Hardly. Royals was released in the UK a grand total of 5 days before the album came out.

18k albums sold after only having a single out for 5 days?

So her album sales in the UK have gone up this week now that the single has been out longer? All I'm saying is 18k first week sales in the UK is pretty disappointing given the success she's achieved in the US and the airplay she's been getting. And 55k global sales last week isn't very impressive either. There's absolutely no sign yet that she is going to repeat her US success around the globe. But time will tell, I guess.

An advantage for Lana was that she had many videos up on YT at the time of VG. When I first saw the video of VG I wasn't much impressed but at the side bar there were dozens of other videos of hers what awoke my interest.

The same with Adele, I didn't knew anything from the 19 era but when I first heard RITD I went to YT and then, my stars.


It is somehow obvious, that this first Lorde era is a little rushed but I think she is doing fine.

What the ****? I'm tired of people saying this. They don't even make the same type of music. Lana would never make a song like Royals

National Anthem?

I see this song as a critique how shallow wealth is, I know that many aren't my opinion but if you want to then you can read in the lyrics in the same vein as in Royals.

Lorde said Lana is great (I know she isn't impressed with some lyrics of hers [to give up everything for the love of a man])

And then comes Tigers on a gold leash, huh.

I'm sure as a 15 year old girl with interests in pop, she visit ATRL and it happens to be that when the BTD video came out that there was a gif of a woman in Beverly Hills who had a Tiger on a leash.

Because its beneath her.

Neither Lorde's or Lana's music is "radio friendly", though. "Royals" sounds like nothing on the radio right now.