If a decreasing sales market is the sole reason why NLOTH hasn't sold that much more than 3 million copies worldwide in four months...then why has Michael Jackson's whole catalogue sold roughly 3 million copies worldwide in two weeks...including titles that are on their way to surpassing NLOTH's sales, if you count them as if they had never existed before MJ died?
Week 17
- Thread starter Irishteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
cjboog
Refugee
cjboog
Refugee
Apparently not.
If Bono died tomorrow I'm sure U2 albums would fly off the shelves like crazy too...that has nothing to do with the overall state of the music market. People just aren't buying that many albums these days...Michael Jackson is a clear exception...because he died.
Look at other artists who have had huge releases in recent history. Eminem. Green Day. Kelly Clarkson. Their latest albums are all selling sluggishly -- so this phenomenon is not just limited to U2. ALL album sales are down (except for artists who have died recently and have gotten 24 hr. news coverage for 2 weeks).
fedeu2
War Child
Clear as water.
thelaj
Refugee
I thought it was clear that one-time events should not be used as a barometer for larger trends.
OP
OP
Irishteen
Blue Crack Addict
I'm not comparing to 8 years ago, I'm trying to say that there are probably a lot more smaller sellers now then when the market was last at this size, as a way of explaining why there are fewer big sellers now than the 80s when the market was the same size
You're still not getting it.
The very FACT that an artist (regardless of who it is) sold MILLIONS of albums in a currently decreasing sales market (and in an extremely short period of time), clearly PROVES that people will still BUY music by the MOTHERLOAD...if they like what they hear.
Pure & simple.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
1983 had 111 albums that sold 500,000 copies or more. In 2009 so far, there are only 18 albums that have sold that many copies. By the end of the year there might be nearly 50 that have sold that much assuming that a substantial number of the 48 albums that have currently hit the 250,000 mark plus some new albums are able to reach that level.
Consider the fact that after 6 months, there are only 100 albums that have sold 150,000 copies or more. I don't have figures for 100,000+ selling albums in 1983, but indications are is that they outnumber the number of albums selling 100,000 plus in 2009.
If your talking about albums that sell less than 100,000 copies, then your basically talking about albums and artist that are almost below the radar completely.
In any event, the chief reason why the decline in sales is steeper for big sellers is the simple fact that something that sells well becomes easier to obtain by the general public for free. Friends and people you work with are more likely to have the album and can share it for free before you even think about purchasing it.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
What you don't understand is that Michael Jackson would have sold 3 to 4 times as many albums the past two weeks if this had occured in 2000.
People are not any less interested in music today than they were in 2000. But today, most people can obtain the music they want for free.
I think that you are missing a number of issues here.
All I did was to merely stating that apart from the fact most people can get music for free right now, there are probably other factors concerned like the lack of truly global sellers or cerating acts that truly define this decade. So for such a big band as U2, it is relatively easy to achieve the #1 selling of the year. You talk about the Rolling Stones, while they haven't released a single album since 2005, so I don't know what they would do this year (and we won't know because I doubt they release anything). You mentioned a number of old acts that did release new stuff this year or last year, but most of then can't compete with U2 in terms of success, like Duran Durand or The Cure (and several others you talked about). You can look at this this way, while U2 are having the best selling title of the year, they aren't the best selling album in any individual market; this somehow reinforces my point about them not having extraordionary sales in any given market, but good sales virtually everywhere (with some better results than others, of course). On the other hand, either last year or this one, we have seen some big sellers in certain regions but not that many albums selling accordingly everywhere or at least in many markets.
Of course, there were also some regional sellers in early 80's, but the number of albums able to reach big sales simultaneously in many places was rather significant back then. That is how, with similar markets conditions, there were acts like Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, Barbara Streisand, Julio Iglesias, Queen, Stevie Wonder, Lionet Richie, Billy Joel and others. We don't have similar acts right now, those can sell significant numbers in many places at the same time, even if our current market is similar or even slightly bigger than it was in some years during the 80's (specially 1981, 1982).
And no, I didn't dispute the fact that Joshua Three was the best selling album of 1987, even if that isn't confirmed. Also, back in the 80's, I guess you could record a tape from another one, so I guess there was also a certain level of piracy back then. There are no real numbers in this regard nor scientific polls to know it for a fact. In any case, I didn't dismiss the fact that you can get music for free right now as an important factor, I was just trying to bring a few further issues that can affect our current situation.
I think that you are just assuming that anyone who ends high on a Year end chart will necessarily have to be considered a big success in the same scale as in previous years. In my opinion, the overall market is more important than what the best selling album can do. Also another way to measure a success is to bring the amount grossed in terms of money, when compared to haw much was invested by a record company (promotion, payola lol). Sadly, we don't have such numbers. But you keep repeating "the only way to compare..." and so on, as if you owned a formula or so. I didn't see anything to back up your point of view. You appear to have just your own opinion, as much as I do. You should only post what you think but without pretending that other people have to share your opinion.
fedeu2
War Child
While I agree with some of the points you made, the fact that there are not enough acts this decade who are able to sell significant numbers is , if anything, pinpointing the incredible success of U2 over the years. As you said, other U2 contemporaries (those who have not disbanded) are not selling well these days. Thus, U2 is the exception here and this should be consider a merit rather than taken for granted. The fact that U2 are still relevant 30+ years after their formation is the reason I keep repeating that this band is an UNPRECEDENTED case in the history of modern music.
fedeu2
War Child
Don´t fool yourself, the reason people have bought Jacko´s albums is because of the hype, not a result of (not even minimal) an analysis of his music.
