Discussion: Are Gaga and Britney's careers similar? - Page 13

°ColdFire°

12 pages? Really?

slobro

Quote:

Originally posted by Eternium

Not you purposefully messing up the math to try and add validity to your argument

2009 had 150M albums sold from TEAs and 2010 had 167.2M. In what world did you get 139M total TEAs when each year was individually above that? Do you not know that one album sale = 10 digital track sales?

I see you purposefully leaving out SEAs like I've pointed out for the past three pages.

If you don't have the numbers, you can't speak with exact percentages.

Not you going back to Billboard (whom officially use SPS, sales-plus-streaming for the BB200) and the inches-to-centimeter argument again. You've already been proven wrong multiple times with these. Let it go.

You also seem to have conveniently forgotten 2008.

These numbers are still higher than all of the early 70s (pure album sales in 2010 were only slightly below pure album sales in 1973, keep in mind that the sell-through rate in the digital era is higher because 1 digital album is automatically considered one shipment) and a considerable amount of the 80s. Nobody but you, who has something desperate to prove, thinks that every year should be weighted to be as strong as the strongest year of sales. There's a reason why 1999 and 2000 had such strong sales and if Lady Gaga was truly as big as you make her out to, she would have lifted the market like Adele did.

Albums+SEAs+TEAs are official. Marketshare, i.e. giving your fave a multiplier, is not. Unless you can show me a major chart that sides with you (and no, Taiwan is not major), you have no argument. Billboard, IFPI, Official Charts U.K., Billboard Canada, Gaon, most of Europe, etc. agree with me

I was accidentally looking at the bolded numbers (1390M;1298M) instead, my bad.

I love how you equate BB200 changing the methodology = current raw numbers suddenly being comparable to sales from the pre-digital era. How does that even make sense?

It doesn't change the fact that the digital era market, even with TEA/SEA is a fraction of pre-digital era sales, and that it's still an incredibly lopsided and invalid comparison that clearly favors the 1999-2000 one

By that logic, digital sales are now officially used in every singles chart, so I guess you can compare raw single sales from the digital era to single sales from pre-digital era to determine which song is bigger? What a strange argument.

And you're wrong about the 2011/2012 global market going up (check Kworb's chart), but either way, both Adele (21) and Gaga (TFM) had a much bigger market share than Britney's peak (BOMT) so..

J.A.Y

Quote:

Originally posted by Starstruck.

No, Britney Jean Spears was much bigger and more global.

Right

alestevens

Why is this thread still going? It is clear that Britney was bigger at this point of her career than Gaga currently is!

BourneHardy94

Lmao.... GaGa does not have the longevity Britney does... Britney > GaGa any day!!

ezra

Quote:

Originally posted by slobro

He is, he's using raw album sales + SEA + TEA from the digital era, and compares them to raw sales from 1999-2000. Conveniently leaving out that TEA and SEA don't compensate for the decline in sales, not even close.

Year - Album Sales - Track Downloads - Albums + TEA (Tracks/10)
1999 - 3183 million - x - 3183 million
2000 - 3112 million - x - 3112 million

2009 - 1240 million - 1500 million - 1390 million
2010 - 1131 million - 1672 million - 1298 million

TEA only adds a paltry 150M/167.2M extra 'album sales'. 2009-2010 sales are barely 42% of 1999-2000 even with TEA. 2009-2010 SEA wasn't reported but it was even way less than TEA (and even TEA barely adds anything).

A comparison where one side has a 2.34x advantage (even with TEA counted) isn't a valid comparison to anyone with a lick of common sense (hence even Billboard using market shares instead when comparing sales from different climates)

It is like comparing 51 cm to 50 inches and then claim 51 cm is longer than 50 inches because "51>50!!!11!", and that is exactly what he's doing by comparing raw numbers from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010.

He literally doesn't (want to) understand that the 2009-2010 market (with TEA) is barely 42% the size of 1999-2000

Gaga is a massive star! No one but Adele can really measure up.

evyonce

As in peaked first album, and then went downhill from there? Yes.

Jackk

People like to bring up the fact that Britney's sales were because of the digital era are wrong. Eminem still sells the same as back then. Also madonna didn't sell as much as britney did back then either. You guys and your theories

britney and gaga can not be compared. It's like comparing michael Jackson with pitbull.

Monroe

Britney obviously had the bigger peak and had longer longevity. Britney dominated the music industry and was the hottest celebrity in the world from 1998-2005, until Clarkson took over the pop sphere, and then had a good sized comeback even if she wasn't #1 anymore. She still had commercially strong and viable eras that produced long running hits with Circus and Femme Fatale, even Blackout had a respectable showing considering all that happened during her breakdown. Scream & Shout was also one of the biggest hits of 2013. Britney only fell off during the Britney Jean era, and that was because she stopped caring, didn't promote and ignored the project. 1998-2013 is a solid 15 year showing, even with her declines, her feats measure up and she was overall more successful. She also has potential to continue to making music, establishing more hits, in additional to her already strong feats. Gaga would need to establish a stronger presence in the pop sphere before the two could adequately be compared. As it stands now Gaga has more in common with Aguilera than Spears. Britney has sold around 190 million records in total.

