Week 17 - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Peeling off those Dollar Bills
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-08-2009, 05:31 PM   #106
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairy View Post
Yes, but I don't understand why we should look at the very best selling albums on a given period rather than at the entire market.
1. In the current market environment, the ability for top selling albums to sell well, like the top 100 albums of the year or the top 10, is more negatively impacted than if you just looked at results for the entire market. Albums that sell well in 2009 run in to the obvious fact that it makes the album more widely available and easier to obtain for free because of file sharing, CD burning, etc.


Quote:
If other albums were selling that much back in the 80's, when the markets were smaller than they currently are, I think there could be certain albums able to do it, even in our current sales level.
The market for albums selling 500,000 or more is SMALLER than it was back in the early 1980s. 111 albums sold 500,000 or more copies in 1983 in the United States! Only 18 albums have sold 500,000 or more copies in the United States in 2009.

Quote:
Mine is probably a philosophical quetion (lol), but why can't any albums (I'm not necessarily talking about U2's recent albums here) sell as much now as they did in previous decades, if current markets trends are now at the same level as they were in such decades (for example, the first half of the 80's)?.
Current market trends have dipped back to where they were at the end of the 1960s for albums!

Quote:
One possible reason may be that there are no albums able to reach big sales on many markets simultaneously, there appear to be regional big sellers but not truly global sellers in a way. I think that there are other factor apart from markets size.
The market comparisons I'm making between the decades are actually just for the United States, although, its likely those conditions were similar worldwide as well. 33% of all albums are sold in the United States.
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-08-2009, 05:59 PM   #107
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 37
Local Time: 05:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoilbheannacht View Post
1. In the current market environment, the ability for top selling albums to sell well, like the top 100 albums of the year or the top 10, is more negatively impacted than if you just looked at results for the entire market. Albums that sell well in 2009 run in to the obvious fact that it makes the album more widely available and easier to obtain for free because of file sharing, CD burning, etc.




The market for albums selling 500,000 or more is SMALLER than it was back in the early 1980s. 111 albums sold 500,000 or more copies in 1983 in the United States! Only 18 albums have sold 500,000 or more copies in the United States in 2009.



Current market trends have dipped back to where they were at the end of the 1960s for albums!



The market comparisons I'm making between the decades are actually just for the United States, although, its likely those conditions were similar worldwide as well. 33% of all albums are sold in the United States.
Well, the ability for top selling albums, in my opinion, isn't impacted. It is just that there are no big sellers anymore as there were back in previous decades, even with similar or smaller overall markets.

"The market for albums selling 500,000 or more is SMALLER than it was back in the early 1980s. 111 albums sold 500,000 or more copies in 1983 in the United States! Only 18 albums have sold 500,000 or more copies in the United States in 2009."

But I was talking about the overall market, rather than the amount of albums reaching certain numbers. With a similar market back in the 80's, there were more albums being able to shift that many copies while now there are less. This further supports my comment.

"Current market trends have dipped back to where they were at the end of the 1960s for albums!"

USA annual sales (in million)

1973 385 m
1974 385 m
1975 375 m
1976 400 m
1977 510 m
1978 530 m
1979 505 m
1980 515 m
1981 470 m
1982 430 m
1983 440 m
1984 550 m
1985 540 m
1986 535 m
1987 605 m
1988 655 m
1989 690 m
1990 740 m
1991 698 m
1992 776 m
1993 836 m
1994 1009 m
1995 998 m
1996 1007 m
1997 929 m
1998 1009 m
1999 1065 m
2000 1021 m
2001 929 m
2002 836 m
2003 765 m
2004 779 m
2005 723 m
2006 649 m
2007 555.5 m
2008 around 475-500 m

Soundscan reported a figure of around 425 million for 2008, but that doesn't count the entire market (some outlest or club sales) nor shipments. Sales should have been 475 to 500 million last year, which means that more albums were shipped last year than either 1982 or 1983, or maybe even 1981. Yet more albums were selling slighltly more back then than what we have now.