Even if that is true (which is debatable), that's not the point. The point is that THEY DID BUY MILLIONS OF COPIES, regardless of why.
What I was doing was providing PROOF that people still BUY music by the MOTHERLOAD. And hence, the reason why NLOTH has only sold 3 million copies worldwide so far isn't solely because of the currently decreasing sales market or obtaining it free through downloading...but has more to do with the fact that many U2 fans just don't like NLOTH.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Are you just joshing us? Because you really can't be this oblivious to the truth. Yes, people have bought tons of Jackson's albums the past two weeks. That's because he died. These albums would NOT have been bought had the man been alive and well.
Jackson's catalog did sell well every year - about 500K total in the U.S. That's a good sum. U2 usually sees pretty strong catalog sales too. The 80's "Best Of" and now "U2-18" sell well, as does JT. I'd estimate about 300K a year for those albums in the U.S. So those albums sell regardless. But they don't sell in the hundreds of thousands in mere weeks unless something extraordinary has occurred. Sadly, the extraordinary event was Jackson's passing.
U2's latest is selling well for a NORMAL album in a NORMAL situation. Look at overall worldwide sales. Through the middle of July, NLOTH is the only album released this year that's cross 3M in total sales. Read that again: only one album released in 2009 has sold 3M copies worldwide thus far this year. And this includes releases by Eminem, Green Day, Springsteen, Kelly Clarkson, etc. How do you account for all of these other artists not having big sales? By your reasoning, fans of those artists must not like those albums either - and I highly doubt that fans of all these artists suddenly went "blech" to all of these releases simultaneously.
In 2000, artists could sell 8-10M copies in a year just in the U.S.! File sharing was around then, but many didn't have broadband internet connections and file sharing was still a novel concept. And mp3's? Few knew what this meant back then. Hence, people bought CD's.
In 2009, almost everyone has an mp3 player of some sort, whether it's an iPod/iPhone, Blackberry, Zune or portable player, or even on their computer. Broadband connections are the norm, not the exception. Downloading a CD takes minutes, not days. While the older file sharing sites are gone, FTP, torrents and YouTube make obtaining music easy. Why buy a CD when accessing it from your computer - even if it's illegal - is so ridiculously easy?
If one wants to be legal, that's also just as simple. iTunes (and other similar sites, like Amazon and Walmart) make getting a song easier than ever. Like a song? Download it for 99 cents (in the U.S.). Don't like it in a month? No big deal, it only cost a buck. Gone are the days when a person had to buy an entire album just to get one song. That was a huge complaint in the late 90's as singles were tougher to obtain. People were forced to buy the entire CD, at ridiculous prices ($18-20 at some stores!), just for one song. Now, a person can get just that song for 99 cents (or $1.49). With people cherry-picking the songs they want, this also leads to a drop in album sales.
If you don't believe this, explain how artists could have huge hits, but soft album sales? Clarkson, Eminem and Flo Rida have all enjoyed big hit songs, mostly thanks to iTunes downloads. But their album sales don't reflect the same level of success. Years ago, a big hit song meant a big hit album. Now, that's not necessarily true. U2 are one of the rare exceptions - they are an album band and their albums still sell. NLOTH has yet to produce a big hit, yet the album is the top selling album worldwide this year.
This isn't to say that NLOTH is some runaway smash hit. The album has yet to reach the 1M mark in the U.S. and is fighting to stay relevant. Kings of Leon haven't had monster hits with their latest, but the hits they've enjoyed have been big enough to keep the album selling well. U2 needs a hit like this from NLOTH. When U2 fans didn't like GOYB, I knew this was a bad choice of a single and I worried about a "Pop" effect - which appears to have occurred. "Magnificent" didn't do much for whatever reason. Not sure if there was that "conspiracy" or not, but it wasn't a big hit. However, U2 now have the Blackberry commercial for "Crazy" and it's coinciding with the tour. Already NLOTH sales have picked up in certain areas. "Crazy" is reminiscent of the songs U2 have released this decade and is arguably the most "pop" song on the album. If the Blackberry commercial takes off and the song gets good airplay, we could see a big boost for NLOTH. This boost could then be further supported by the tour.
Now, going back to Jackson - these sales are due to his sad passing. Yes, people are willing to buy CD's. But this is an exception, not the norm, in today's world. To say that U2's sales are weak because people don't like NLOTH - and the proof of this is that Jackson can sell - is outright ridiculous. Elvis sold tons when he passed. John Lennon's last album became a megahit when he was killed. Elvis and Lennon already sold well, but their deaths brought them to another level. People wanted something to remember. Further proof of this comes with artists like Janis Joplin, who had her only big hit song - that actually went to #1 - and her best selling album both occurring posthumously. While I adore Joplin, it's clear that her biggest successes were because of her death.
Jackson already enjoyed tremendous success in his life, like Elvis and Lennon. But his death brought back memories of the work he created. People are responding to those memories. When a famous person dies - especially when he/she dies suddenly - we grieve. And we grieve by remembering their work (book, movie, music, etc.). The last "Batman" movie grossed over $500M in the U.S., only the second movie to do reach these numbers. While it is a very good film, how much of that success can be attributed to Heath Ledger's passing? Ledger gave a fantastic performance and people wanted to remember him on top - the same way people want to remember Jackson: by buying his biggest hits.
