[91Winchester]

Originally posted by LoveTheWayILie

Slave 4 U and Boys got Urban play if that is what you mean. It's the only kind she could get that era

Well, whether or not she gets play in Urban radio, Britney's music from the very beginning had urban influences.

[iHype.]

Originally posted by Nialler

But we all know that nobody would ever sell that much. It's a huge oversimplification.

If anyone actually believes that list, or takes it that serious.

Kworb's list is just a prediction. There's no actual accurate way to predict how much any album would've sold in a certain date.

His prediction holds as much liability as anyone else's. There's nothing proven.

[slobro]

Originally posted by Nialler

But we all know that nobody would ever sell that much. It's a huge oversimplification.

21 sold three times as much as it's nearest competitor in 2011, and again three times as much as it's nearest competitor in 2012. I don't Thriller managed to dominate the competition that much in one year, let alone two times in a row (does anyone have a list of best selling albums of that year?). It's not a reach

[MrPeanut]

Originally posted by Nialler

What the hell are adjusted sales Kworb? How did you make it? It means that Adele's album woud be now reaching 80 million copies sold according to those factors. It's more than the best selling albums of all time

Fitting for the most successful album of all time.

[Kworb]

Originally posted by Nialler

But we all know that nobody would ever sell that much. It's a huge oversimplification.

Not really. Adele's numbers are astronomical. If an album as successful as 21 had been released in 1999, it would've sold over 50 million for sure.

[MrPeanut]

Originally posted by iHypeMusic

If anyone actually believes that list, or takes it that serious.

Kworb's list is just a prediction. There's no actual accurate way to predict how much any album would've sold in a certain date.

His prediction holds as much liability as anyone else's. There's nothing proven.

It is not a prediction.

It's an adjustment to account for overall market fluctuation.

[Nialler]

Originally posted by slobro

21 sold three times as much as it's nearest competitor in 2011, and three times as much as it's nearest competitor in 2012. I don't Thriller managed to dominate the competition that much in one year, let alone two times in a row. It's not a reach

Those were different times and promotion was very limited If you really take this list seriously
And Adele's sales are anomaly.

[iHype.]

Originally posted by slobro

21 sold three times as much as it's nearest competitor in 2011, and three times as much as it's nearest competitor in 2012. I don't Thriller managed to dominate the competition that much in one year, let alone two times in a row. It's not a reach

Thriller dominated for 2 years in a row (best-selling album of 83 & 84), and even harder in both years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...albums_of_1983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...albums_of_1984

[Gagasm]

Originally posted by slobro

21 sold three times as much as it's nearest competitor in 2011, and again three times as much as it's nearest competitor in 2012. I don't Thriller managed to dominate the competition that much in one year, let alone two times in a row (does anyone have a list of best selling albums of that year?). It's not a reach

Adele really pooped on our faves 1000 times over

[NX127]

[iHype.]

Originally posted by MrPeanut

It is not a prediction.

It's an adjustment to account for overall market fluctuation.

There's no way to determine the sales under a market accurately, and it's not just adjusted based off sales. Longevity, Circumstances, etc has to also be brought into the calculation as longevity now is like 10x shorter, and there's different circumstances (illegal downloading).

Kworb's is a nice look, but you can't automatically say an album would've sold 3x more because there's so many factors you have to add in besides overall sales. There's no way to determine it precisely.

[Ecstasy]

Adele would have sold less in 1999. Her music wouldn't be that much of a standout with the vocal trinity still pestering the industry. Adele appeared during the peak of the EDM craze and ended it, Adele in the 90s would just be considered a wannabe vocal diva and shoved out of the public eye faster than Janets nipple.

[Nicole]

Daily Mail: Make-up free Julianne Moore opts for androgynous look in baggy torn boyfriend jeans on New York stroll

Poor Gaga/P!nk/the manly & androgynous popstars

[slobro]

Originally posted by LoveTheWayILie

Adele would have sold less in 1999. Her music wouldn't be that much of a standout with the vocal trinity still pestering the industry. Adele appeared during the peak of the EDM craze and ended it, Adele in the 90s would just be considered a wannabe vocal diva and shoved out of the public eye faster than Janets nipple.

We're just talking about if the market was the same, not Adele literally releasing 21 during the 90s
Put it this way, an album with the same chartrun as 21 in the 90s would've been over 50 million for sure

Originally posted by Gagasm

Adele really pooped on our faves 1000 times over

I really can't Hope she flops tho, it's her fault pop is so BORING rn

Originally posted by iHypeMusic

Thriller dominated for 2 years in a row (best-selling album of 83 & 84), and even harder in both years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...albums_of_1983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...albums_of_1984

Adele was the #1 of both 2011 and 2012 so it's pretty comparable

[MrPeanut]

Originally posted by iHypeMusic

There's no way to determine the sales under a market accurately, and it's not just adjusted based off sales. Longevity, Circumstances, etc has to also be brought into the calculation as longevity now is like 10x shorter, and there's different circumstances (illegal downloading).

Kworb's is a nice look, but you can't automatically say an album would've sold 3x more because there's so many factors you have to add in besides overall sales. There's no way to determine it precisely.

There is no perfect way to draw a comparison, there are only better or worse ways. Adjusting sales as a reflection of the overall market is the best option available.

Think of it as a comparison of how dominant each album's sales were within the context of the particular market environment in which each was released.

[adrianbeane]

Adele sold so much because her album appealed to a kind of demographic (people over 30 basically) that isn't necessarily aimed at when your average ''pop girl'' releases a song. She also stood out from all the generic cheap dance songs dominating the charts. It makes hardly any sense to say she would have sold x copies in 1999 because the market back then was completely different. I think she'll still have a few succesful albums and tours but in a year or 8-10 her commercial appeal will have dissapeared.

[Kworb]

I just checked and album sales in the early 80s were only about 40% higher than they were during Adele's reign, so Thriller and 21 are pretty close.

[BobBertran1992]

Originally posted by Nicole

Daily Mail: Make-up free Julianne Moore opts for androgynous look in baggy torn boyfriend jeans on New York stroll

Poor Gaga/P!nk/the manly & androgynous popstars

It must be the low quality but she looks waaay younger here

[iHype.]

Adele triumphed because her album appeals to truly everyone.

My grandma bought Skyfall when she performed it at the Oscar's or whatever that Award Show was. My grandparents don't even listen to singers, they only listen to Smooth Jazz.

[slobro]

Originally posted by Kworb

I just checked and album sales in the early 80s were only about 40% higher than they were during Adele's reign, so Thriller and 21 are pretty close.

But all the albums in the 80s sold way over 40% more than those of 2011 right?
Did that statistic overlook vinyl and cassette albums? CDs weren't the only format back then