These stats, in my opinion, clearly shows that even in a "soft" market, some high figure can be reached. So the fact that not many albums are selling that well this very year can't only be explianed by current markets conditions nor by what the very top selling albums are currently shifting. There are probably many other factors concerned, like the lack of identity of this decade (with only acts like Coldplay or Eminen able to gain big sales over the years), the lack of global sellers, and many other things. Those are all possible explanations, I'm not trying to to claim that those are definitive explanations.
__________________

__________________
fairy is offline  
Old 07-08-2009, 07:31 PM   #108
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairy View Post
Well, the ability for top selling albums, in my opinion, isn't impacted. It is just that there are no big sellers anymore as there were back in previous decades, even with similar or smaller overall markets.
Thats just NOT true, look at the following:

Top 10 selling albums of 2000 in the United States

1. No Strings Attached / 'N Sync ~ 9,936,104
2. The Marshall Mathers LP / Eminem ~ 7,921,107
3. Oops!... I Did It Again / Britney Spears ~ 7,893,544
4. Human Clay / Creed ~ 6,587,834
5. Supernatural / Santana ~ 5,857,824
6. Beatles 1 / The Beatles ~ 5,068,300
7. Country Grammar / Nelly ~ 5,067,529
8. Black & Blue / Backstreet Boys ~ 4,289,865
9. 2001 / Dr Dre ~ 3,992,311
10. The Writing's on the Wall / Destiny's Child ~ 3,802,165


Top 10 selling albums of 2008 in the United States

1. Tha Carter III / Lil Wayne ~ 2,874,420
2. Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends / Coldplay ~ 2,143,928
3. Fearless / Taylor Swift ~ 2,112,179
4. Rock N Roll Jesus / Kid Rock ~ 2,017,905
5. Black Ice / AC/DC ~ 1,915,172
6. Taylor Swift / Taylor Swift ~ 1,597,316
7. Death Magnetic / Metallica ~ 1,565,078
8. Paper Trail / T.I. ~ 1,522,103
9. Sleep Through The Static / Jack Johnson ~ 1,492,466
10. I Am... Sasha Fierce / Beyoncé ~ 1,458,853


As you can see, there has been over a 70% sales decline in the top selling albums from 2000 to 2008. You don't have to go all the way back to another decade to see how heavily top selling albums have been impacted in the past 8 years. The top of the market is more heavily impacted by FILE SHARING, OTHER WAYS OF OBTAINING MUSIC FREE OVER THE INTERNET, CD BURNING, ETC..

Top selling albums from the early 1980s WOULD NOT be able to sell what they did back then in 2009! The more widely available any product becomes, the easier it becomes to obtain that product for FREE!

This decade at the start, had the largest number of multi-platinum albums ever seen in the history of the music industry! The spread of the internet, CD Burning, and other ways of obtaining music for free has in just 8 years brought the market for top selling albums back to where it was in the 1960s.

500,000+ selling albums per year in the 1960s in the USA

1960: 16
1961: 15
1962: 37
1963: 27
1964: 28
1965: 36
1966: 58
1967: 61
1968: 75
1969: 94

500,000+ selling albums in 2009

18 But, were only half way through the year, so lets take a look at how many have sold 250,000+. That number is 48! Thats actually only half of the 1969 total, and more in line with 1965 and 1966.


The key factor that your not understanding is the impact of the internet, File Sharing and CD burning on the MARKET TODAY. Those things did not exist back in 1983. The overwhelming majority of people had to actually BUY their music in 1983 where as most people today obtain it for FREE.

You can have unusual exceptions to the market(big selling albums), when the vast majority of people still have to BUY the product. Today, most people don't buy music because they can obtain it for FREE.

Even when looking at your figures of the overall market, notice that 2008 at 500 million is smaller than 1977 at 510 million and only 30% larger than the market in 1973.

