| |
Discussion: Why is a US #1 Album important?
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 408
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FAME.
Apparently not since that chart is an official ranking from IFPI 
On top of that your size argument is an irrelevant reach quite honestly. It's definitely comparable considering. 1) There are countries larger than the US whose music markets are nowhere near as massive 2) Japan is the second biggest music market in the world and it's definitely not the largest place by any means.
 |
That IFPI report was done by looking at individual countries. From a finance perspective that is not generally how it is done. A country with 300 million cannot be compared fairly to a smaller country with 60million so given that the Country (US) is more comparable to the Europe (continent). Especially since both have similar resources, marketability and availability.
There are countries bigger than US like China or India but they don't have the same resources etc as the US.If a country like China(1billion) were to have the same standards, resources as the US and piracy wasn't so rife which country do you think would have the biggest music market?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/17/2011
Posts: 6,399
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cheriah
Nicki's case is difference. She moved to America when she was 4, was educated there, acclimatized there ect. She speaks with an American accent and reps Queens in her music
Rihanna, Born and raised in Barbados, only came to America at age 16 to start a music career. She reps Barbados in every thing she does, is the official Barbadian cultural ambassador, speaks with a heavy Bajan accent, her family still lives there and she is there often when she has a break. Reputable music or news publications/orgs i.e Rolling Stone, MTV, VH1, BBC, CNN never refer to her as an American artist, it is always "Bajan recording artist'. There is no part of Rihanna that is American. Why are you trying to dispute this fact
Your final tallies of Rihanna's albums are grossly under estimated but I won't go into that in this thread.
|
So as long as Rihanna is selling in Barbados, which doesn't even have a music chart, she's all good? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/17/2011
Posts: 16,910
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RihRihGirrrl
As a Rihanna fan I've accepted that she's NOT gonna be a huge first week seller so long as she continues to release an album on a yearly basis. Again, building anticipation and buzz for an album is VERY important. Most Americans don't buy albums period anymore, the chances of them consistently buying albums from the same artist every year, is slim to none. She continues to mesh her eras (GGGB, RR, LOUD, TTT) and that not only takes away from any hype but it confuses people. LOUD is still very much fresh in peoples minds and the fact that they didn't invest much into promoting the album doesn't help at all. That being said, it's obviously a strategy that Rihanna/Def Jam have decided to pursue in hopes of having longevity with sells. I don't look at it as a bad thing. I think people are so used to #1 albums as the blueprint to a successful album/era that anything outside of that is looked at as a disappointment, but could it be that Rihanna/Def Jam are using a different blueprint to success?? If the sales are ultimately rolling in on a YEARLY basis, then why should they be concerned with having the title of a #1 album?
|
I agree partially. Def Jam's strategy is very sloppy, their overemphasis on singles over branding Rihanna "the artist" is concerning. It almost leads me to believe that they are afraid that if Rihanna takes an extended break she risks being replaced, which isn't completely far fetched in fickle pop.
Now to say that people no longer buy records is not true. Adele is selling records like crazy, and many artists have consistently high opening, I won't name but I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. What Rihanna does have going for her however is record longevity, so in the end yes her record will sell .... but only if she keeps churning out a #1 every three months, but what will happen when she finally decides to take a break, or to experiment with a different sound (Rated R).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/17/2011
Posts: 6,399
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cheriah
That IFPI report was done by looking at individual countries. From a finance perspective that is not generally how it is done. A country with 300 million cannot be compared fairly to a smaller country with 60million so given that the Country (US) is more comparable to the Europe (continent). Especially since both have similar resources, marketability and availability.
There are countries bigger than US like China or India but they don't have the same resources etc as the US.If a country like China(1billion) were to have the same standards, resources as the US and piracy wasn't so rife which country do you think would have the biggest music market?
|
What? 
You don't think a country that has the capacity to sell more music than any other country in the world should be deemed the largest music market in the world? What sense does it make to compare one country to a continent with over 40 countries and more than double the population?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,413
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
You missed the whole point of that post. |
No, I didn't. I am just acting like most of you are - ignoring most of the points and questioning only one of them. The OP asked why #1 is so important when a #2 may have bigger sales than the first and you all started with the BS - "she has one gazzilion #1's, her current single is smash, blah blah blah, what a fail, etc.".
You all seem to forget that she is releasing albums on an yearly basis (she released WFL when Cheers was in the top 10). Even though she hasn't topped the HOT 200 she is still selling pretty good and outselling most of her peers.
Following your logic - having an #1 album in the US which has sold 2 million units WW >>> having a #2/3/4/5 album in the US which has sold 6 million. Seems right to me. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/18/2010
Posts: 18,082
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cheriah
That IFPI report was done by looking at individual countries. From a finance perspective that is not generally how it is done. A country with 300 million cannot be compared fairly to a smaller country with 60million so given that the Country (US) is more comparable to the Europe (continent). Especially since both have similar resources, marketability and availability.
There are countries bigger than US like China or India but they don't have the same resources etc as the US.If a country like China(1billion) were to have the same standards, resources as the US and piracy wasn't so rife which country do you think would have the biggest music market?
|
Ok gorl When it gets to the point where the gorls are acting as if China is a third world country you know there's just no point. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/17/2011
Posts: 9,051
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaru
I agree partially. Def Jam's strategy is very sloppy, their overemphasis on singles over branding Rihanna "the artist" is concerning. It almost leads me to believe that they are afraid that if Rihanna takes an extended break she risks being replaced, which isn't completely far fetched in fickle pop.
