I was scrolling through the Glory thread and saw this:
Quote:
Originally posted by hector.adriel
Can't believe Selena and Gwen Stefani debuted at #1 with less than 100K...
Britney will probably outsell them both and will not debut at #1, so unfair.
Now this has nothing to with Britney, Selena or Gwen so don't turn this into that. Bye.
Like it really depends on the competition of that said week because say this weeks #1 sells 100k but then next weeks #1 sells 300k and #2 sold 200k which would you rather have and which one wins tbh.
"Girl" narrowly missed the Billboard 200 summit that frame. T-Pain's "Epiphany" opened at No. 1 with 171,000 copies, just 9,000 units ahead of Rihanna's set. And, while T-Pain won the initial chart battle, Rihanna claimed a victory of longevity: "Epiphany" spent 28 weeks on the chart, "Girl," 99. To date, "Epiphany" has sold 911,000; "Girl," 2.8 million.
So sales. They bring money anyway.
Peaks are okay but they do not matter that much.
So sales. They bring money anyway.
Peaks are okay but they do not matter that much.
If only everyone had this same mindset, people are so fixated on #1s and charts and **** but like,a number one is cute and all but not if the sales arent there to back it up, its like winning by default
I'd rather have a #1. Sales don't mean much these days with streaming and all that. I think it's more impressive for my children to pull up an artist's discography on Wikipedia and see a bunch of #1s than it will be to go to the "Sales" column and look at those numbers.
#1s. Sales are dead and are no longer an indicator of mass popularity, they just show that an artist with high sales has passionate fans that are willing to buy their music and likely don't use streaming services as much (see: Adele).
#1 means you beat everyone at that moment. Sales are for your own success, but won't be remembered as much. And it's even less important now due to streaming