Week 28

[Maoilbheannacht]

Best Selling Albums in 2009 WORLDWIDE as of WEEK 38


1. Lady Gaga The Fame 3,511,000
2. U2 No Line On The Horizon 3,295,000
3. Michael Jackson Thriller 2,818,000
4. Kings Of Leon Only By The Night 2,742,000
5. Eminem Relapse 2,638,000
6. Michael Jackson Number Ones 2,591,000
7. Taylor Swift Fearless 2,513,000
8. soundtrack Hannah Montana: The Movie 2,427,000
9. The Black Eyed Peas The E.N.D. 2,369,000
10. Beyoncé I Am... Sasha Fierce 2,347,000
11. Green Day 21st Century Breakdown 2,223,000
12. Michael Jackson The Essential 2,171,000
13. soundtrack Twilight 1,980,000
14. Pink Funhouse 1,911,000
15. Nickleback Dark Horse 1,770,000

 

[hey you]

nloth this week

usa 88(97)
uk 91(40)
ire 49(29)
denmark 7 (8)
norway 28(20)
holland 31(26)
fra 36(37)
rep. czech 22(30)
switzerland 97(81)
bel vl 20(25)
bel wa 27(27)
canada 77(56)
spain 48(35)

after other updates.

 

[rollingbob]

In Europe after 28 consecutive weeks in the top 20 (record since TJT) No Line plummits down 19 spots to #36 (& only 5 Beatles albums above it). Run so far is :

15-1-1-1-1-1-1-2 (1m IFPI-Q1 '09)-3-4-5-5-6-10-11-15-17-18-20-15-12-11-14-8-8-12-13-17-36 (29 wks)

& on Euro top 100 singles Crazy debuts at #19, 13 spots below GOYBs'#6 peak but 13 spots above Magificents' #32 peak.

 

[Vox02]

SPAIN

#48 (#35)

1-1-1-2-1-1-3-4-13-12-
12-11-18-19-20-12-6-6-11-19-
19-27-25-24-28-37-35-48

Vox

 

[Native_Son]

NLOTH seems to be fallin fast everywhere now , except US with the tour - hopefulyl it can rise a bit higher there, but as Doctor Who previously pointed out in reality it is more likely just to stabilise sales rather than increase..

out of MT top 40 again this week, though hardly surprising with 39 out of the 40 albums being beatles and the remaining 1 being the wacko.
i cant believe theres such a huge demand for beatles re-issues, 240,000 of nealry every album. surely JT 25 aniversairy reissue should have been hitting those sales numbers aswell! i bet UF reissue doesnt even make top 40.

 

[Irishteen]

out of MT top 40 again this week, though hardly surprising with 39 out of the 40 albums being beatles and the remaining 1 being the wacko.
i cant believe theres such a huge demand for beatles re-issues, 240,000 of nealry every album. .

Isn't that a bit of an overstatement? I think there should even be one more Beatles album in the top 40, the stereo boxset should of sold enough to make it

 

[Native_Son]

Isn't that a bit of an overstatement? I think there should even be one more Beatles album in the top 40, the stereo boxset should of sold enough to make it

slight exageration, but you get my point. how can re-issues sell more than 99% of new released albums? its crazy, and lets face it the beatles werent great, they were just the 'first' , they werent even good. coldplay are better than beatles ever were.

 

[Irishteen]

slight exageration, but you get my point. how can re-issues sell more than 99% of new released albums? its crazy, and lets face it the beatles werent great, they were just the 'first' , they werent even good. coldplay are better than beatles ever were.

Eh no, the Beatles were great and they deserve all the success their albums are having. They're the biggest band of all time and they deserve their success

 

[Native_Son]

Eh no, the Beatles were great and they deserve all the success their albums are having. They're the biggest band of all time and they deserve their success

Ok so beatles are better than U2 then? despite they only lasted about 6 years, where U2 have been the greatest (on & off, mainly on) for 20+ years.

 

[Irishteen]

Ok so beatles are better than U2 then? despite they only lasted about 6 years, where U2 have been the greatest (on & off, mainly on) for 20+ years.