So yes, people are willing to buy CD's, but as I wrote, if Jackson were alive, we would not be seeing his albums flying off the shelves. This is an exception - rules are not based on exceptions. Jackson's success now can be attributed to the cliche, "death as a career move". His death is helping him sell his music better than he has since the early 90's.
U2's album is selling about as well as can be expected in this market. If NLOTH can produce at least one hit song, that's all U2 will need for the album to rise up the charts again and linger because of the tour. That's all HTDAAB needed (as "Vertigo" pretty much carried that album early on and the tour kept it going).
But even if this hit song occurs, I wouldn't expect more than 2M in sales in the U.S. In fact, I wrote in another thread that I hope NLOTH could get 2M in sales (in the U.S.). I saw the market and knew that the days of 3M in sales (in the U.S.) were gone. If U2 could get 2M in the U.S. and hopefully about 4M in the rest of the world, that would be a success by 2009 standards. To argue against this is not facing reality of the music world right now. Seeing big sales by a deceased artist who died suddenly does not prove that people are buying. It's like stating that U2 sold 3M copies, so why haven't Springsteen or Green Day or Clarkson? All of them are doing about the best they could in today's CD sales world.
The real money these days comes from touring. This is why Jackson was to go on tour. This is why Beyonce and the Jonas Bros. and Hannah Montanna and anyone else is on tour. Years ago, artists made $$ from album sales and often lost money on tours. This has changed. The money comes from touring, not from album sales. The fact that U2 still sold 3M+ copies of NLOTH, and still have potential hit singles and an entire tour yet to come suggests they could be one of the few artists that could sell 5M or more come the year's end. And this is why many here feel that NLOTH is doing just fine. It may not be the biggest album of the year, but it's doing about as good as it can.
I can say this - if, God forbid, something tragic happened to U2 or Bono, NLOTH and JT and the "Best Of" albums would all be selling boatloads. People would buy the recent release as well as the best of the past (just as they are doing for Jackson). I just hope that day doesn't come any time soon.
cjboog
Refugee
Once again, Doctorwho injects a little sanity into the discussion
I think most people here would disagree with the claim that U2 is not selling well because NLOTH is a bad album. Many people on this forum hold NLOTH up right behind JT and AB in terms of quality. Sales are down because people are buying less albums generally for reasons outlined above. Michael Jackson is an exception for obvious reasons.
I also really hope we see Crazy Tonight become a hit. I've been monitoring the Blackberry ad on Youtube for the last couple days and it looks like the number of views went up significantly today. It had been inching up to around 10,000 (at least the most watched version) and all of a sudden is up to 27,000. And Crazy Tonight has gone up from U2's 20th most downloaded song on iTunes on the US to 13th. So hopefully with a little radio airplay they can get this thing going. The timing of the single release, however, just absolutely baffles me
Great post doctorwho. I think you covered everything there, and I'm interested to see if someone makes a serious (i.e. with facts, analysis) attempt at refuting any of those points. I think if you look at touring, that alone makes it obvious that music (and major artist) are not less popular than the days of Billy Joel, et al. To suggest music is less popular or that NLOTH is a sales failure requires either extraordinarily selective reading/analysis or belief in what amounts to a conspiracy theory on the decline of music.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
I've actually addressed all your points, but I'll do it again for you.
The number of global sellers in this decade is not any different than the 1990s, 1980s etc. If anything, there are more global sellers now than there was in the past do to economic development of many third world countries as well as better comunication and the internet which help facilitate globilization.
If anything its harder today for U2 to hit #1 than it was in the 1980s thanks to technology. It was more difficult for NEW artist to break big with their first album in the 1980s in every major global market, than it is today. Thanks to technology and the internet, whats a hit in the USA or UK has a better chance of penetrating other markets throughout Europe, South America and Japan and at a faster rate than the 1980s. Because NEW artist don't have to spend years building a following like U2 did, its much harder now for U2 stay at the top!
As for the Rolling Stones, 2005 is THIS decade, so the comparison can be made provided you make the adjustment in the market over the past 4 years. Look at how HTDAAB sold compared to A Bigger Bang. A Bigger Bang sold 520,000 copies in the USA, while HTDAAB sold 3,200,000 copies in the USA.
Well, they are well known by most of the public, so their sales position should have improved based on your logic, but the fact is that it did not.
As I said before in my last post, this has ALWAYS been the case with U2. Achtung Baby was not the biggest selling album in ANY country in 1992, but its commulative sales around the world made it the 5th biggest selling album of 1992. The same with How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb or All That You Can't Leave Behind. Achtung Baby was the 5th biggest selling album in the USA in 1992, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb was the 8th biggest seller in the USA in 2005, NLOTH is the 6th biggest seller so far this year. Joshua Tree was the 6th biggest seller in the USA in 1987. What your talking about is NOTHING NEW. The biggest global sellers are almost always artist that sell well in a broad range of markets. By the way, making it into the top 10 in albums sales for the year in any country is extraordionary!
There are just as many if not more global sellers today than there were in the past thanks to technology!
It was HARDER in the 1980s to sell well in countries from Portugal, Greece, United Kingdom, United States, Chile, Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, Japan. To have strong sales in all those different markets was much more difficult in the 1980s and often required several years of touring and multiple album releases. Its easier for a NEW artist today to do well in all those markets without having ever stepped foot in them and with their first album release as well.
The overall market in 2009 is actually smaller than any year of the 1980s, and for top selling albums, 2009 is on the level of the late 1960s.
