|
Poll: More Successful Era: 21 vs Baby One More Time?
View Poll Results: More successful era?
|
21
|
|
146 |
50.69% |
Baby One More Time
|
|
89 |
30.90% |
Artpop
|
|
53 |
18.40% |
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
It kills me that people on here act like Adele has made no impact and that no one actually cares for her, just her music.
Were ya'll sleeping during all of 2011 and 2012? Hell even in the beginning of 2013?
|
I think the problem is that it's still so recent that it's hard to gauge exactly how much impact 21 has had, and I imagine it's probably still affecting music today to some extent. Personally, I don't think 21 has had as much far-reaching impact as BOMT had, but only time will tell.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 9,657
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
But really did anyone above 25 buy her album? Adele had all demographics buying it!
|
And that's why the amount BOMT sold is even more impressive.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/21/2012
Posts: 18,849
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
But really did anyone above 25 buy her album? Adele had all demographics buying it!
|
What does the age of the target market have to do with anything? That doesn't change the numbers.
And really, it says so much more about just how much Britney cornered that market.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
I think the problem is that it's still so recent that it's hard to gauge exactly how much impact 21 has had, and I imagine it's probably still affecting music today to some extent. Personally, I don't think 21 has had as much far-reaching impact as BOMT had, but only time will tell.
|
The entire industry changed after 21 like it did with BOMT.
Adele's influence still remains all over the charts and how people are marketing themselves. Obviously there's acts like Miley, etc who are exceptions (though even Miley cited Adele as an influence for her album) but there are always exceptions.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 8,633
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber
Wait. BOMT never reached WW #1 once?
I'm starting to think that some of her sales have been drastically inflated.
|
Her sales aren't inflated more than any other artist out there, and it did reach #1 in many countires despite being a debut album.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/12/2012
Posts: 13,665
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TKO
I said i'm more than 20 because i remember her being massive in 1998. What's wrong with that? Stop being insecure. Not everybody has to answer ADELE.
That's MY opinion, and i'm not even a Britney stan.
I couldn't care less if Adele is more succesful than her.
|
Well she was massive but I think only by kids. Lana singled out that she liked her and Adele was even during Circus at her concert. But the thing is they don't want to "sing" like her.
If I look at Adele I bought her album and I don't think many people who are older than 23 buy single songs at I-tunes from Adele but she was also massive with singles this era and who bought it? Teenagers most likely.
The impact of Adele is widespread, something Britney never could reach. Me thinks, Britney was more of a guilty pleasure. A product, hence the praise of her virginity.
Heck the first time I saw this new wonder "live" singing was at the MTV awards with I can't get no satisfaction, it was gruesome but I was older than 20.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 10,195
|
artpop ofcourse
BOMT is everything though.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,836
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
And let's not forget that Adele's success opened the doors for other British acts. There has not been this much interest in British music on the American charts in a long time.
And before the Amy fans run in here, no one is saying Adele started it.
|
This. Both were bigger than any other album by their peers, and both influenced the market. Britney opened the door for female pop solo acts, and Adele opened the door for British acts. And yes, maybe Amy started that, but most of the british acts slaying right now started slaying after Adele, not after Amy
I love Amy tho
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Maleficent
And that's why the amount BOMT sold is even more impressive.
|
Not really. If Adele milked her era and it didn't come out in such a bad time for albums, 21 would be well over 40 million, probably pushing 50 million.
The majority of 21 sold with little to no promo.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,371
|
Oh boy, here comes an essay-length post
Quote:
Originally posted by RainDreamer
although you seem to know quite a lot. The way you're reasoning though ,its like a 5 year old trying to win an argument
How in the world could you compare 5 years of a career to one that lasted more than 40 years , all while producing huge mega selling albums
And yes the world wasn't as global in 1982 , ever heard of globalisation ?, something of more pre-dominancy in the 21st century
Like your embarassing yourself by comparing Michaels entire career to Adeles two albums, its starting to look as though you're just bragging using his success ,and
|
I started my comment in the same way as the comment I replied to, which made no sense: combining US and UK weeks at #1 for some reason, so I made an outlandish statement as well. I don't consider 21's mammoth sales in the age of piracy anything short of a phenomenon, and I don't pretend that in the 80s if that album had similar success sales it could have gone as far as competing with The Bodyguard Soundtrack for best selling female album ever.