1963,64,65,66,67,68,69,70. That's eight years of releasing albums. They released 12 albums, the combined content of those 12 albums is better than any eight year stretch by U2. I probably prefer U2 overall but the 8 years the Beatles were releasing music tops any 8 year part of U2's career

 

[fedeu2]

slight exageration, but you get my point. how can re-issues sell more than 99% of new released albums? its crazy, and lets face it the beatles werent great, they were just the 'first' , they werent even good. coldplay are better than beatles ever were.

No offense to you but saying Coldplay are better than The Beatles is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in this forum. As Irishteen put it, The Beatles are far and away the biggest band in the history of modern music and also the best for the vast majority of people out there.
As far as I´m concerned they´re the only band whose music catalogue rivals that of U2.

 

[GibsonExplorer]

slight exageration, but you get my point. how can re-issues sell more than 99% of new released albums? its crazy, and lets face it the beatles werent great, they were just the 'first' , they werent even good. coldplay are better than beatles ever were.

you know, i didn't think you were an ignorant person until you made this statement.

 

[jimmmm]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but sometimes some peoples opinions simply leave me speechless.

 

[Native_Son]

you know, i didn't think you were an ignorant person until you made this statement.

well we all know that your un ignorant prick, so do us all a favour and fuck off

 

[CosmoKramer]

No offense to you but saying Coldplay are better than The Beatles is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in this forum. As Irishteen put it, The Beatles are far and away the biggest band in the history of modern music and also the best for the vast majority of people out there.
As far as I´m concerned they´re the only band whose music catalogue rivals that of U2.

Here is my opinion:

I agree with Native Son that a large part of who the Beatles were and have become is due to the fact that they were the 1st. I dont care for most of their music and I do find it amazing that they were together for roughly 8 years and are considered as great as they are. With that said.....

If there were no Beatles, there would most likely be no U2 or no U2 as we know them. Even if U2 were not influenced by the Beatles, the Beatles influenced countless others who would have influenced U2, so no Beatles....no U2 (as we know them). Now to say that they were the best band is subjective but they were the biggest band of their time and ARE the biggest band of all time.

While I would take Still Havent found, One, With or With out You, Pride, Sunday Bloody Sunday, ect.... over any Beatles song, I am sure there are countless others that would take "I want to hold your hand" over all U2 songs....I dont know how, or why, but its all subjective

Plus, Larry is cooler than Ringo, Adam Clayton is much cooler than Harrison, Paul and Edge are a draw and both Bono and John Lennon are equally annoying at times...I mean preachy....I mean....

 

[fedeu2]

Here is my opinion:

I agree with Native Son that a large part of who the Beatles were and have become is due to the fact that they were the 1st. I dont care for most of their music and I do find it amazing that they were together for roughly 8 years and are considered as great as they are. With that said.....

If there were no Beatles, there would most likely be no U2 or no U2 as we know them. Even if U2 were not influenced by the Beatles, the Beatles influenced countless others who would have influenced U2, so no Beatles....no U2 (as we know them). Now to say that they were the best band is subjective but they were the biggest band of their time and ARE the biggest band of all time.

While I would take Still Havent found, One, With or With out You, Pride, Sunday Bloody Sunday, ect.... over any Beatles song, I am sure there are countless others that would take "I want to hold your hand" over all U2 songs....I dont know how, or why, but its all subjective

Plus, Larry is cooler than Ringo, Adam Clayton is much cooler than Harrison, Paul and Edge are a draw and both Bono and John Lennon are equally annoying at times...I mean preachy....I mean....

Hehe. I don´t think that "I want to hold your hands" is the best example to cite as an epitome of Beatles' greatness. For that, you should pick some of the countless great songs they produced from 1966 to 1969, included in their four masterpieces: Revolver, Sgt Peppers, White Album and Abbey Road.
It´s true they were around for some 8 years but in that period they produced nearly as many songs than U2 in 30!

If you ask me, both JT and AB are far better albums than any of the above mentioned but that´s just me. And certainly, some other U2 albums should be regarded as masterpieces. Case in point: NLOTH.

 

[Native_Son]

Had say the stones been before the beatles. then i would guess the stones would be the biggest band of all time instead, same could go for floyd, zeppelin, even U2.