As for artist right now who can sell significant numbers of albums in many places around the world, check out these artist: Amy Winehouse, Lady Gaga, Eminem, Coldplay, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Norah Jones, Linkin Park, Dido, and James Blunt have consistently sold well in nearly every market around the world! So this idea that there are less global sellers and more just regional sellers today is simply FALSE!
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Joshua Tree is just as confirmed at the biggest seller of 1987 as any of the albums you mentioned as being the biggest seller in their respective years.
In the 1980s you could record from tape to tape, but now with the NOTICIBLE LOSS in sound quality. CD burning, File Sharing, and other ways of obtaining music for free allows for the transfer of music without noticable loss of sound quality that you had in the 1980s with tape dubbing. In addition, the internet allows the population to obtain the music they want for FREE without ever leaving their house. In the 1980s, you had to know someone who had bought the album you wanted and then you could only make a recording that had poorer sound quality. Tape Dubbing never threatened the music industry and had virtually no impact on sales in stark contrast to the rapid and sustain decline in the industry thanks to CD burning, File Sharing, and other ways of obtaining music for free while keeping the sound quality.
Its not an assumption its the way the music industry judges success. You can't discredit an artist for selling 3 million copies in a given year if that was more than DOUBLE most other artist could sell in that given year. #1 is STILL #1, just as much as it was in 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998 etc. No one in the music business is claiming otherwise.
Well, the market for big selling albums, 500,000+ is at the same level that it was in the 1960s. But regardless of where the market is at the time, if you achieve the biggest selling album in a given year, that is an extraordinary accomplishment. Every product selling in a given year has to deal with the same economic and market challenges.
That says NOTHING about what is most popular among the public which is what is being discussed here.
I've used multiple factual numbers as well as bringing up multiple artist that currently sell albums all around the world whom you said did not exist these days. These are FACTS, not opinions!
Were talking sales figures here, numbers. An opinion would be whether U2's new album is the Best album of the year or not.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
That is what you would like to believe Moggio.
Moggio also says that U2 will only be able to attract 28,000 people to their concert at Cowbows Stadium in Dallas in October. He predicts that this show will only gross $1.8 million.
Weren't you just talking about about 2009 until a few posts back?. Because you are mentioning a couple of acts who last released an album in 2007 or before. My point is that from late 2008 and so far this year, we haven't seen virtually any global seller. Lady Ga-Ga may reach that level, she is still building her success.
And you skipped the most important part of my previous message:
"And no, I didn't dispute the fact that Joshua Three was the best selling album of 1987, even if that isn't confirmed. Also, back in the 80's, I guess you could record a tape from another one, so I guess there was also a certain level of piracy back then. There are no real numbers in this regard nor scientific polls to know it for a fact. In any case, I didn't dismiss the fact that you can get music for free right now as an important factor, I was just trying to bring a few further issues that can affect our current situation.
I think that you are just assuming that anyone who ends high on a Year end chart will necessarily have to be considered a big success in the same scale as in previous years. In my opinion, the overall market is more important than what the best selling album can do. Also another way to measure a success is to bring the amount grossed in terms of money, when compared to haw much was invested by a record company (promotion, payola lol). Sadly, we don't have such numbers. But you keep repeating "the only way to compare..." and so on, as if you owned a formula or so. I didn't see anything to back up your point of view. You appear to have just your own opinion, as much as I do. You should only post what you think but without pretending that other people have to share your opinion."
Note, how (a) I don't deny what you say, just try to bring further reasons or elements to this (interesting) debate, (b) you are continually repeating your comments as if they were based on an absolute formula, while you haven't provided a source to back it up.
To sum up my point, the overall market is, in my oppinion, more important than the list of biggest sellers. In this context, our current market (on a worldwide scale) is roughly at the same level as in early 80's. This means that even in a "soft" market, some big sales (from 7 million to anything above that) can be reached. Now we have a factor like the fact that you get music for free, but there was probably a certain level of piracy back then, yet it was more common to see several acts selling well in many places (even if, as you said, some markets were difficult to penetrate; the fact is taht some acts I mentioned below, did penetrate them, like Michael Jackson everywhere, or Queen in Latin America, and so on).
Please, this is the third time I say, but stop calling my comments "wrong" or "false". You need a lot of evidence for that, and even more important, see that there are many possible points of view to determine what is really big and what isn't.
----------------------
For Fedeu2,
Well, when you say that we shouldn't talk negative things about U2 and remark their longevity, I guess you are referring to many people in this forum. But I'm certainly not one of them. I haven't said anything negative about U2 in this forum.
Do you have any sales numbers for U2 or any other international band in Uruguay?.
fedeu2
War Child
No, please, I didn´t imply that you were bashing U2 or anything. The only thing I wanted to make clear was that if U2 is still relevant (i.e. selling more albums than most artists) is not due to them being a well established (some would say "aging") band. On the contrary, I feel that their longevity plays against them so in this sense their current success is even more unexpected. If longevity and fame played a defining role here we would be seeing a handful other bands from previous decades with a similar and sustained commercial (album sales) success than U2. And really, I can´t think of any.
Although I don´t agree with everything you say I really enjoy your well written and insightful posts fairy. We need more people like you in this forum despite your favorite band being Queen and not U2!
As for U2 domestic sales, no, I´m afraid I can´t help. I have long stopped tracking down that type of data since the uruguayan music market is almost a disgrace and as you can imagine U2 is nowhere to be found on the sales lists. The last album in particular, I haven´t seen a single advert, not even a poster or banner. That´s really sad. Lucky you in Argentina where U2 have a relative large fanbase.
