[Rainsford]

Originally posted by superben

The Hives combine receipts from Bey's entire career (singles from one, tour from another, etc.) to argue against 1989.

Beyoncé didn't peak with everything in one era

[KillingYourCareer]

Originally posted by M A R C

1989 isn't on it's way to become an iconic album.
It hasn't produced any iconic songs.
No iconic videos.

So no.

Pretty much this. "Halo" is a classic in European radios, I still hear it a lot. "Single Ladies" is remembered by EVERYONE all over the world. "If I Were a Boy" was also huge here and is still played on the radio.
Taylor doesn't have any classics so far.

[Katy V.!]

Originally posted by Bey_Rihstan

No one is denying that 1989 is big. But it's only bigger in the US & a few other countries than IASF or DIL. & it doesn't have any singles bigger than SL or IIWAB. Funny how ya'll always drag Bey for being "local" but it's all of a sudden a different story now.

It's funny because that's the same argument yall try to discredit against the navy.

Anyway, it already outsold IASF and its sales are already more impressive than DIL, so yes, bigger album.

And the singles are far bigger so there's not even a competition

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by KillingYourCareer

No, not even close to IASF. In my country the era ended before Style was released.

In my country 1989 didn't even start and sold like 20k vs 550k of IASF

[liberalmusiclover]

It already is. The only eras it isn't bigger than from this current crop of pop girls is 21, The Fame, Good Girl Gone Bad, and Britney's first couple of eras.

[Rainsford]

And so 1989 did good WW? every artist deserves at least one congrats on being her first successful era WW

EDIT: she is still a nobody in Latin America and Africa. Let's hope 1990 can change it.

[Starkboy]

In US it is, outside of that nope. 1989 hasn't a Crazy in Love in it.

[Ash12345]

Originally posted by ianBK4

And so 1989 did good WW? every artist deserves at least one congrats on being her first successful era WW

Lol
Every taylor album has sold 6m worldwide.
The last time your fave saw those numbers were 7 years ago. When album sales were still massive.

[Kworb]

The 2003 equivalent of 1989's sales is well over 20 million. That's just too big of a lead over Beyoncé's eras for other factors to make up for it.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by liberalmusiclover

It already is. The only eras it isn't bigger than from this current crop of pop girls is 21, The Fame, Good Girl Gone Bad, and Britney's first couple of eras.

+ we could also consider P!nk, Shakira, Avril and Kelly their biggest eras. All sold over 10m copies and spawned some memorable songs.

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by Ash12345

Lol
Every taylor album has sold 6m worldwide.
The last time your fave saw those numbers were 7 years ago. When album sales were still massive.

Congrats on being very successful in the US

[Bounce]

I can't Hive using "global" receipts to drag anyone

[Havoc]

Originally posted by Kworb

The 2003 equivalent of 1989's sales is well over 20 million. That's just too big of a lead over Beyoncé's eras for other factors to make up for it.

Oh please. by this logic, 1989 is the biggest album of all time. Y'all can't just manipulate the stats just to give Taylor the advantage. The fact of the matter is that Dangerously In Love is a more successful album than 1989 so the answer to this question is a no.

[Iyanla, Fix Me]

Originally posted by Howie

We're pressed but we didn't make the thread and prior to your post only ONE Beyonce fan posted. Do you even know what the definition of pressed is? Cuz im sure if you looked it up right next to it would be a picture of you.

Right?

[Bounce]

Originally posted by Katy V.!

It's funny because that's the same argument yall try to discredit against the navy.

Anyway, it already outsold IASF and its sales are already more impressive than DIL, so yes, bigger album.

And the singles are far bigger so there's not even a competition

IKR?

-

GLOBAL ALL TIME CHART

cmd+f "Taylor Swift"

114 Shake It Off
300 Blank Space
359 I Knew You Were Trouble

cmd+f "Beyonce"

N/A

cmd+f "Beyoncé"

N/A

[Nano]

Originally posted by Kworb

The 2003 equivalent of 1989's sales is well over 20 million. That's just too big of a lead over Beyoncé's eras for other factors to make up for it.

That doesn't even make sense. I find it really hard to believe Taylor would've sold 20 million if 1989 was released in 2003's economy.

OT: No. Like all of Taylor's eras, it will be forgotten about a year after it's finished.

[alfonso12]

It's already bigger considering 1989's sales come from 2014-2015.

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by Kworb

The 2003 equivalent of 1989's sales is well over 20 million. That's just too big of a lead over Beyoncé's eras for other factors to make up for it.

Yeah cause 1989 would sell over 20 million in 2003 when Taylor's power rely heavily on social media.

[Howie]

Originally posted by superben

The Hives combine receipts from Bey's entire career (album sales from one, singles from another, tour from even another, etc.) to argue against 1989 which is one single era.

is that not what the title is asking?

Like girl READ!

ANY BEYONCE ERA vs 1989.

[Katy V.!]

Originally posted by Havoc

Oh please. by this logic, 1989 is the biggest album of all time. Y'all can't just manipulate the stats just to give Taylor the advantage. The fact of the matter is that Dangerously In Love is a more successful album than 1989 so the answer to this question is a no.

So, you would say that "Music Box" or "Dangerous" are bigger than "21" because they sold a few millions more WW? Despite the fact that the latter has the best chart-run of all time in the US and 2nd-best (behind Thriller) in basically every country?