Its expected that the 2009 total sales will be 15% to 20% below those of 2008. That means just 400 million to 425 million for 2009. 2010 will likely see just as steep a drop as well, which will put it below the 1973 figure for the overall market.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-08-2009, 07:42 PM   #109
The Fly
 
runbyu1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laie, HI
Posts: 208
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairy View Post
These stats, in my opinion, clearly shows that even in a "soft" market, some high figure can be reached. So the fact that not many albums are selling that well this very year can't only be explianed by current markets conditions nor by what the very top selling albums are currently shifting. There are probably many other factors concerned, like the lack of identity of this decade (with only acts like Coldplay or Eminen able to gain big sales over the years), the lack of global sellers, and many other things. Those are all possible explanations, I'm not trying to to claim that those are definitive explanations.
One thing now is that with the Internet, a wider variety of music is being listened to, etc. Indie is definitely a factor and a greater percentage goes to underground music and more variety rather than all the sales going towards a certain few massive albums...
__________________
runbyu1 is offline  
Old 07-08-2009, 08:49 PM   #110
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irishteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 29,624
Local Time: 09:35 AM
There are more albums now selling lower amounts than there were before, this is the new long-tail of music, think of itunes and amazon they can sell any album they want and you can find it easily, while in cd stores in 1980 the number of cds on sales was pretty limited. Also thanks to things like myspace etc, it's a lot easier for bands to get out there and sell a small number of copies then it was in 1980. In fact it might be a better them to be a small band now as you can really get your name out there a lot easier, the problem is once your name is out there the internet works against you. The big selling albums are what is hit most by the decline, albums selling 100,000 are the ones that are hit a lot less
__________________
Irishteen is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 12:50 AM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,446
Local Time: 08:35 AM
How about the fact that the overall quality of music produced by 95 percent of artists out there right now is as bad as its ever been and getting worse year after year.

The 2000s have been the worst decade for music by a country mile.
__________________
Yahweh is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:56 AM   #112
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irishteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 29,624
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahweh View Post
How about the fact that the overall quality of music produced by 95 percent of artists out there right now is as bad as its ever been and getting worse year after year.

The 2000s have been the worst decade for music by a country mile.
But this is a subjective opinion, it's not a fact that this is the worst decade, many people probably think it's the best
__________________
Irishteen is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:51 AM   #113
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 37
Local Time: 05:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoilbheannacht View Post
Thats just NOT true, look at the following:

Top 10 selling albums of 2000 in the United States

1. No Strings Attached / 'N Sync ~ 9,936,104
2. The Marshall Mathers LP / Eminem ~ 7,921,107
3. Oops!... I Did It Again / Britney Spears ~ 7,893,544
4. Human Clay / Creed ~ 6,587,834
5. Supernatural / Santana ~ 5,857,824
6. Beatles 1 / The Beatles ~ 5,068,300
7. Country Grammar / Nelly ~ 5,067,529
8. Black & Blue / Backstreet Boys ~ 4,289,865
9. 2001 / Dr Dre ~ 3,992,311
10. The Writing's on the Wall / Destiny's Child ~ 3,802,165


Top 10 selling albums of 2008 in the United States

1. Tha Carter III / Lil Wayne ~ 2,874,420
2. Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends / Coldplay ~ 2,143,928
3. Fearless / Taylor Swift ~ 2,112,179
4. Rock N Roll Jesus / Kid Rock ~ 2,017,905
5. Black Ice / AC/DC ~ 1,915,172
6. Taylor Swift / Taylor Swift ~ 1,597,316
7. Death Magnetic / Metallica ~ 1,565,078
8. Paper Trail / T.I. ~ 1,522,103
9. Sleep Through The Static / Jack Johnson ~ 1,492,466
10. I Am... Sasha Fierce / Beyoncé ~ 1,458,853


As you can see, there has been over a 70% sales decline in the top selling albums from 2000 to 2008. You don't have to go all the way back to another decade to see how heavily top selling albums have been impacted in the past 8 years. The top of the market is more heavily impacted by FILE SHARING, OTHER WAYS OF OBTAINING MUSIC FREE OVER THE INTERNET, CD BURNING, ETC..

Top selling albums from the early 1980s WOULD NOT be able to sell what they did back then in 2009! The more widely available any product becomes, the easier it becomes to obtain that product for FREE!

This decade at the start, had the largest number of multi-platinum albums ever seen in the history of the music industry! The spread of the internet, CD Burning, and other ways of obtaining music for free has in just 8 years brought the market for top selling albums back to where it was in the 1960s.