Cheers.
fedeu2
War Child
MONUMENTAL post doctorwho.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Ok fine, lets restrict it to 2009. Lady Ga-Ga already IS a global seller. So is, Eminem, Kings Of Leon, Miley Cyrus, Green Day, and Pink. None of these artist are what you would call "regional sellers".
I did not skip this at all. Here was my response:
Joshua Tree is just as confirmed at the biggest seller of 1987 as any of the albums you mentioned as being the biggest seller in their respective years.
In the 1980s you could record from tape to tape, but now with the NOTICIBLE LOSS in sound quality. CD burning, File Sharing, and other ways of obtaining music for free allows for the transfer of music without noticable loss of sound quality that you had in the 1980s with tape dubbing. In addition, the internet allows the population to obtain the music they want for FREE without ever leaving their house. In the 1980s, you had to know someone who had bought the album you wanted and then you could only make a recording that had poorer sound quality. Tape Dubbing never threatened the music industry and had virtually no impact on sales in stark contrast to the rapid and sustain decline in the industry thanks to CD burning, File Sharing, and other ways of obtaining music for free while keeping the sound quality.
I responded to each sentence in that paragraph! But I'll jumble it all together if your more likely to see it that way:
1. Its not an assumption its the way the music industry judges success. You can't discredit an artist for selling 3 million copies in a given year if that was more than DOUBLE most other artist could sell in that given year. #1 is STILL #1, just as much as it was in 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998 etc. No one in the music business is claiming otherwise.
2. Well, the market for big selling albums, 500,000+ is at the same level that it was in the 1960s. But regardless of where the market is at the time, if you achieve the biggest selling album in a given year, that is an extraordinary accomplishment. Every product selling in a given year has to deal with the same economic and market challenges.
3. That says NOTHING about what is most popular among the public which is what is being discussed here.
4. I've used multiple factual numbers as well as bringing up multiple artist that currently sell albums all around the world whom you said did not exist these days. These are FACTS, not opinions!
Were talking sales figures here, numbers. An opinion would be whether U2's new album is the Best album of the year or not.
Again, my second to last post responded to all of these things you mentioned!
Thats not true at all, I've given solid sales figures and numbers. You completely ignored the figures on albums that have sold 500,000 or more today vs from years past. I showed you the numbers for each year in the 1960s.
Also, the 2009 figures for total shipments are not in yet, but it appears it will be around 400 million which IS LESS THAN ANY YEAR IN THE EARLY 1980s for the overall market.
How can that be when were discussing the biggest sellers. Were talking about how many albums sold several million copies around the world, not how many albums succeeded in selling 1,000 copies. If you want to put selling 1,000 copies of an album in the same context as selling 3 million copies of an album, you would have a point, but I don't recall you mentioning any albums that sold under 1 million copies in this thread, let alone one that only sold 1,000 copies.
It is a much greater challenge today to sell over 4 million copies worldwide than it was in the early 1980s. Taking the overall market total from 1983 and then mentioning the albums that sold over 5 million copies in 1983 is NOT an accurate comparison. Those big selling albums in 1983 did not have to contend with the internet, CD burning and other methods which have proven to cause the music industry to decline over the past. Were talking about TWO different market environments. There were only 230 million people in the United States in 1983, in 2009 there are 307 million people. The United States economy is DOUBLE the size of what it was in 1983. So total shipments that appear to be roughly the same for the whole market in 1983 as compared to say 2008 or 2009 is not the same. The figure for 1983 is HEALTHY given the size of the 1983 population and economy. The figure for 2009 is not healthy given the size of the economy today and the size of the population.
If you could point to just one or more artist who were selling over 5 million copies in 2009, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A POINT!
There is no evidence that piracy was ever a factor in the early 1980s. Sales steadily increased nearly every year from 1982 all the way up to the year 2000!!!!!
Again, were not talking about the quality of the music which is a matter of opinion. I'm only posting raw sales information. Your the one that is making the claim that somehow, being #1 in 2009 does not mean as much as it used too. All I have done is provide numbers that show this is not the case.
By the way, this is a U2 fan website. Its not a place for fans of other bands to come and attempt 100 different ways of saying that a U2 album that is #1 is not really #1.
"Ok fine, lets restrict it to 2009. Lady Ga-Ga already IS a global seller. So is, Eminem, Kings Of Leon, Miley Cyrus, Green Day, and Pink. None of these artist are what you would call "regional sellers"."
Why are they "global sellers" according to you?. Of that list, I can only think of Pink as a global seller, but there are many regions where she failed to sell in good numbers. Green Day had a global impact with their previous album but, in my opinion, their current album is a flop. Eminem too, he is faring dissapointingly to me.
"In the 1980s you could record from tape to tape, but now with the NOTICIBLE LOSS in sound quality. CD burning, File Sharing, and other ways of obtaining music for free allows for the transfer of music without noticable loss of sound quality that you had in the 1980s with tape dubbing"
I remember several billboard articles talking about piracy from early 80's. I don't know if it affected USA (I guess not), but definitely in other regions. In any case, it is true that internet affected our music industry much more than any previous way of getting music for free (or at cheap prices), but I still hold my point about previous decades having their share of piracy. That is all I said.
"1. Its not an assumption its the way the music industry judges success. You can't discredit an artist for selling 3 million copies in a given year if that was more than DOUBLE most other artist could sell in that given year. #1 is STILL #1, just as much as it was in 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998 etc. No one in the music business is claiming otherwise."
