Quote:
Originally posted by Bwerde
Sales have only ever been one of many possible indicators of the quality of an album or song. Every generation, great songs and albums get overlooked while some blockbusters fail to stand the test of time. And of course others absolutely do.
As for Thriller sales, I think you could make the argument that 21 -adjusted for era - sold as well, or certainly close to as well. Does it deserve the same level of respect?
Digital is just a platform. They're were great albums on 78, great ones on 8 tracks, cassettes, cds etc. And of course there have been and will be great ones in the digital era. I'd c argue that with the enormous advances in home recording technology and the drop in cost of the same, there's more good music than ever. Sometimes I wonder if that makes the great music harder to find. But in general, I absolutely refute the notion that somehow music was better in the past.
|
Thanks for the answer, Bill! This definitely gives me something to think about.
I really like the idea of viewing digital media as simply another platform for sharing/distributing music (and perhaps, promotion?) just like, CDs, tapes, etc. And, I do agree with the idea that music wasn't necessarily "better" in the past -- times are changing, and people still create brilliant music today.
I think my question was coming from a place of often seeing MJ fans making comments about his sales, as if to suggest that the fact that he was able to sell so well without being in the digital age somehow makes him superior to other artists -- therefore, in this (their) line of thinking, Adele's sales aren't as impressive because she had modern media/technology at her disposal.
I think I'm just conflicted.
But anyway, thanks, again!
