I still kinda think this comparison is rather arbitrary tho.
Britney has had a long career, so having a flop eventually is inevitable. But BJ being a flop doesn't invalidate her previous immense success.
And if an artist has many flops in the past, but finally manages to have a really successful era for once, doesn't mean the artist is a consistent seller.
Am I fuming?
I'm just pointing out some flaws, that's all. It's a nice idea, but of course it ain't perfect.
I wasn't directing that at you
A lot of people in this thread seem upset. This one chart (which is flawed, I def agree with you) is not the end all be all. All of these people have had incredible careers and arguments about selling power can be made for all of them.
A lot of people in this thread seem upset. This one chart (which is flawed, I def agree with you) is not the end all be all. All of these people have had incredible careers and arguments about selling power can be made for all of them.
Okay...
I just think it's flawed and doesn't really conclude much.
Exponential increase just goes to show how sharp some of these falls were.
This methodology may let occasional bumps pass, which is pretty much the norm for any of them along the way. Being higher doesn't equal bigger succes or better career; it just means holding onto a standard. Britney, Shakira, Avril and Christina's scores are not accidental, their decadence is THAT steep. Sales are declining for all them but it doesn't take much to spot who is slowing down gradually and who's already hit the bottom
But still 