BOMT 30 million
OIDIA 25 million
Britney 15 million
ITZ 10 million
GHMP 8 million
Blackout 3 million
Circus 5 million
TSC 1 million
FF 2 million
BJ 1 million

Gaga had a big peak, but lost it very early on and continued to fall. Gaga owned 2009 and 2010, but then lost the throne to Adele, and then continued to decline. That's a 90% loss, with only two years at her peak before establishing a bleeding loss. Her career really took off around 2009-2013 and by 2013 she had lost a lot of her commercial power. That's really only 4 years of being an impactful popstar.

TFM 16 million
BTW 7-8 million
Artpop 2-3 million
CTC 1 million

prézli

Britney is legendary and iconic.

Gaga isn't.

End of the thread.

Tistotal

OMG, obviously no. BOMT was one of the bigger debuts era ever.
Britney is in another level, she is a legend, while gaga is another pop star.

abrahamjmr

Quote:

Originally posted by Monroe

Britney obviously had the bigger peak and had longer longevity. Britney dominated the music industry and was the hottest celebrity in the world from 1998-2005, until Clarkson took over the pop sphere, and then had a good sized comeback even if she wasn't #1 anymore. She still had commercially strong and viable eras that produced long running hits with Circus and Femme Fatale, even Blackout had a respectable showing considering all that happened during her breakdown. Scream & Shout was also one of the biggest hits of 2013. Britney only fell off during the Britney Jean era, and that was because she stopped caring, didn't promote and ignored the project. 1998-2013 is a solid 15 year showing, even with her declines, her feats measure up and she was overall more successful. She also has potential to continue to making music, establishing more hits, in additional to her already strong feats. Gaga would need to establish a stronger presence in the pop sphere before the two could adequately be compared. As it stands now Gaga has more in common with Aguilera than Spears. Britney has sold around 190 million records in total.

BOMT 30 million
OIDIA 25 million
Britney 15 million
ITZ 10 million
GHMP 8 million
Blackout 3 million
Circus 5 million
TSC 1 million
FF 2 million
BJ 1 million

Gaga had a big peak, but lost it very early on and continued to fall. Gaga owned 2009 and 2010, but then lost the throne to Adele, and then continued to decline. That's a 90% loss, with only two years at her peak before establishing a bleeding loss. Her career really took off around 2009-2013 and by 2013 she had lost a lot of her commercial power. That's really only 4 years of being an impactful popstar.

TFM 16 million
BTW 7-8 million
Artpop 2-3 million
CTC 1 million

Tell them.

Da Fr3ak

Quote:

Originally posted by CakeLike

Britneys career has always been played safe wheras with Gaga she isn't afraid to take risks and show people her talent

Don't go there

Britney may not have "Vocal talent", but you can't say she was afraid to take risks.

If your guys are going to compare Gaga's hip to anything of Britney. Compare it to her Knee that Britney stans love to bring up. Gaga hasn't had her "2007".

dcode78

Their careers aren't that much alike. I agree that both were phenomenons..Britney didn't fade that fast like Gaga did. Although Gaga is more talented than Britney..but Britney during her prime was untouchable. After all that crazy stuff happening to her in 07, she put out (to some) her best album-Blackout.

Gaga faded to fast imo. She was doing too much and people got tired of it. She's hella talented and I applaud her for trying something new with Jazz.. Hopefully she will have a rebirth and come out swinging again.

Monroe

Quote:

Originally posted by Da Fr3ak

If your guys are going to compare Gaga's hip to anything of Britney. Compare it to her Knee that Britney stans love to bring up. Gaga hasn't had her "2007".

You are right Gaga hasn't hit her 2007, she skipped that and went straight to Femme Fatale/Britney Jean territory.

Britney -- The Fame (Monster)
Greatest Hits My Prerogative -- Born This Way
Femme Fatale -- Artpop
Britney Jean -- Cheek To Cheek

The difference is Britney lasted 15+ years, while Gaga has only lasted a fourth of that time.

modeblock

Quote:

Originally posted by Eternium

Oh, slobro

Saying every #1 is equal is like saying Sia's 50k week at #1 is the same as Taylor's 1.28M week at #1.

And yet never came close to BOMT in global sales even when accounting for the change in the market. RIP.

You act like BOMT was weak because it actually had competition. Need I remind you that the time Gaga actually faced an album of the caliber of the late 90s albums, it outsold her best effort (which was, according to Gaga, two albums combined) in just four markets?

The Fame Monster's last single was released in July 2010. BOMT's last single was released in December 1999. Obviously a re-released album is going to chart better on the YECs but it ended up killing TFM's catalog sales. TF went from 4,525,000 in August 2013 to 4,572,000 in March 2014 and TFM went from 1,566,000 to 1,585,000. That's under 80k

Tell me again how BOMT's catalog sales are "pathetic."

Not 25M being inflated and then you using shipment numbers for TFM. You're giving me Janet Jackson stan teas

What was BOMT's single released in 2000? Oops! started in March.

Not you still trying to discredit albums/TEAs/SEAs when they're official. My fave has spent over half of her career in the digital age, too, and you don't hear me complaining. Just because Billboard doesn't multiply their YECs to put your fave on par with female artists that were much bigger than her does not mean that you can

And °F=9/5°C+32 just like 1 album = 10 digital tracks sold = 1,500 streams. I know math is hard for you but keep in mind that formulas do exist to help us compare data. Your argument is basically that we can't say 33°F>0°C because you only understand the Celsius scale yet here we have a formula that invalidates all of your arguments. Write that down.

Now this is a true clock, ladies. watch and learn