Now to say that people no longer buy records is not true. Adele is selling records like crazy, and many artists have consistently high opening, I won't name but I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. What Rihanna does have going for her however is record longevity, so in the end yes her record will sell .... but only if she keeps churning out a #1 every three months, but what will happen when she finally decides to take a break, or to experiment with a different sound (Rated R).
|
Adele isn't the rule she's the exception.....but again, most American's aren't gonna commit to buying a new album from an artist every year. That doesn't mean that Rihanna the artist isn't being established. I mean the fact that she can continue to sell well on a yearly basis with each album that she releases is a testimate to her star power. Do you honestly think that an artist that isn't hugely popular can sell 5-6 million units a year with new material??
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/4/2010
Posts: 37,894
|
It's basically like this:
Beyoncé - American → US-based label = US is her Primary Market
Justin Bieber - Canadian → US-based label = US is his Primary Market
Nicki Minaj - Trinidadian, raised in America → US-based label = US is her Primary Market
Rihanna - Bajan → US-based label = US is her Primary Market
The common factor: US-based label. So cut that 'Barbados is more important" crap, it's irrelevant. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/17/2011
Posts: 6,399
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FAME.
Ok gorl When it gets to the point where the gorls are acting as if China is a third world country you know there's just no point. |
With the second largest economy in the world. What the hell?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,413
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaru
[CENTER]
Now to say that people no longer buy records is not true. Adele is selling records like crazy, and many artists have consistently high opening, I won't name but I'm sure you know who I'm talking about.
|
Name other artist that have consistently high opening and are selling records like crazy, other than Adele. Lady Gaga is a contender but as of lately she isn't selling records like Adele.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/17/2011
Posts: 16,910
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cas
The album that went to #1 didn't sell 300k either. Sit.
|
Clearly you're reading skills are lacking since you disregarded the part where I clearly stated I was going to leave the trivialization of numerical chart positioning aside for a second.
Rihanna just had a Multi-platinum album, a world tour, 4 #1 singles in the US and the current #1 on radio.... She should have effortlessly outsold Nickelback and she didn't.
You can take 2 seats. One for every artist that outsold your fave this week.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 10/3/2010
Posts: 12,334
|
We've had this thread a million times.
Fact is, when you have a #1 album, it means that for that week, people bought your album the most.
It doesn't matter if you sell 300k and you're #2, and those numbers would easily be a #1 any other week.
The point is that you weren't good enough to sell the most for that week, and that speaks volumes about you as an artist
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,413
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaru
Clearly you're reading skills are lacking since you disregarded the part where I clearly stated I was going to leave the trivialization of numerical chart positioning aside for a second.
Rihanna just had a Multi-platinum album, a world tour, 4 #1 singles in the US and the current #1 on radio.... She should have effortlessly outsold Nickelback and she didn't.
You can take 2 seats. One for ever artist that outsold your fave this week.
|
I just explained why I did this. Next.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,413
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape
We've had this thread a million times.
Fact is, when you have a #1 album, it means that for that week, people bought your album the most.
It doesn't matter if you sell 300k and you're #2, and those numbers would easily be a #1 any other week.
|
Of course it wouldn't matter... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/17/2011
Posts: 9,051
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape
We've had this thread a million times.
Fact is, when you have a #1 album, it means that for that week, people bought your album the most.
It doesn't matter if you sell 300k and you're #2, and those numbers would easily be a #1 any other week.
The point is that you weren't good enough to sell the most for that week, and that speaks volumes about you as an artist
|
so when you're albums don't have any longevity what does that say about an artist??
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/17/2011
Posts: 16,910
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape
We've had this thread a million times.
Fact is, when you have a #1 album, it means that for that week, people bought your album the most.
It doesn't matter if you sell 300k and you're #2, and those numbers would easily be a #1 any other week.
The point is that you weren't good enough to sell the most for that week, and that speaks volumes about you as an artist
|
Thank you.
As if the 300 threads made today explaining this basic fact weren't enough.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/31/2010
Posts: 26,257
|
I see no lies. That is not something I agree with the Navy on at all. But really, her two main audiences are US and the UK. That we can't deny, not just the US. But she should be strong in both, not just really strong in one and decent in another.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 408
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shame♥
What?
You don't think a country that has the capacity to sell more music than any other country in the world should be deemed the largest music market in the world? What sense does it make to compare one country to a continent with over 40 countries and more than double the population? |
The point I am trying to make is that market size is normally determined by the amount of people with buying power it is available to. India and China have larger populations but lack resources plus piracy is on another level in these countries
The US is a bigger country with the right resources to make music available and marketable for sale. The EU consists of much smaller markets with the same resource availabilities but because these countries are 5 or 4 times smaller than the US it would not be a fair comparison to make. The European Union Vs the US is more comparable.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/5/2006
Posts: 9,829
|
It's an accomplishment but not a necessary one. What's the point of going to #1 if you're going to flop anyway (see Bionic in the UK)? It's better to sell than to chart. But then again, people would rather say they had a #1 album than 'I sold 200,000 copies in my first week'.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/17/2011
Posts: 9,051
|
Im really curious....if poor first week sales mean that you're not an established artist and that people are not here for you then what do poor overall sales say about an artist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