500,000+ selling albums per year in the 1960s in the USA

1960: 16
1961: 15
1962: 37
1963: 27
1964: 28
1965: 36
1966: 58
1967: 61
1968: 75
1969: 94

500,000+ selling albums in 2009

18 But, were only half way through the year, so lets take a look at how many have sold 250,000+. That number is 48! Thats actually only half of the 1969 total, and more in line with 1965 and 1966.


The key factor that your not understanding is the impact of the internet, File Sharing and CD burning on the MARKET TODAY. Those things did not exist back in 1983. The overwhelming majority of people had to actually BUY their music in 1983 where as most people today obtain it for FREE.

You can have unusual exceptions to the market(big selling albums), when the vast majority of people still have to BUY the product. Today, most people don't buy music because they can obtain it for FREE.

Even when looking at your figures of the overall market, notice that 2008 at 500 million is smaller than 1977 at 510 million and only 30% larger than the market in 1973.

Its expected that the 2009 total sales will be 15% to 20% below those of 2008. That means just 400 million to 425 million for 2009. 2010 will likely see just as steep a drop as well, which will put it below the 1973 figure for the overall market.

Ok, what you say doesn't exclude my point. You are stating that the very biggest sellers are afected even more when compared to what the best sellers were doing a few years ago. While, I was trying to find the main reasons why that happens. Where you brought the infromation, I just tried to find the explanation. You talk about illegal downloadings and all and the wider amount of albums released, but I think that there are other factors concerned, which are the ones I mentioned above. When no new act is able to sell in big numbers in such context like this one, the #1 will oviously be achieved by a stablished group like U2 this year, who are still able to get good sales all over the world as oppsoed to others who get big sales on a few countries but are virtually unknown in many other places.
__________________
fairy is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 01:50 PM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,446
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Let me put it this way:

Even based on "market" which is debatable till the cows come home of the available world market U2 should be very well known to about 98 percent of it so that gives them a distinct advantage over somebody that just released a new album or even a well known artist in their own country.

You cant legitimately compare U2s sales to the majority of artists because most artists music/name is not well known on a global scale. This is why U2s sales total is extemely disappointing because outside of Eminem they are the only people out there that have released an album this year that legitimatly the majority of people know about.

U2 outsell the majority of artists based on world wide appeal alone.

So breaking down "market" even further bands like U2 have a very distict advantage.

If you want to get realistic numbers U2's total number of CDs should be broken down into a percentage of sales in the country itself for the year. That would give a much better representation of how they are doing.

All in all I feel that 3 million in world wide sales for U2 is a disappointment and I wont change my mind regarding this.
__________________
Yahweh is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 03:11 PM   #115
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishteen View Post
There are more albums now selling lower amounts than there were before, this is the new long-tail of music, think of itunes and amazon they can sell any album they want and you can find it easily, while in cd stores in 1980 the number of cds on sales was pretty limited.
Actually I don't see any evidence of that. There are far less albums passing the 100,000 mark today than there were 8 years ago.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 03:20 PM   #116
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairy View Post
When no new act is able to sell in big numbers in such context like this one, the #1 will oviously be achieved by a stablished group like U2 this year, who are still able to get good sales all over the world as oppsoed to others who get big sales on a few countries but are virtually unknown in many other places.
Well then that would mean that all the top albums are by established artist as opposed to new ones. When you look at the top albums list, thats just not the case. Amy Winehouse and Lady Gaga are NOT established artist.

Again, the whole market is impacted, but the more a product sells, the easier it is for people to obtain it for free because of technology that did not exist or was not common 10 or 15 years ago. That is why ALL albums, by established artist or not established artist, that are in the top 20 in the USA or worldwide in sales, have all been equally impacted.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 03:44 PM   #117
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahweh View Post
Let me put it this way:

Even based on "market" which is debatable till the cows come home of the available world market U2 should be very well known to about 98 percent of it so that gives them a distinct advantage over somebody that just released a new album or even a well known artist in their own country.
Well guess what, U2 are not the only veteran artist out there. Ever hear of Green Day and Eminem? How about R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Def Leppard, Duran Duran, The Cure, ZZ Top, Madonna, Depeche Mode, Foo Fighters, Back Street Boys, THE ROLLING STONES, and hundreds of other artist?

The fact is, NLOTH is doing better around the world than ALL of the recent releases by these other veteran artist.


