[Crazytowel]

It comes down to sales at the end of the day, if it's a long and healthy career you're after. But #1's help keep a good public perception.

[satellites.™]

Originally posted by _roc la familia .

I'm guessing this is a thread by a Rihanna stan since it's about album peaks.

Of course.

[Knix]

Originally posted by _roc la familia .

I'm guessing this is a thread by a Rihanna stan since it's about album peaks.

Destruction!

[LightandDarkness]

Originally posted by MrPeanut

Just like Bionic on the UK chart.

I was just going to use that as an example.

[_roc la familia .]

Originally posted by MusicTalker

Did I mention Rihanna? I did not.

But would this thread even exist if she didn't have a #1 peak while EVERYONE ELSE does?

Discuss.

[hector.adriel]

a #1 is a #1. In 10 years no one will remember "OMG, this album sold 421,682 copies and debuted at #5! ", but "this album was #1. PERIOD.

[b3dro]

for the artist? sales of course

[MusicTalker]

Originally posted by satellites™

When you're done, a #1 album matters, always has and always will or there wouldn't be a chart placing them in order. Both matter, and one should be able to obtain both of them anyway, since it seems to be so easy to do.

A #1 album depends on timing & competition. If you release in January you're lots more likely to debut at #1 than other times of the year.

After seeing so many #1 albums have terrible longetivity & lack of impact, I see sales of having far more impact.

[Shapes]

Originally posted by georges_2251

Sales, but a number 1 will bring in more

Peak.

No one says "Rihanna! With her 10 #1 singles, and her 5 albums that peaked at #2 or less!"

As a Gaga stan, it's easier to argue that sales are more important ("Bad Romance sold moar than ur fave ____ could NEVER"), but the fact of the matter is, it STINGS to see that Bad Romance never hit #1. #1 means that no matter how low or high you were, everyone else did worse. It proves that you're at the top.

Do you guys really think anyone is gonna remember LMFAO in 2 years? No. However, the fact that they've been #1 for 4 (almost 5) weeks will always be burned into people's minds.

[Drais.]

Peaks matter. Deal with it.

[KoreanDream]

Originally posted by hector.adriel

a #1 is a #1. In 10 years no one will remember "OMG, this album sold 421,682 copies and debuted at #5! ", but "this album was #1. PERIOD.

But if your discography includes 5 albums that all went #1 but only amounted to 15 million in WW sales versus a discography that includes 5 albums, none of which went #1, but amounted to 30 million, which is better?

[skyler]

Originally posted by satellites™

And that means you had the best selling album in the country that week, meaning EVERYONE else sold less than you did.

I guess peak matter more than sales

[Duca]

Originally posted by MusicTalker

A #1 album depends on timing & competition. If you release in January you're lots more likely to debut at #1 than other times of the year.

If you're a force, you will open at #1 no matter what.

[Deuces]

I prefer sales but peaks are important. It's a more recognizable title. You won't hear "Now performing Lady Gaga with her 3.5 million sold single Born this way" you will hear "Now performing Lady Gaga with her #1 single Born this way".

PS I dont know how much BTW sold, I just said a number.

[fabian_phipps]

Originally posted by KoreanDream

With albums:
I'd rather debut at #3 with 400k.

But overall, they are somewhat important. Even if you sell millions and millions of records, having an album that peaked at, say, #16 is still embarrassing.

With singles:
I'd rather peak at #1 and not sell a ton than peak at #3 and sell a ton. Not many people seem to care about single sales and while longevity is important, the peak is the most important component of a single.

But would you not prefer a song peaking at #2 that sells 5 million +, which is remembered by the public in years to come rather than a song which debuts at #1 then falls of the chart with 3 weeks. Take into consideration that the general public will most likely think/presume the song with epic longevity went #1 anyway.

[ifyouseekLEM]

History won't recall sales. It's ALL about the peak.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by KoreanDream

But if your discography includes 5 albums that all went #1 but only amounted to 15 million in WW sales versus a discography that includes 5 albums, none of which went #1, but amounted to 30 million, which is better?

To the public...the people that matter, of course the 5 number 1 albums. They don't care about sales enough to know what they are, but they will most likely remember if an album was number 1 or not

[MrPeanut]

Originally posted by hector.adriel

a #1 is a #1. In 10 years no one will remember "OMG, this album sold 421,682 copies and debuted at #5! ", but "this album was #1. PERIOD.

People don't know what the #1 album is NOW, they certainly won't ten years down the line. All they will remember is how much they were / were not exposed to the music

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Duca

If you're a force, you will open at #1 no matter what.

No truer words have been spoken.

[YoYo]

Overall sales are obviously more important but that doesn't make peaks meaningless