"You can't". The question is, who are you to tell me that I can't do a certain thing?. I know that having the #1 album of the year is an achievement. But that isn't the only way of measuring a success. In the industry, other people care more about the money grossed in relation to what was invested on a given project, rather than units sales. Other people prefer comparing current results to previous results, either adjusting the sales for size of the markets or look at runs, and other variables.
I can't understand that you are still discrediting my comments as if I had really tried to downgrade what you say. You do have a point; but I think that you are too linear, you are trying to explain something that is extremely complex through just one aspect. I said, my real point is that there could be other factors concerned.
Please, post a link or an interview with someone on the industry stating that the only way to judge a success is to look at whare that album ends on the Year end chart of that given year. You have no evidence, just your claim. That is why I'm saying that you should stop talking as if you owned an absolute formula (as if you were the owner of the truth), because, as long as many issues are yet to be studied, there are many things that might scape us. Look at how I replied to you, I don't claim to be right or anything like that, I continually added "in my opinion", "from my point of view", "maybe", and other things, which clearly denote I have an opinion or a point, but I should have more evidence to back it up.
The only real evidence you have brought is the amount of albums that were certified gold back in the 80's compared to the amount of album reaching similar amounts right now. I don't understand what that is supposed to prove, to be honest, but other than that, I don't know what other hard numbers you posted. I see many claims, and many supposedly "truths" or "facts", but many of them have yet to be backed up by a source. Even more, the list of "official best sellers" isn't even official as it comes from Mediatraffic, a source that estimates worldwide sales. Those numbers aren't even confirmed. But well, because it is widely used, that is fine, I guess.
"How can that be when were discussing the biggest sellers. Were talking about how many albums sold several million copies around the world, not how many albums succeeded in selling 1,000 copies. If you want to put selling 1,000 copies of an album in the same context as selling 3 million copies of an album, you would have a point, but I don't recall you mentioning any albums that sold under 1 million copies in this thread, let alone one that only sold 1,000 copies."
You were talking about the very biggest sellers. And all I did was to merely bring the overall market conditions as an important factor. That was my point. I know you don't agree with that, but there is no reason why you should try to downgrade what I said just because you don't share it. In my opinion, the overal market is more importantl than any restricted list of best sellers.
Can you please show a single post of mine where I claimed that U2 aren't the best selling band of this very year?. Even more, can you show me a single post where I claimed something negative about U2?. This forum is for everyone who wants to talk about these issues. In general, I see the ones who dismiss U2's current success are mainly some of their fans here or people who used to be big fans but somehow gave them up. But well, whaever it is, I'm concerned, I didn't anything about them nor try to downgrade them.
---------------------------
Fedeu2, thank you for your words.
Why are they "global sellers" according to you?. Of that list, I can only think of Pink as a global seller, but there are many regions where she failed to sell in good numbers. Green Day had a global impact with their previous album but, in my opinion, their current album is a flop. Eminem too, he is faring dissapointingly to me.
"In the 1980s you could record from tape to tape, but now with the NOTICIBLE LOSS in sound quality. CD burning, File Sharing, and other ways of obtaining music for free allows for the transfer of music without noticable loss of sound quality that you had in the 1980s with tape dubbing"
I remember several billboard articles talking about piracy from early 80's. I don't know if it affected USA (I guess not), but definitely in other regions. In any case, it is true that internet affected our music industry much more than any previous way of getting music for free (or at cheap prices), but I still hold my point about previous decades having their share of piracy. That is all I said.
"1. Its not an assumption its the way the music industry judges success. You can't discredit an artist for selling 3 million copies in a given year if that was more than DOUBLE most other artist could sell in that given year. #1 is STILL #1, just as much as it was in 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998 etc. No one in the music business is claiming otherwise."
"You can't". The question is, who are you to tell me that I can't do a certain thing?. I know that having the #1 album of the year is an achievement. But that isn't the only way of measuring a success. In the industry, other people care more about the money grossed in relation to what was invested on a given project, rather than units sales. Other people prefer comparing current results to previous results, either adjusting the sales for size of the markets or look at runs, and other variables.
I can't understand that you are still discrediting my comments as if I had really tried to downgrade what you say. You do have a point; but I think that you are too linear, you are trying to explain something that is extremely complex through just one aspect. I said, my real point is that there could be other factors concerned.
Please, post a link or an interview with someone on the industry stating that the only way to judge a success is to look at whare that album ends on the Year end chart of that given year. You have no evidence, just your claim. That is why I'm saying that you should stop talking as if you owned an absolute formula (as if you were the owner of the truth), because, as long as many issues are yet to be studied, there are many things that might scape us. Look at how I replied to you, I don't claim to be right or anything like that, I continually added "in my opinion", "from my point of view", "maybe", and other things, which clearly denote I have an opinion or a point, but I should have more evidence to back it up.
The only real evidence you have brought is the amount of albums that were certified gold back in the 80's compared to the amount of album reaching similar amounts right now. I don't understand what that is supposed to prove, to be honest, but other than that, I don't know what other hard numbers you posted. I see many claims, and many supposedly "truths" or "facts", but many of them have yet to be backed up by a source. Even more, the list of "official best sellers" isn't even official as it comes from Mediatraffic, a source that estimates worldwide sales. Those numbers aren't even confirmed. But well, because it is widely used, that is fine, I guess.