Quote:
You cant legitimately compare U2s sales to the majority of artists because most artists music/name is not well known on a global scale.
Guess what, it does not work that way. New and old artist get compared every year. You could argue that there advantages to being new as well. The fact is, you have to work to sell like its your first album every time, new or old. Otherwise, POP would have been the #1 album of 1997 instead of the #45 album of the year.

With your logic, the Rolling Stones should be the biggest seller of new studio albums this decade.

Quote:
This is why U2s sales total is extemely disappointing because outside of Eminem they are the only people out there that have released an album this year that legitimatly the majority of people know about.
Ever hear of a band called Green Day formed in 1990? What about Bruce Springsteen?

Quote:
U2 outsell the majority of artists based on world wide appeal alone.
Well then why did POP NOT finish as the best selling album of the year in 1997? Why did it only finish at #45 for the year in the United States? Why did the Rolling Stone album Bridges To Babylon sell even less than POP in 1997?

Quote:
If you want to get realistic numbers U2's total number of CDs should be broken down into a percentage of sales in the country itself for the year. That would give a much better representation of how they are doing.
The same standard every year is used to determine what the most popular releases are and that is who sells the most copies of that product in a given year. The year end list for 2009's top sellers will show the reality of what is popular and what is not, and no amount of jumping through hoops or over rainbows to explain away the chart and sales success of any artist this year is going to change that.

Quote:
All in all I feel that 3 million in world wide sales for U2 is a disappointment and I wont change my mind regarding this.
So how many copies would No Line On The Horizon have to sell in 2009 for you NOT to consider it a disapointment?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 04:22 PM   #118
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 37
Local Time: 05:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoilbheannacht View Post
Well then that would mean that all the top albums are by established artist as opposed to new ones. When you look at the top albums list, thats just not the case. Amy Winehouse and Lady Gaga are NOT established artist.

Again, the whole market is impacted, but the more a product sells, the easier it is for people to obtain it for free because of technology that did not exist or was not common 10 or 15 years ago. That is why ALL albums, by established artist or not established artist, that are in the top 20 in the USA or worldwide in sales, have all been equally impacted.
My point is that some of the new acts that have the top selling albums this year, aren't being big. No new act is having truly big sales, even in this soft market. Most markets were also very soft back in the 80's, yet many acts were selling in big amounts (much bigger than now). So with no new acts having sales right now, I see it as something natural that U2 are at the top because they have good sales, altough not extraordinary, in most territories as opposed to some recent acts whose sales may be "big" in certain regions but they are somehow unkown in many others (which means that those are markets yet to be conquered). Just look at U2's sales on individual markets (like Germany, Uk, Usa or Australia) and you will notice that none of them are truly smash, yet they are still having the #1 album of the year.

If U2's recent album ends being the #1 selling album of this year, I don't think it will deserve to be put on the same scale as "Thriller", "Saturday Night Fever" or "Bodyguard", all of which were the top sellers of their respective years. It is just that nobody can sell that much even in our current market. One of the reasons is the the fact that many people often get music for free, illegally if you want, but in my opinion, other factors should be brought up to this debate like the lack of identity and truly big acts this decade, the fact that there are regional big sellers but not global sellers and so on. This is my opinion, of course, so if you don't share it, that is fine; but stop telling me I'm wrong. I'm just bringing some further reasons to think on.
__________________
fairy is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 05:53 PM   #119
New Yorker
 
bram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,498
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Fairy, are you suggesting that music sales are down because music is...less popular?

Music sales are bad because people aren't buying anyone's music, not because they like music less. Anyone with basic internet skills and 2 minutes of free time can download any album they want for free. This is what's affecting music sales, end of story. The recession makes things a little worse, but sales weren't going to go up this year regardless. God could release an album this year and he'd still sell half as well as N'Sync in 2000. Why look for missing pieces when you have the whole story?

