|
Discussion: Grammys, Sales or Charts?
Member Since: 3/13/2011
Posts: 4,742
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Team.B
Yep
Britney has some of the best pop music in the industry and always has, shes always been one step in front of everybody else. Yet continuously gets snubbed by the Grammys
|
So did Madonna. She didn't win until 14 years into her career and after that she only won again a couple of other times.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/21/2010
Posts: 29,122
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthagio
A nice combination of all three is the best way to ensure success and a long career.
Tours are also very important as they gauge one's true popularity and success.
No shade, but wasn't Rihanna having trouble filling arenas in the US, and Katy, even with five #1s, is only playing to 17,000 people a night (not saying that's bad, but it's kind of low when most arenas can hold, what 25-30,000? Correct me if I'm wrong, though.) If people are willing to actually come to your show, then you know the public's here for you.
|
You WOULD use those two.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2009
Posts: 9,982
|
Grammys, critical acclaim, sales, charts, and tours are all important.
Major Grammys, like AOTY, (and to a lesser extent, critical acclaim) often lead to good album sales. Hit singles can lead to good album sales, and album sales can lead to hit singles. Hit albums generally lead to sucessful tours.
Not here for singles artists.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2010
Posts: 21,098
|
Quote:
Originally posted by omgitsralph
It's sad you can't spell Grammys. Your fave needs to educate you that by getting some.
|
I hate when people spell Grammys that way.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/17/2011
Posts: 6,399
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
So did Madonna. She didn't win until 14 years into her career and after that she only won again a couple of other times.
|
Why didn't Gaga and Rihanna have to wait that long?
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/2/2011
Posts: 2,432
|
Quote:
Originally posted by YeaBey4ever
Tours are important. Having 30,000- 40,000 plus people spending 100s of dollars to see someone for a couple of hours says alot about star power.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lukitoo
Charts can be manipulated via airplay. Sales are what give money. Grammys are what give respect.
So Sales>Grammys>Charts
|
That's a good way of looking at it.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2011
Posts: 1,450
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
So did Madonna. She didn't win until 14 years into her career and after that she only won again a couple of other times.
|
Its ridic. Britneys music is easily better quality than anybody else in the game.
Only Toxic won a Grammy I believe, right?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/10/2010
Posts: 14,634
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rico Shameless v2
Well you type it as if it's untrue. In Blackout's case however, it impacted moreso due to her chaotic life and the fact she still put out a good album. The two main singles are on the edge of multi-platinum in the States, and were (as was the album) recognized greatly worldwide.
Britney rejected Timbaland from working with her, in favor of the protege/better Danja. And she is the executive producer of that album, and had been working on it even while she was pregnant with Jayden James. Let's no do it this afternoon.
|
Yet, she has minimal writing credits and no individual song production credits. It's not that hard for an artist to be given that label. Timbaland and Danja was also the dream team behind Future Sex and Loose, which arguably had even more influence than Blackout. I've had the "Blackout" argument too many times, and I'm just going to leave it at that.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/1/2010
Posts: 65,177
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chemist
Madonna didn't get her 1st Grammy 15 years into her career and she was considered the Queen of Pop 10 years before that
|
Madonna won a Video Grammy years before her ROL dominance. Luckily, she won her music Grammys for a deserving album. People felt like Ray of Light was her REAL breakthrough as an artist.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2009
Posts: 9,982
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Midnight
I hate when people spell Grammys that way.
|
Me too, are they giving them to old ladies?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2011
Posts: 1,450
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shame♥
Why didn't Gaga and Rihanna have to wait that long?
|
Exactly why the Grammy argument is invalid.
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/8/2006
Posts: 42,086
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
So did Madonna. She didn't win until 14 years into her career and after that she only won again a couple of other times.
|
A real queen of pop wins her 1st grammy until 10 years into her career
Avril where is you?
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2011
Posts: 11,407
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthagio
A nice combination of all three is the best way to ensure success and a long career.
Tours are also very important as they gauge one's true popularity and success.
No shade, but wasn't Rihanna having trouble filling arenas in the US, and Katy, even with five #1s, is only playing to 17,000 people a night (not saying that's bad, but it's kind of low when most arenas can hold, what 25-30,000? Correct me if I'm wrong, though.) If people are willing to actually come to your show, then you know the public's here for you.
|
Antagio, Antagio
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/2/2011
Posts: 2,432
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Deemy
You WOULD use those two.
|
Well, they're perfect examples because they dominate the charts...
And what I said is true. If you're dominating the charts but people won't come to your shows, that's saying something.
Quote:
Originally posted by I. AX
Antagio, Antagio
|
Are you dyslexic? Just curious...
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2011
Posts: 37,346
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Team.B
Yeah
I would even say
Tours>Sales>Charts>>>>Grammys
The more money the consumer is willing to spend on you the better
|
I agree.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/17/2011
Posts: 6,399
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrDeeds
Who's having those? Let me delete you from my friends list
|
I kid.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/1/2010
Posts: 65,177
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Team.B
Its ridic. Britneys music is easily better quality than anybody else in the game.
Only Toxic won a Grammy I believe, right?
|
Britney has never been THAT worthy of Grammys, though. You have to look at her competition and not just the fact that she sold so many records but only mustered up one Grammy win. I'm not saying "Grammys>>>" or they always get it right, but I don't see where Britney deserved a whole lot of wins.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/13/2011
Posts: 7,912
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chemist
Dear lord
|
Did I lie??
No. If you want to find out what songs are popular you check the itunes charts, which are clearly based on sales.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2009
Posts: 9,982
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Team.B
Its ridic. Britneys music is easily better quality than anybody else in the game.
|
What?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2011
Posts: 1,450
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthagio
A nice combination of all three is the best way to ensure success and a long career.
Tours are also very important as they gauge one's true popularity and success.
No shade, but wasn't Rihanna having trouble filling arenas in the US, and Katy, even with five #1s, is only playing to 17,000 people a night (not saying that's bad, but it's kind of low when most arenas can hold, what 25-30,000? Correct me if I'm wrong, though.) If people are willing to actually come to your show, then you know the public's here for you.
|
Rihannas current tour is doing way better than her last tour.
And Katy has sold out almost ever arena shes playing at this tour and is doing over 100 shows..
mygod.
|
|
|
|
|