Week 17

[Native_Son]

Everyone is selling less.

Even the hottest band of the 00s Coldplay - unless I'm missing something - sold less with Viva la vida than X and Y. And they had a hit both times.

coldplay hotest band of the 2000's?

rush of blood to the head vs ATYCLB
X&Y vs HTDAAB
VLV vs NLOTH

the only round there which coldplay have won is the latest.
i think in terms of single sales airplay, U2 would be the overall winner.
not forgetting grammy awards,
this point may be unfair due to U2's more extensive song catalogue, reputation, but if we compare the total u2 attendances of the last 9 years with coldplay, U2 would have sold much much much more tickets.

overall I'd say theyre evenly matched, however coldplay may well have overtaken this passed year or 2

 

[Native_Son]

Zooropa cant be called a failure as it only took 6-7 weeks to make, 7 millions copies from just 6-7 weeks work! no doubt the best rate of U2s career when we consider the 3 years that POP, ATYCLB, HTDAAB, NLOTH took.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Week 25 YEAR TO DATE SALES IN THE UNITED STATES

Rank - Sales - TITLE - Artist
01 - 1,282,142 - FEARLESS - Taylor Swift
02 - 1,142,209 - HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE - Soundtrack
03 - 1,121,546 - RELAPSE - Eminem
04 - 953,854 - TWILIGHT - Soundtrack
05 - 938,322 - THE FAME - Lady GaGa
06 - 934,471 - NO LINE ON THE HORIZON - U2
07 - 890,268 - DARK HORSE - Nickelback
08 - 806,389 - UNSTOPPABLE - Rascal Flatts
09 - 794,530 - I AM…SASHA FIERCE - Beyonce
10 - 641,578 - BIG WHISKEY AND THE GROOGRUX KING - Dave Matthews
11 - 621,371 - ALL I EVER WANTED - Kelly Clarkson
12 - 607,886 - INTUITION - Jamie Foxx
13 - 596,161 - NOW 30 - Various
14 - 589,403 - 21ST CENTURY BREAKDOWN - Green Day
15 - 586,271 - THE FRAY - The Fray
16 - 546,554 - WORKING ON A DREAM - Bruce Springsteen
17 - 536,065 - 808S AND HEARTBREAK - Kanye West
18 - 526,432 - ONLY BY THE NIGHT - Kings Of Leon
19 - 462,586 - CIRCUS - Britney Spears
20 - 457,909 - FUNHOUSE - Pink





WEEK 25 UK ALBUMS SALES YTD

Rank - Sales - TITLE - Artist
01 - 685,706 - ONLY BY THE NIGHT - Kings Of Leon
02 - 543,971 - THE FAME - Lady GaGa
03 - 482,312 - IT'S NOT ME IT'S YOU - Lily Allen
04 - 390,366 - INVADERS MUST DIE - Prodigy
05 - 370,334 - I AM…SASHA FIERCE - Beyonce
06 - 341,033 - THE CIRCUS - Take That
07 - 312,604 - NO LINE ON THE HORIZON - U2
08 - 311,490 - SONGS FOR YOU TRUTHS FOR ME - James Morrison
09 - 289,340 - RELAPSE - Eminem
10 - 287,568 - ROCKFERRY - Duffy
11 - 277,763 - THE SELDOM SEEN KID - Elbow
12 - 274,387 - FUNHOUSE - Pink
13 - 273,825 - DAY AND AGE - Killers
14 - 246,135 - FLEET FOXES - Fleet Foxes
15 - 239,627 - THE SCRIPT - The Script
16 - 234,246 - THE COLLECTION - Annie Lennox
17 - 233,048 - FREEDOM - Akon
18 - 212,289 - 21ST CENTURY BREAKDOWN - Green Day
19 - 200,771 - SONGS FOR MY MOTHER - Ronan Keating
20 - 187,785 - THE ALESHA SHOW - Alesha Dixon

How is having the 6th biggest selling album of the year in the United States and the 7th biggest selling album of the year in the United Kingdom considered "doing poorly" or "no success"?

Maoil-I agree with you on almost everything you have said here and in the UKmix forums. The album is nowhere near a flop, as a couple in the uk forum state because like you write, it is #1 world wide and that cannot be disputed at the moment. However, in the US the album is down to number 6 and in the UK its now #8 and while the #6 & #8 spots are very respectable and if these were to be the the year end positions, then it is a success in both countries. But, you know as much as I do that if the current trend continues (not to say it will but rather IF) than this album wont be top 10/15 in the US or UK, which you would have to say is disapointing (not a flop but disapointing). If you say that ending the year at number 11 in the US is a success, then fine, thats your opinion but I feel that anything out of the top 10 would be disappointing and I know you have just as high standard for U2 as I do. So, when I say the sales are disapointing in both the UK and US I should clarify that I am basing that on the current trend and that if it continues, they will not be in the top 10/15 of either country. If the tour, Crazy Tonight, Breathe or the Blackberry promotion push the trend towards stability, then these albums will be a success. Also, given the current climate, the 3million it has sold pretty much says that this album will be top 5-10 worldwide and thus yes, a success.