If someone wanted to do a fairly simple stats project, you could figure out the exact formula to convert 2009 sales to 2000 sales (or to any other year). But even if (and this is a HUGE "if") there are less big artists and bands today, the obvious explanation for this would be because of the declining market, not the other way around. But I see no convincing evidence of this anyway. U2's tour is already set to break some East Coast attendance records--even during a recession.
__________________
bram is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 06:17 PM   #120
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairy View Post
My point is that some of the new acts that have the top selling albums this year, aren't being big. No new act is having truly big sales, even in this soft market. Most markets were also very soft back in the 80's, yet many acts were selling in big amounts (much bigger than now).think on.
In this market environment, what they are selling is BIG. Its nearly impossible to escape market conditions, it impacts sales at all levels. As I just pointed out above, the market for albums selling 500,000 or more copies is back to where it was in 1967. 2009 is NOT the early 1980s. Nearly everyone in the early 1980s had to BUY the music they wanted. In 2009, most people can obtain that music for FREE.

No artist, NEW or OLD can sell the number of albums they did just 4 years ago, or 8 years ago. Its simply not possible to sell that much of a single album anymore because of new technology that allows vast numbers of consumers to obtain music for free. That did not exist in the early 1980s.

Quote:
So with no new acts having sales right now, I see it as something natural that U2 are at the top because they have good sales, altough not extraordinary, in most territories as opposed to some recent acts whose sales may be "big" in certain regions but they are somehow unkown in many others (which means that those are markets yet to be conquered).
Define "good sales"?

The decline in the music industry has impacted ALL artist. U2 are selling much less than they were 4 years ago, or 8 years ago. Their back catalog sales less these days. ALL THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND, and HOW TO DISMANTLE AN ATOMIC BOMB were huge selling albums back in the 00s relative to the competition. So were Joshua Tree, Rattle And Hum and Achtung Baby. There has not been any change in this trend with No Line On The Horizon. Everyone is selling much less than they used to. It doesn't matter what type of an artist you are, or how long you have been around. Lady GaGa in 2009 is the equal of Britney Spears in 1999.

If it benefits to be a veteran artist in this environment, then you would see the Rolling Stones make a huge move up the charts, yet their albums still only do what they have usually done since 1985.


Quote:
Just look at U2's sales on individual markets (like Germany, Uk, Usa or Australia) and you will notice that none of them are truly smash, yet they are still having the #1 album of the year.
In the United Kingdom, NLOTH is the 8th biggest seller of the year. Thats a smash in anyones book. In the United States, NLOTH is the 6th biggest seller of 2009. Compare that to Achtung which finished 1992 in the USA at #5, or HTDAAB which finished 2005 in the USA at #8. Joshua Tree finished at #6 for the year in the USA in 1987! Again, when you look at these individual markets, and campare how U2's most successful albums did in these individual markets, NLOTH success level is no different!

Quote:
If U2's recent album ends being the #1 selling album of this year, I don't think it will deserve to be put on the same scale as "Thriller", "Saturday Night Fever" or "Bodyguard", all of which were the top sellers of their respective years.
Well, you could say the same thing about the Joshua Tree in 1987! Does not change the fact that the Joshua Tree was the most successful album of 1987.

The only accurate way you could compare #1 albums in different years, is the ratio of how many copies the album in sold in that year to the rest of the albums in the top 10. That ratio among the top selling acts will show you how dominate or not the #1 album of that particular year was. No matter what though, #1 is #1, whether you outsold the rest of the top 10 combined, or only beat out #2 by a few thousand copies.

Quote:
One of the reasons is the the fact that many people often get music for free, illegally if you want, but in my opinion, other factors should be brought up to this debate like the lack of identity and truly big acts this decade, the fact that there are regional big sellers but not global sellers and so on.
This decade has, especially the first half, has lots of huge artist. Some are global sellers, some are regional sellers. It was the same way in the 1980s and 1990s. Site any example you want for the 00s and I'll show you a parallel example from the 1990s or 1980s when it comes to album sales success for various artist.
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Week 70 edge3 Peeling off those Dollar Bills 35 04-01-2006 06:23 AM
Week 39 edge3 Peeling off those Dollar Bills 76 08-27-2005 05:30 PM
Week 95 (and more) Popmartijn Peeling off those Dollar Bills 5 09-06-2002 07:01 PM
Week 89 Popmartijn Peeling off those Dollar Bills 6 07-20-2002 03:09 PM
Week 45- 47 Chart News doctorwho Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 13 09-29-2001 08:15 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com