"How can that be when were discussing the biggest sellers. Were talking about how many albums sold several million copies around the world, not how many albums succeeded in selling 1,000 copies. If you want to put selling 1,000 copies of an album in the same context as selling 3 million copies of an album, you would have a point, but I don't recall you mentioning any albums that sold under 1 million copies in this thread, let alone one that only sold 1,000 copies."
You were talking about the very biggest sellers. And all I did was to merely bring the overall market conditions as an important factor. That was my point. I know you don't agree with that, but there is no reason why you should try to downgrade what I said just because you don't share it. In my opinion, the overal market is more importantl than any restricted list of best sellers.
Can you please show a single post of mine where I claimed that U2 aren't the best selling band of this very year?. Even more, can you show me a single post where I claimed something negative about U2?. This forum is for everyone who wants to talk about these issues. In general, I see the ones who dismiss U2's current success are mainly some of their fans here or people who used to be big fans but somehow gave them up. But well, whaever it is, I'm concerned, I didn't anything about them nor try to downgrade them.
---------------------------
Fedeu2, thank you for your words.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
A Global seller is an artist that sells well in multiple regions around the world. All the artist I mentioned have a significant portion of their total sales from outside the United States. Green Day's new album has sold over 1.5 million copies worldwide with roughly 65% of that coming from places outside the United States.
LOL, Eminem is doing fantastic and still has a chance to surpass NLOTH sales for 2009 provided NLOTH continues to decline and Eminem's new one stabilizes
You can look at annual sales figures the past 8 years and see a massive decline in sales, which is mainly attributed to piracy. Piracy before 2000 has never been shown to seriously impact sales. Again, using your own numbers, sales increased nearly every year from 1982 to 2000. The majority of the time in which people were able to dub cassettes saw big increases year after year in the music industry.
Pick up any year end issue of Billboard magazine, and you'll see how success has measured. In terms of making a profit, U2 are way ahead of the industry. The current U2 360 tour will potentially gross $700 million dollars with U2 walking away with about 70% of that before taxes. But thats not really how success even in the touring industry is judged because artist exact cuts of the gross are usually not known.
What is most popular among the public is determined by what the public spends most of its money on. Album sales and ticket sales, that is how success in the music industry is still determined.
Go to Billboard.com and look at the year end issue's to see who was most successful. That is the music industry standard!
By the way, you neglected to mention that I posted the number of 500,000 plus selling albums from each year of the 1960s to show that is where the current industry is in terms of top selling albums. I've also posted plenty of soundscan info as well.
Every one of your post in this forum, 27 or 28, has been directed at saying U2 sales are not as significant as other people claim. You also have a negative post about the Edge. When people who are not really U2 fans come here only to attempt to discredit U2 is some way, its called trolling.
So please, enough with the 100 arguements attempting to say that being #1 in sales does not mean your really #1 in sales.
"LOL, Eminem is doing fantastic and still has a chance to surpass NLOTH sales for 2009 provided NLOTH continues to decline and Eminem's new one stabilizes"
Well, I ws thinking about his previous albums. There is a significant decline in his sales. If you adjust for the size of the markets, I'm sure his results are disappointing. He is basically the best selling act worldwide of the last 12 years, I was expecting more from him (5 to 6 million), we will see how he keeps.
As for piracy in previous decades, look at this:
Billboard - Google Libros
Billboard - Google Libros
There are many more. Even as serious organizations as IFPI Germany (and its counterparts in other cuntries like Italy, Sweden, other Scandianavian markets, Netherlands and others) were thinking on new policies to stop the high level of piracy, which means that they actually had invest money, time and effot in that. If piracy was as insifnificant as you claim, they wouldn't have been doing that. But because they were losing money, they had to do something. The situation was even worse in other parts, like Latin America, Africa, Russia and other European countries (mainly in the East).
I wasn't talking about profits or gross figures coming from tours or so, I was talking albums sales and its industry. For many people at records companies, their way to gauge the success of an album is the amount of money grossed in relation to what they invest on a given project, in my opinion. I didn't say anything about tours.
I didn't ignore your list of albums certified on each year, it is just that I didn't understand if those albums are supposed to have been the ones released on a given year and eventually certified in any other or the ones certifed on a given year regardless of when they were released; and also, I didn't understand what you were supposed to prove with that list. There were more albums selling well back then, even if their overall market wasn't bigger than it is right now, that is partly what i'm claiming, although not exactly the same.
In which posts did exactly claim that U2 aren't as popular as they supposedly are?. I remember having a slight argument with you with regards to the best selling album during 1991 and 1992. I clearly remembered that I mentioned Queen's "Greatest Hits 2" as being one of them and provided enough evidence and links in order for you to check it. I didn't dispute what U2 were selling but the fact that you were clearly missing an album. I even gave you plenty of links you had no idea about for you to find new information. Is that what you call "trolling"?.
The only post I remember making about The Edge is this one:
"Well, the guy of Rush is by far a better guitarist, at least in terms of technical aspects, which is a very important factor. Personally, I don't even regard The Edge as super guitarist or anything like that. He was just what a band like U2 needs. I don't imagine Steve Vai or Becker playing with the Irish folks, for example."
That wasn't negative. All I said was that I don't regard him as an extremely technical guitarist, but the perfect instrumentalist for U2. Why?. Because he is extremely creative and gives the songs what they need: never more nor less, just the necessary.
If you ask any guitarist, I'm sure most of them will tell about the same.
When you say that people don't admit that U2 have the best seling of the year, I guess you are talking about many people, but I'm definitely not concerned because I haven't said anything negative towards them. Many fans do that here. I'm just a casual fan and I don't do that. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean being a U2 hater or anything like that. And I don't think you are the crrect person to tell to stop with arguments, when nearly your whole post history is made up of uch arguments, you are continually involved in such debates, I'm not. Respect other opinions, and the arguments will stop.
