hi, i wanted to share this comment written be a forumer in ukmix.org on shaki's thread, which made me think about it.
Nowadays, is it right to measure success according to sales when in some countries its almost imposible to find a llegal downloader?
in many charts you need just 1 copie to be on

what do you think guys?

I guess it makes sense, but people need money to feed themselves.

I think legal downloads, in some way, mimic what's being downloaded illegally, in a different proportion of course...

but who knows...

I think this post should be in "The Lounge" instead of here.

No. Look at Kelis, then look at Ke$ha. why is kesha more successful? not because she is more talented.

Actually a concert can give you the same money you could get selling 2 million copies

I agree if we talks about the big markets like the us or usa
but what to think it countries where population is big but you need +5/10 downloads to be top 5 on itunes?

95% of legal downloads in the us and the uk are illegal
What?

I think digital sales in large markets mimic what's popular on file sharing and other illegal downloads, too, just less of them. (Excluding songs that have yet to be released to legal providers.)

An artist's success shouldn't have been measured in sales to begin with, imo..it should be the quality of music..not how many idiots you can get to buy it.

Ke$ha and Taylor Swift

Is that 95% an estimate or confirmed? Regardless, we know that the majority of downloads are illegal, but nevertheless there's enough legal downloads for us to measure success from. It's too easy to blame Shakira's underwhelming sales on a changing market, but plenty of other artists are still selling like hotcakes. It's not an excuse. Sales, no matter how much they decline will always be a reflection of what is popular.

I agree with Celestial. Sales have always been, are, and always will be the indicator of what is the most popular music at the time. To discount sales as a whole as a method of evaluating the popularity of a song is completely ridiculous. Saying that, the impact that they have is a lot less than it used to be, though.

I completely agree. The same has been true for every singer that has been around for a while - for example, Beyonce's "I Am... Sasha Fierce" had around 65% of the sales of "B-Day," but that doesn't mean that "I Am... Sasha Fierce" is way less successful than "B-Day." You can't really measure success by sales anymore.

and i think u should have a seat.. this has to do with music..

^^ True, but this specific forum is music "NEWS" when in fact the title is a question? Asking a question and getting other's opinions isn't news. I'm baffled by it, but it doesn't really matter either. But what the hell I'll add to the pot too.

I actually do think an artists' success, album-wise anyway, should be based on sales of their singles/albums. However, times have changed from years ago in terms of sales. If I remember correctly Sisqo's sophomore album, for example, is considered a flop but went platinum. Currently many artists, struggle to go Gold due to illegal downloads and such, but are still considered successful. Having that being said, I wish the RIAA would lower their current certification amounts to fit with the current situation. I would like 300,000=Gold, 600,000=Platinum, and so on, somewhat like the BPI I guess.

Yeah please, no one downloads Taylor Swift illegally

When I first read the title I Thought 'Another Christina Aguilera bashing thread'. I think that people should distinguish between success and popularity. The fact that most of the artists topping the list of tour gross are veteran acts (might I Include Britney & Christina, if this Bionic tour beginning next year goes well) has to do with their popularity more than with their success. Sure you could say that they are successful because they have all their tour tickets sold, but that only means that they were successful enough to build a fanbase and no matter how many flop albums they have, people would still attend to their concerts (Of course there are exceptions). Whereas hot artists are indeed measured by sales, what's hot is mainly determined by sales, i.e Lady GaGa, Justin Bieber (as much as I hate him), Katy Perry. In addition to their continuous smashes and increasing popularity, people who do not buy their music, download their singles illegally and may attend to their concerts, hence enlarging their success.
Don't know if I made myself clear.

Edit: That's maybe the reason no one gives a s*** about Shakira's last songs Give It Up To Me, Gypsy and Did it Again(at least no one in Europe, Asia & North America, which were markets she easily conquered back then in 2002) BUT still want to pay a ticket to watch her shake her ass and perform classics.

soooo... if it didnt matter why did u take the time out to make your comment ?

^^ Let me clarify *clears throat*, it doesn't matter enough to argue or to reiterate. I simply pointed out that it seemed to fit better with "The Lounge" topics.