Susan Boyle wasn't the only one who whooped Lady GaGa's ass that week.
Oh yes she was, and she wasn't even gunning for the #1 that week. It was hyped as a rerelease until like a week or two before the release date when they decided to release it separately too.
Oh yes she was, and she wasn't even gunning for the #1 that week. It was hyped as a rerelease until like a week or two before the release date when they decided to release it separately too.
I'm glad she's doing this. To be realistic, she's not going to release everything on TFM as singles. That means... Starstruck might be resurrected!
4th: Monster (Early August)
5th: Starstruck (Late September)
I tried to fit this in, but too bad:
6th: Dance In The Dark/Paper Gangsta/So Happy I Could Die
Well that's what I was OBVIOUSLY talking about. Nice spin though
That week 300k+ people bought a GaGa album for the same 8 tracks.
The sales should clearly count together, but even if you won't accept it then GaGa got more sales than the others that week even though they were split, and that's the bottom line
That week 300k+ people bought a GaGa album for the same 8 tracks.
The sales should clearly count together, but even if you won't accept it then GaGa got more sales than the others that week even though they were split, and that's the bottom line
Bottom line is that I'm not counting her "re-release" or whatever the hell it is. I'm talking about her new album that week, which is only fair when pitted against Adam, Rihanna, Andrea, and Susan's new albums.
Sad the most hyped pop star out rn can't even get her #1.
Like I said, 300k people that week bought a GaGa album for 8 songs, the 8 songs which you call her new album.
They count
I mean I understand how you'd question it being a rerelase or a new album and whether you'd add the totals together, but this isn't the same thing. I'd explain it but I don't really want to waste my time seen as you'll reject whatever I say, I've already made it clear that they all bought the albums for the same songs
I'd explain it but I don't really want to waste my time seen as you'll reject whatever I say, I've already made it clear that they all bought the albums for the same songs
I've always found the emphasis on chart ranking to be a bit ridiculous, when it comes to albums at least. I'd take an album that goes multi-platinum but peaked at #3 (for instance) over an album that debuts at #1 but struggles to be gold certified any day of the week.
You don't see such an emphasis on ranking when it comes to a film's box office, for example. Having legs is always more impressive than being fortunate enough with timing/competition to be on top for a given week.
"Come On Over" was like the biggest album of the SoundScan era, and it peaked at #2. That does nothing at all to tarnish how impressive its run was. If anything, it speaks to the longevity of an album, and longevity is obviously preferable to being a flash-in-the-pan #1.
