| |
Discussion: Is Gaga's impact as big as Britney's in her peak?
Member Since: 3/13/2011
Posts: 4,742
|
Not really. With Britney you could see her effect pretty immediately. She had everyone trying to be like her but she also started a lot of backlash in the musical community too. She had tons of pop princess trying to model their careers after her but she also had a lot of artists who wanted to be the polar opposite to cash in on the public who didn't like her. You had the Christina's, the Mandy's, the Jessica's all frothing at the bit to see her kind of success but it never worked. Then you had the anti-Britney's like Avril and Norah Jones who were the anti-thesis of everything Britney was with their rock and blues sounds and none of her clones or her dark mirror images could compare to the impact she had. I would say bar the Backstreet Boys, Britney was the biggest thing to come out of pop music since Madonna. Britney was a global phenomenon and her image was felt across the globe. Britney pretty much set the mold for how a young teen popstar is supposed to be which is why you see all the young teen pop girls being modeled after her. Britney was Madonna for teens. I can't say that Gaga has really done anything similar to that.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/11/2011
Posts: 57
|
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
Adele not even being able to get certified Diamond shows something.
Albums sales have declined. Even Adele has experienced digital piracy and online streaming. Had the market been as big as it was in the 1990s her album would have been huge.
|
She's sold 6 million in the USA and 4.5 million in the UK. 21 is the 10th best selling album of ALL TIME in the UK. That out-sells what? 99% of albums ever released? I know piracy is a much bigger problem for the music industry than it was in 2001 but that doesn't discredit Britney's sales. Piracy still existed in 01/02. I remember having copied discs/tape recordings when I was ***** popping to Aaliyah and N*Sync.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 9,692
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Illegal
If you want to defend Britney, you shouldn't give that argument. 10 years later, in a middle of a crisis, with more than a half of decreasing from album's sales, and Gaga second album's first-week sales are just 200,000 lower than Britney's second album 
And if you want to compare the same era, just note that "The Fame" and "Born This Way" sold 20m while "Blackout", "Circus" and "Femme Fatale" can't even reach 10m. |
There's a reason the greats are all compared at their peaks...
Like, you wouldn't compare Britney at her peak to Madonna at the time. It's unfair because it's a completely different hype...
and Britney, back then, bested Gaga by far, without any special promotions.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/7/2011
Posts: 20,627
|
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
Assuming Gaga would sell 71 million with another 45 dates she wouldn't have.
45 + 45 = 90 dates (so another 7 dates should be added)
71 + 71 = 142 million
Britney only grossed 130 million.
Gaga would have outgrossed Britney's tour regardless.
|
As I said, are we not talking about WW? Assuming Britney had 200 dates WW, that would have doubled the 130 million into 260 million, already out grossing Gaga's tour with still dates leftover.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mister Martian
No she didn't. Her box office score shows plenty of dates not at 100%, unlike your claim. She had about 15,000 unsold tickets...
|
I never said she sold out ALL of her shows..
I just said she was selling out with consistent numbers implying most of the time.
I read somewhere that Gaga never dropped below 95% attendance.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 11/25/2011
Posts: 1,626
|
Quote:
Originally posted by i spit on haters
Britney has had a much longer career so of course older receipts are being brought up, genius. The thread holds no merit with out it. And you say we were four as if were talking about ****ing Elvis. Most of us were pre-teens when Britney made her debut.  |
Here's the thing, when you bring up old receipts in comparison to somehow who popped up on the scene four years ago, your argument holds no merit.
You cannot compare album sales at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kats
As I said, are we not talking about WW? Assuming Britney had 200 dates WW, that would have doubled the 130 million into 260 million, already out grossing Gaga's tour with still dates leftover.
|
That math is flawed. You can't just double it and assume that the same amount of people would show up.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mister Martian
There's a reason the greats are all compared at their peaks...
Like, you wouldn't compare Britney at her peak to Madonna at the time. It's unfair because it's a completely different hype...
and Britney, back then, bested Gaga by far, without any special promotions.
|
"Back then..." Back then before iTunes. Back then before rampant Internet piracy.
The fact that Gaga has done so well even though we live in the age of stealing music says something, especially since Britney hasn't been able to sell an album since, what, before Blackout? Britney was killed by the surge of Internet piracy while Gaga has prevailed. That tells you that if she was around back in 2000, her sales would be triple or quadruple what they are.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/16/2010
Posts: 69,775
|
Just because Adele is selling a gargantuan amount doesn't automatically mean 2011-2012's sales are as big overall as 2000-2002. 
That's illogical. 21 is not a normal-selling album.
-----
And I did see someone say Britney has influenced culture by other girls being named Britney? Or was I not seeing correctly, because that was one of the most common-girl names way before Britney's time.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/15/2009
Posts: 12,195
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Illegal
If you want to defend Britney, you shouldn't give that argument. 10 years later, in a middle of a crisis, with more than a half of decreasing from album's sales, and Gaga second album's first-week sales are just 200,000 lower than Britney's second album
And if you want to compare the same era, just note that "The Fame" and "Born This Way" sold 20m while "Blackout", "Circus" and "Femme Fatale" can't even reach 10m.
|
You do understand first-week sales are a MUCH bigger factor now than they were 12 years ago?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/15/2009
Posts: 23,385
|
Mariska coming with truths. 
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 11/24/2009
Posts: 61,404
|
I'd say Britney's impact was bigger than Gaga's during their respective peaks. Britney had a royal flush of a hand to play with: sex. Of all popstars past and present, Britney is the definitive sex icon. Madonna wasn't hot enough. No matter how much Katy flashes her breasts and Rihanna grabs her crotch, they don't make guys drool the way Britney did. And Gaga, well, even she knows it:
Quote:
|
"A girl’s got to use what she’s given and I’m not going to make a guy drool the way a Britney video does."
|
It came from tapping into the fantasy of guys wanting a pristine teenage girl who'll do things that pristine teenage girls don't do. So badly did they want Britney's sex that she could make another hot girl like Xtina disappear.