 

[u2search]

I did some digging in the World Top 50 Albums charts. These seem to be actual sales figures from countries around the world, even more than MediaTraffic. Not complete as far as I know.

Placed in order of release date. As per 28 June 2009 (latest available sales data).

Total sales - From 28 Dec 2008 - Since No Line came out - Artist - Album
4699400 - 2450000 - 1626300 - Kings Of Leon - Only By The Night
3358300 - 3293000 - 2685800 - Lady Gaga - The Fame
3318700 - 3318700 - 3318700 - U2 - No Line on the Horizon
2293300 - 2293300 - 2293300 - Eminem - Relapse

Looking at the weekly sales numbers, Eminem is not going to overtake U2 but Lady Gaga will in a few weeks. She's outselling U2 by ~80.000 per week. Her actual total sales numbers are a little bit higher than stated above because she fell off the charts in her 3th week and reentered with a smash in week 2 of 2009. I could only count sales for weeks on the charts.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

The IFPI which certifies album sales in Europe like the RIAA certifies album sales in the United States has only certified ONE album so far this year for sales of 1 million copies or more, with all those sales coming in 2009. That album is of course No Line On The Horizon. Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga have not reached the 1 million level in Europe according to IFPI.

 

[fedeu2]

Maoil-I agree with you on almost everything you have said here and in the UKmix forums. The album is nowhere near a flop, as a couple in the uk forum state because like you write, it is #1 world wide and that cannot be disputed at the moment. However, in the US the album is down to number 6 and in the UK its now #8 and while the #6 & #8 spots are very respectable and if these were to be the the year end positions, then it is a success in both countries. But, you know as much as I do that if the current trend continues (not to say it will but rather IF) than this album wont be top 10/15 in the US or UK, which you would have to say is disapointing (not a flop but disapointing). If you say that ending the year at number 11 in the US is a success, then fine, thats your opinion but I feel that anything out of the top 10 would be disappointing and I know you have just as high standard for U2 as I do. So, when I say the sales are disapointing in both the UK and US I should clarify that I am basing that on the current trend and that if it continues, they will not be in the top 10/15 of either country. If the tour, Crazy Tonight, Breathe or the Blackberry promotion push the trend towards stability, then these albums will be a success. Also, given the current climate, the 3million it has sold pretty much says that this album will be top 5-10 worldwide and thus yes, a success.

This is a very interesting situation. When was the last time a U2 album qualified in the Top 10 of biggest selling albums of the year worldwide and failed to do so in the UK and the US? I guess it has never happenned so NLOTH would be the first.

 

[Yahweh]

OK you win, the blind leading the blind, everything is rosie like a poket full of posies in U2's world.

 

[fairy]

While Zooropa did not sell as much as Achtung in its first year, it did sell 6.5 million copies compared to Achtung's 10 million for the first year of sales. Thats a hit in most people's books unless your minimum standard for having a hit record is always the sales of Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby.



There were 51.5 months in between the release of HTDAAB and the release of NLOTH, the longest time between new studio album releases in U2's career.



YOU CAN'T COMPARE ALBUM SALES FROM 2000 or 2004 to ALBUM SALES IN 2009! Its a totally different market environment. Top selling albums in 2009 are only selling 50% of what top selling albums were selling in 2004. The decline since 2000 is nearly 75% !

For NLOTH to sell 4.5 million copies in 2009 would be EQUAL or MORE than HTDAAB sales of 9 million in 2004-2005, because of the changed market conditions.

There is no one out there that can sell 12 million copies or 9 million copies of an album in a single year. The top selling album this year is unlikely to sell more than 4.5 million copies.



If your competition in the business world cannot sell such numbers, then the fact that you can't either is NOT a failure!



NO it wouldn't have! It would still have been one of the 10 biggest selling albums of 2008. Coldplay's next album could be more popular than Viva La Vida, but it is NOT going to be able to sell the same number of albums as Viva La Vida did. Most people can and do obtain their music for FREE these days!




What do you think is the most successful album of 2009?

If you adjust those sales for the size of current markets, I don't see any reasn why you can't compare an album released in 1997 or 2000 to another one released this year.

When you take into account the fact that "Thriller" sold 38 million copies worldwide in early 80's, with lower markerts than now, it clearly shows you that it doesn't mean that much what other albums are doing or the size ofd the markets.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

OK you win, the blind leading the blind, everything is rosie like a poket full of posies in U2's world.

More claims and assertions with no facts to back them up.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

If you adjust those sales for the size of current markets, I don't see any reasn why you can't compare an album released in 1997 or 2000 to another one released this year.

If you adjust sales for the size of the current market of TOP SELLING ALBUMS, then yes a comparison could be made. But your talking about a 75% drop in top selling albums from 2000 to 2008, and a 50% drop from 2004 to 2008.

When you take into account the fact that "Thriller" sold 38 million copies worldwide in early 80's, with lower markerts than now, it clearly shows you that it doesn't mean that much what other albums are doing or the size ofd the markets.

In 2008, only 25 albums sold 1 million or more copies in the United States. In 1983, 49 albums sold 1 million or more copies in the United States.

