[Cockney Cupcake]

Originally posted by family.guy123

well how much (in total) has Adele grossed?

This is her first arena tour.
The 21 era had theaters & there are very little/none box office data.

[Truth Teller]

Some of you have been doing a bit too much on Adele since February. The girl still made history and her records are locked down for eternity. Give her the due credit

Originally posted by Mariano

Oh my ****ing god.

ATRL proving once again how uneducated they are.

25 earned more money to Adele and her label in its first 2 weeks than 1989 did in its entire run.

25 sold 7 ****ing millions in 2 weeks With minimal promo.

It's nearly 20M albums sold now only in a few months.

Long era doesn't mean more successful. More exposure ? Sure. More success ? HOW ? 25 has sold more than Taylor Swift's 2 most succesful albums WW and it's yet to have its 3rd single announced

"1989 was the bigger era"

yeah the only correct thing in that stupid sentence is "WAS" because 1989 era is OVER.

25 IS bigger and is going to continue being bigger, considering Adele is yet to release her 3rd single and has already sold 20 ****ing M WW.

And her tour will be big enough for 25's "ERA" to be bigger than 1989. And I love Taylor.

Why are you always so angry?

And I'm one of the people who said 1989 is the bigger era, so why are you calling my opinion "stupid"?

[Mariano]

Originally posted by Truth Teller

Some of you have been doing a bit too much on Adele since February. The girl still made history and her records are locked down for eternity. Give her the due credit


Why are you so angry?

And I'm one of the people who said 1989 is the bigger era, so why are you calling my opinion "stupid"? Because you don't agree with the tense of the verb?

Why the **** not bitch ? Do I have to be happy, facing stupidity and stuff ? Leave me alone !

There is simply no way an era that sold 20M albums in 4 months with 2 singles is "smaller" than an era that sold 8M albums WW with 7 singles.

Both have huge tours. Adele's - more global. Taylor's - more expensive, but more local.

Like what if Adele releases 3 more singles ? You realize that 25 may even reach 25M ? Is it still going to be smaller ? Where is the logic ? Where is it ?

1 tour and a few singles do NOT add up enough for her era to be bigger when you simply consider the fact that 25 sold 20M, Hello is bigger than any single from 1989 and Adele's tour will be huge enough. Like..

[popstar]

1989.

[Tristan]

1989 ofc

[castle13]

Originally posted by Cockney Cupcake

Even in the Taylor base you are currently talking about it so let's not. Her singles? As in only WWWY which was a cute top 15 hit that everyone knows. I explained why the album will be out of the top 10 same with the tour your lack of common sense and reading comprehension us not my problem

Were you checking for 1989 updates when you checked our base? No one knows about WWWY here in my neighborhood. 25 basically only had one single and that was Hello. Your explanation doesnt change the fact that 1989 spent more weeks atop BB200 and had more consecutive weeks inside the top 10 of BB200. AOTY of 2015 with 3 #1 hits and 250M grossing tour is clearly superior

[Goaty]

Originally posted by Mariano

Long era doesn't mean more successful.

Well you certainly had a change of heart quickly, considering you implied the opposite in the "TFM vs 1989: Bigger Era" thread:

Originally posted by Mariano

Why are people asking about first week sales ? I thought longevity was the key ?

So which is it?

[SeanET]

Originally posted by EdgeOfAddiction

Taylor kept her era afloat by cheap guest/"friend" tactics, feuds, and pepetual performances of her material throughout the era. And having done that, all her singles lacked the force that was Hello.
+ the fact that 25 outsold 1989 already and is still selling at a decent rate = Adele wins.

[TaylorFantasy]

1989 for me

[Goaty]

Originally posted by Mariano

There is simply no way an era that sold 20M albums in 4 months with 2 singles is "smaller" than an era that sold 8M albums WW with 7 singles.

Of course it can be. Album sales are only one portion of an overall assessment of size. Touring, singles, and cultural ubiquity are all critical components of the magnitude of an era.

[Ash12345]

Originally posted by Goaty

Well you certainly had a change of heart quickly, considering you implied the opposite in the "TFM vs 1989: Bigger Era" thread:



So which is it?

The expose

[castle13]

Originally posted by Goaty

Well you certainly had a change of heart quickly, considering you implied the opposite in the "TFM vs 1989: Bigger Era" thread:



So which is it?

Expose it

[feelslikeadream]

Originally posted by Bey Admired

Anyone who says 1989 is really either truly deluded or very bitter. That's all I'm going to say.

The fact that the very opposite is true

However, this thread doesn't make sense because one era is over and the other isn't. This should be made once the 25 era is officially over.

[2014]

Originally posted by Mariano

Oh my ****ing god.

ATRL proving once again how uneducated they are.

25 earned more money to Adele and her label in its first 2 weeks than 1989 did in its entire run.

25 sold 7 ****ing millions in 2 weeks With minimal promo.

It's nearly 20M albums sold now only in a few months.

Long era doesn't mean more successful. More exposure ? Sure. More success ? HOW ? 25 has sold more than Taylor Swift's 2 most succesful albums WW and it's yet to have its 3rd single announced

"1989 was the bigger era"

yeah the only correct thing in that sentence is "WAS" because 1989 era is OVER.

25 IS not over yet, and its bigger and is going to continue being bigger, considering Adele is yet to release her 3rd single and has already sold 20 ****ing M WW.

And her tour will be big enough for 25's "ERA" to be bigger than 1989. And I love Taylor.

Sis.....

the question is not "which era was more profitable".

and the question is obviously SO FAR, and the obvious answer is 1989 .

When it's all said and done 25 will end up being bigger than 1989, with more singles released & the rest of the tour.

[Afferty]

1989

[Burqa]

Originally posted by Truth Teller

1989 was the bigger era
25 was the bigger album

.

[cancer]

1989 tbh
The 25 era ended after Hello lbr

[Hunter_13]

1989.

No one around here are even talking about Adele or 25.

[Mariano]

Originally posted by Goaty

Well you certainly had a change of heart quickly, considering you implied the opposite in the "TFM vs 1989: Bigger Era" thread:



So which is it?

That was a cute little drag, to the Katy cats that drag Gaga for being frontloaded and praise their favs "Longevity".

I never implied TFM was bigger than 1989 cuz it was a longer era. TFM simply sold more and had bigger smashes than 1989.

Anyway you are off topic. And not those sheep quoting u and saying "expose it" I never said TFM was bigger cuz it was longer, but stay pressed. Infact I implied that y'all used to say that. And y'all had a change of heart.

Originally posted by Goaty

Of course it can be. Album sales are only one portion of an overall assessment of size. Touring, singles, and cultural ubiquity are all critical components of the magnitude of an era.

You can say that if 25 had sold only 2-3M more than 1989, but the case is not 2-3M.

The case is 25 SELLING more than DOUBLE of what 1989 sold.

And you can use Taylor's tour if Adele's tour flopped, which again is not the case. Taylor's tour is not bigger enough for her era to be considered bigger only cuz of the tour, considering Adele's tour is also big.

Hello was bigger and more culturally relevant than ANY song from 1989 and in general 25 is more culturally relevant and bigger than 1989.

So you basically agree, that 25 wins ? Or are you saying that 1989 was bigger culturally ? Even tho 25 sold copies with the speed of light, to people from each generation ?

[Britney Jean]

25 is bigger, but it's also very front-loaded.
1989 is big too, but having more longevity.