Sex was Britney's main card to play with and the driving force behind her impact. As soon as she made the mistake of shattering the mental image of Britney the masturbatory fantasy, her career suffered a big decline that continues to this day (compare FF to Circus). This despite the fact that she's still young and that her music and videos are actually better than they were during her peak.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kats
As I said, are we not talking about WW? Assuming Britney had 200 dates WW, that would have doubled the 130 million into 260 million, already out grossing Gaga's tour with still dates leftover.
|
I don't think Britney could have sold another 130 million. Gaga selling another 71 million is one thing but 130 million..
That's a stretch.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/1/2011
Posts: 9,640
|
Quote:
Originally posted by chris1991
Britney was simply bigger like I said. I lived through both eras and Britney was everywhere. When I was non Stan her firs album I literally saw heard of her everywhere.
Her record sales also don't lie.
I know all you say, sales and times have changes but look at Adela current album sales. She's doing numbers artist only dream about now.
|
Sis you're talking like if we were all 12yo!
I STANNED and lived for Brit's music at her peak.
I can tell, it's the same.
You should put aside your dislike for Gaga.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 5/15/2010
Posts: 15,858
|
Britney didn't even have to say a word to make news/controversy.
That's how famous she was during her peak.
#teaserved.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/13/2011
Posts: 4,742
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MusicTalker
Just because Adele is selling a gargantuan amount doesn't automatically mean 2011-2012's sales are as big overall as 2000-2002.
That's illogical. 21 is not a normal-selling album. |
I think the Adele situation is an interesting one. 21 is easily going to outsell TFM at the rate it's going and I am pretty sure Adele will have major sales with her singles once INFP monitor how much they sold for the past year this February. I think it's saying something if Adele's 21 out performs Gaga's The Fame so soon after Gaga's big splash.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 9,692
|
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
I never said she sold out ALL of her shows..
I just said she was selling out with consistent numbers implying most of the time.
I read somewhere that Gaga never dropped below 95% attendance.
|
O RLY?
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
But she sold out consistently for all those 200 dates.
That shows something.
And she made 70 million with like 47 shows in N. America alone..  |
Quote:
|
O2 World Hamburg Hamburg 7,010 / 10,500 (67%) $600,688
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
I don't know why ya'll are bringing up Adele. She too is being hampered by the current state of the music market. She's the exception, not the rule.
If we were to graph out the gradual decline of album sales it would be very apparent.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/10/2010
Posts: 14,634
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
Not really. With Britney you could see her effect pretty immediately. She had everyone trying to be like her but she also started a lot of backlash in the musical community too. She had tons of pop princess trying to model their careers after her but she also had a lot of artists who wanted to be the polar opposite to cash in on the public who didn't like her. You had the Christina's, the Mandy's, the Jessica's all frothing at the bit to see her kind of success but it never worked. Then you had the anti-Britney's like Avril and Norah Jones who were the anti-thesis of everything Britney was with their rock and blues sounds and none of her clones or her dark mirror images could compare to the impact she had. I would say bar the Backstreet Boys, Britney was the biggest thing to come out of pop music since Madonna. Britney was a global phenomenon and her image was felt across the globe. Britney pretty much set the mold for how a young teen popstar is supposed to be which is why you see all the young teen pop girls being modeled after her. Britney was Madonna for teens. I can't say that Gaga has really done anything similar to that.
|
You can't attribute that all to Britney, the late 90's was a teen pop movement in general. And how is Norah Britney's antithesis? That makes no sense. She is in another entirely different league.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/11/2011
Posts: 57
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Illegal
If you want to defend Britney, you shouldn't give that argument. 10 years later, in a middle of a crisis, with more than a half of decreasing from album's sales, and Gaga second album's first-week sales are just 200,000 lower than Britney's second album
And if you want to compare the same era, just note that "The Fame" and "Born This Way" sold 20m while "Blackout", "Circus" and "Femme Fatale" can't even reach 10m. |
But people in the last few years are reaching records set in the early 00's and late 90's? So that argument, to be HONEST, is null and void? It applies to an EXTENT but then you have to take in consideration that GAGA SOLD HER ALBUM FOR 1$. And until you have receipts on the exact numbers from each music outlet, you don't wanna be talking about "financial crisises".
And Blackout/Circus/Femme Fatale are all post-breakdown and we ALL know that effected her status as a musician. The Fame and BTW are Gaga's PEAK. None of those three albums are Britney's. And they're her 5th/6th/7th albums, not her first two.
I can't at your logic rn.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2010
Posts: 37,025
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
I think the Adele situation is an interesting one. 21 is easily going to outsell TFM at the rate it's going and I am pretty sure Adele will have major sales with her singles once INFP monitor how much they sold for the past year this February. I think it's saying something if Adele's 21 out performs Gaga's The Fame so soon after Gaga's big splash.
|
It's saying that Adele is a market anomaly and her album is putting up the most impressive global sales since Thriller. You know better than this.
You may as well ponder what it meant for Britney to have a compilation album come (with material that had been available to the public for decades) out the year after her debut and surpass her WW. You can ponder a lot of things out of context.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/7/2011
Posts: 20,627
|
Quote:
Originally posted by vengabeat
That math is flawed. You can't just double it and assume that the same amount of people would show up.
|
Taking in account of her average, which is 130.800.000 million divided by 97 shows equals about 1.3 million per show. Multiply that by 104 which is the amount of dates Gaga has over Britney, equals over 140.000.000. She still would have grossed more taking into account her average. It doesn't get much more logical than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
