictor may have benefitted from Alice's 1986 comeback tour where he sold out arenas in North America and got lots of media attention from his big comeback. But I honestly don't know if the article reported the sales figure of Constrictor correctly or not, though.
I don't recall hearing much about silver certifications in America (although I am not saying that they don't exist). And even if they existed at one time, would they still have existed in 1986?

As far as I'm aware, there is Gold (500k), Platinum (1 Mil) & Diamond (10 Mil). Never heard of a silver personally.

there is also multi-plat which is 2,000+. other countries use silver certifications.