So, the markets back in the early 1980s for top selling albums were much higher than they are today. The 2008 market for top selling albums is best compared to the 1969 or 1970 market.

In any event, Thriller is an amazing exception all the more incredible when you realize the size of the music market in the early 1980s.

If you still don't think that the size of the market matters, in the years to come, just look at NLOTH sales compared to the top selling albums of 2010, 2011, 2012..., etc.

 

[doctorwho]

OK you win, the blind leading the blind, everything is rosie like a poket full of posies in U2's world.

I wouldn't go that far either.

Right before this album was released, I had a feeling that seeing 2x Platinum would be a challenge.

When "Pop" failed to reach that mark, I recall writing on various forums that ATYCLB *must* at least reach 2x Platinum otherwise we might be seeing the end of U2's reign. Mind you, sales of 1.5M copies in the U.S. - even in 1997 - is still huge. Plenty of artists wish they could achieve that, and U2 did it with one of their weakest selling releases! Furthermore, plenty of other big artists struggled to even reach 500K in sales (like REM, Madonna, Springsteen, etc.). Still, for U2, 1.5M was low. U2 needed a big hit and in 2000, that was still possible.

In 2004, I wanted U2 to have another hit to prove it just wasn't a "mini-return". That is, with "Zooropa" and "Pop" seeing sales lower than their predecessors, I wanted U2 to prove they could still sell big with more than one album. HTDAAB delivered.

So U2 were back. They had two monster selling albums, two enormous tours, tons of awards, various hits, etc.

Then came 2009.

The economy is horrid. Sales for everything are down. Sales of music are especially down. iTunes helped legalize the mp3, but it also promoted the single and "throw-away" music over the album. While U2 have had their share of hits, they are definitely an album band. Some artists can pull in millions of downloads for a single, but watch their album struggle. U2 have been the reverse - their albums will reach multi-platinum status, but their singles sometimes fight to make it to the Top 40. With iTunes promoting the single over the album, and with album sales down and the economy pushing them even further down, my expectations changed. I no longer hoped for 2x Platinum. I saw how sales were going. I was hoping that when all is "said and done", NLOTH saw sales similar to that for "Pop".

At present, NLOTH is just a bit shy of the 1M mark in the U.S. This is without any true hit song and without the tour. That alone is impressive. If "Crazy" catches on - either due to the Blackberry commercials (still haven't seen that - but if it's as ubiquitous as the "Vertigo" commercials were, this bodes well) or because the song is exactly what radio wants to play, that will give the album its first hit. Add in the tour and suddenly NLOTH could very well reach "Pop-like" sales.

In summary, we have to lower our sales expectations for 2009. Times have changed too much. If U2 really wants to have a big hit on their next album, they need to pick the catchiest, most radio-friendly song they can, then promote it like crap (commercials, sadly, are almost necessary in today's market) and ensure it's an iTunes hit. This will in turn help the album. But for now, I still think NLOTH has a chance of doing rather well. It's not there yet, but it has the chance of becoming a bigger hit. All is not perfect - U2 have made mistakes (releasing GOYB first was one of them), but music is fickle and one never really knows what will catch on. After all, who could have predicted a religious song about soul-searching could be a classic?

 

[fairy]

If you adjust sales for the size of the current market of TOP SELLING ALBUMS, then yes a comparison could be made. But your talking about a 75% drop in top selling albums from 2000 to 2008, and a 50% drop from 2004 to 2008.



In 2008, only 25 albums sold 1 million or more copies in the United States. In 1983, 49 albums sold 1 million or more copies in the United States.

So, the markets back in the early 1980s for top selling albums were much higher than they are today. The 2008 market for top selling albums is best compared to the 1969 or 1970 market.

In any event, Thriller is an amazing exception all the more incredible when you realize the size of the music market in the early 1980s.

If you still don't think that the size of the market matters, in the years to come, just look at NLOTH sales compared to the top selling albums of 2010, 2011, 2012..., etc.

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. 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.

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)?.

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.

 

[Irishteen]

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.

I think you've hit it on the head there, there are no truly global bands anymore. Well U2 are big everywhere but there are very few new bands who are huge all over the world

Kings of Leon are huge in the UK and Australia less so elsewhere
Nickelback are huge in the States and Canada less so elsewhere (thank god)

Amy Winehouse was the last person to successfully be big all over the world (11 million album sales) and that came from being constantly in the press for 2 years

 

[Native_Son]

I think GOYB was the right choice, although maybe too similar to vertigo. had it been thre other way around with GOYB being released on the back of an iTunes video in 2004 i think it could have been nearly as big as vertigo.

 

[Irishteen]

I think GOYB was the right choice, although maybe too similar to vertigo. had it been thre other way around with GOYB being released on the back of an iTunes video in 2004 i think it could have been nearly as big as vertigo.

I really don't think so the song got such a bad reception from a lot of people, I think it never would of worked as a lead single

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[fairy]

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.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

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.

 

[runbyu1]

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...

 

[Irishteen]

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

 

[Yahweh]

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.

 

[Irishteen]

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

 

[fairy]

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.

 

[Yahweh]

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.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

 

[fairy]

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.

 

[bram]

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.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.