Well, I ws thinking about his previous albums. There is a significant decline in his sales. If you adjust for the size of the markets, I'm sure his results are disappointing. He is basically the best selling act worldwide of the last 12 years, I was expecting more from him (5 to 6 million), we will see how he keeps.
As for piracy in previous decades, look at this:
Billboard - Google Libros
Billboard - Google Libros
There are many more. Even as serious organizations as IFPI Germany (and its counterparts in other cuntries like Italy, Sweden, other Scandianavian markets, Netherlands and others) were thinking on new policies to stop the high level of piracy, which means that they actually had invest money, time and effot in that. If piracy was as insifnificant as you claim, they wouldn't have been doing that. But because they were losing money, they had to do something. The situation was even worse in other parts, like Latin America, Africa, Russia and other European countries (mainly in the East).
I wasn't talking about profits or gross figures coming from tours or so, I was talking albums sales and its industry. For many people at records companies, their way to gauge the success of an album is the amount of money grossed in relation to what they invest on a given project, in my opinion. I didn't say anything about tours.
I didn't ignore your list of albums certified on each year, it is just that I didn't understand if those albums are supposed to have been the ones released on a given year and eventually certified in any other or the ones certifed on a given year regardless of when they were released; and also, I didn't understand what you were supposed to prove with that list. There were more albums selling well back then, even if their overall market wasn't bigger than it is right now, that is partly what i'm claiming, although not exactly the same.
In which posts did exactly claim that U2 aren't as popular as they supposedly are?.
I remember having a slight argument with you with regards to the best selling album during 1991 and 1992. I clearly remembered that I mentioned Queen's "Greatest Hits 2" as being one of them and provided enough evidence and links in order for you to check it. I didn't dispute what U2 were selling but the fact that you were clearly missing an album. I even gave you plenty of links you had no idea about for you to find new information. Is that what you call "trolling"?. The only post I remember making about The Edge is this one:
"Well, the guy of Rush is by far a better guitarist, at least in terms of technical aspects, which is a very important factor. Personally, I don't even regard The Edge as super guitarist or anything like that. He was just what a band like U2 needs. I don't imagine Steve Vai or Becker playing with the Irish folks, for example."
That wasn't negative. All I said was that I don't regard him as an extremely technical guitarist, but the perfect instrumentalist for U2. Why?. Because he is extremely creative and gives the songs what they need: never more nor less, just the necessary.
If you ask any guitarist, I'm sure most of them will tell about the same.
When you say that people don't admit that U2 have the best seling of the year, I guess you are talking about many people, but I'm definitely not concerned because I haven't said anything negative towards them. Many fans do that here. I'm just a casual fan and I don't do that. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean being a U2 hater or anything like that. And I don't think you are the crrect person to tell to stop with arguments, when nearly your whole post history is made up of uch arguments, you are continually involved in such debates, I'm not. Respect other opinions, and the arguments will stop.
What, is there an echo in here? You're missing the point.
Who the hell are you trying to fool?
ANYONE who studies this business knows that U2 were virtually the only major artist to release an album in the first quarter of 2009 (most top selling artists release their albums in the fourth quarter). Anyways, in a matter of weeks, Lady Gaga's latest album will easily outsell NLOTH...and Eminem's latest will probably too. There are other recently released albums by AC/DC & Coldplay that have FAR outsold NLOTH. But I guess those are "exceptions" too?
Look, ALL I am saying is that the reason for a declining sales markets is NOT solely based on the downloading of free music...it's also to due to the fact that many people do not like a lot of newer music being released today. I mean, are you actually saying that the ONLY reason why the sales market has declined is strictly because of the downloading of free music by many? Because if you are, that's "outright ridiculous".
WE BOTH KNOW that NLOTH will barely crack Platinum status in the US by the end of its initial run next summer. Also, U2 haven't been relevant in YEARS.
Exactly...and that's ALL I'm getting at. You can make all the excuses you want but it doesn't matter why they were sold. The very FACT that that many album were sold, especially in such a short period of time, COMPLETELY DESTROYS your claim (or anyone's) that the sole reason why NLOTH hasn't sold more copies is because of the downloading of free music in a declining sales market.
ROTFLMFAO!
NLOTH will NEVER reach Double Platinum in the US...keep dreaming.
And again, in a matter of weeks, Lady Gaga's latest album will easily outsell NLOTH...and Eminem's latest will probably too. There are other recently released albums by AC/DC & Coldplay that have FAR outsold NLOTH. But I guess those are "exceptions" too?
No shit sherlock.
NLOTH doesn't have a hope in hell at selling more than 4 million copies worldwide by the end of its initial run next year. And YOU KNOW IT. Why? Because, apart from the downloading of free music that many people take part in, MANY people who are willing to buy music just DON'T LIKE IT.
fedeu2
War Child
Mark your words ´cos NLOTH current worldwide sales stand at 3,3 M so it´s only 0,7 M to go to get to 4 M. When the time comes I will be the first to remind you that you were wrong.
Oh, and about your last statement, you want us to believe that "many" people do not like any album that has been released this year so they don´t buy them. That´s ludicrous, to say the least. Look at Eminem. The king of hip hop of the last decade is struggling to sell records. Why? Because all of a sudden hip hop fans do not like his music? Give me a break.
- Status