The world wasn't as global is a paradoxical statement, that's why I LOLed. The music market has expanded, but the notion that globalization has exploded in music sales to the point of making early 80's and early 10's record sales incompatible in terms of market size is non-sensical. Piracy has made them incompatible.
I only compared Michael's sales to Adele's originally in response to a comment that said 21 > Thriller which is laughable. That doesn't discredit 21, it just emphasizes that Thriller can't be matched. I mentioned Michael's other two records because the person I replied to made a comment about vinyl sales -> CD sales in order to show that had no merit since subsequent MJ records had very high sales without that factor.
Quote:
Originally posted by rbautz
This was what I meant with my statement.
What I meant with the CD format in 86 was that many people who had the vinyl bought the CD because there was no new album out. Hell, I bought Thriller on vinyl and later the CD.
Not only Thriller also Rumours, Pink Floyd or Led Zepp did benefit from the change.
Has Bad 40 million sales? Maybe, but I want to point out that Bad isn't even Diamond in the US. this would make a ratio more than 3:1 WW to US, seems doubtful.
Maybe you are right with not crossing 40 millions but I think 21 will be a household name for Adele and if she brings further out good albums, so 21 will profit. But let's talk about it in in 30 years.
PS
I really don't want to argue with you over Thriller and 21 and like I'd said Thriller era was bigger but the 21 era is also astounding in today's world.
And I want to point out 2 similarities with Thriller.
First after such a Blockbuster you don't put out the next album in a year, MJ 5 years, Fleetwood Mac 4 years, Adele 3 or 4 years.
And you are not always present, you are hiding and you don't go to every TV-show, I have seen both eras, you are becoming a myth and rumours starting.
|
Since his subsequent albums sold so high, the change to CD didn't affect Thriller's sales as much as you might think. It certainly may have helped push certain records around then like Thriller and Purple Rain up in sales to a degree of course.
Bad's sales get changed every other week, it was named second best selling record ever in 1993 when Michael got his Grammy Legend Award. It was stagnant at 30M until 2002, then got bumped to 35M and when Bad 25 was released it was claimed 45M in sales. It has 20M certs if I remember right so that puts it in the 35-40M bracket, with the 45M an inflated figure to promote the re-release.
I agree that 21 will be a big album in retrospect of the era it came out in and keep Adele a household name for years to come too. Weirdly I noticed the lack of publicity comparisons and no subsequent record parallels too, they both knew to leave their records to sell heavily before diluting the sales with another album.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alestevens
It made female solo pop acts happen again, or tell me which other female was being as successful in 1998, 1999?
Last albums that were impactful and sold a lot of copies by females were by Shania Twain, who was on her 3rd album, and it was in 1997, and Celine Dion, which was already stablished as a force in music. Britney was the only solo female newcomer having an impactuful era in that time frame, and a lot of other females started appearing after seeing the success that era caused
|
Except Come on Over was released at the end of 1997, and had singles released all the way until the year 2000. To discredit the massive success that it was and say that female solo acts weren't happening when you had a successful female era lasting three years doesn't make sense. Plus, most of the singles were released in 1998 and 1999 so that refutes your claim right there.
The only point you have is that Britney was a debut artist. I think her success isn't really a matter of how great she was, but how well she fit into the marketplace. The Spice Girls were THE band for young girls to adore. By May of 1998, one of the most prominent girls (Geri) left and so the band was essentially over. This gap in the buying public made Britney a ripe candidate to take over that market by the time she released her debut single in October of 1998. The fact that other females starting debuting after her was perhaps a reaction to Britney's success, but not because she was so good but because she sold so well.
Similarly though Adele filled a gap in the market for music that wasn't generic electro, but as it was sold more on her talents than her cute schoolgirl looks and lolita charm, I find this more impressive.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
What does the age of the target market have to do with anything? That doesn't change the numbers.
And really, it says so much more about just how much Britney cornered that market.
|
It's similar to calling someone local. If you sell a lot but only to one group, you're not really more successful than someone who sells to all demographics.
For example, you could sell 10 million albums but mostly to Ireland in 2000 or 10 million albums all over the world in 2010. Which is more successful? Considering the decline of album sales it's obviously the latter.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,836
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
Except Come on Over was released at the end of 1997, and had singles released all the way until the year 2000. To discredit the massive success that it was and say that female solo acts weren't happening when you had a successful female era lasting three years doesn't make sense. Plus, most of the singles were released in 1998 and 1999 so that refutes your claim right there.
The only point you have is that Britney was a debut artist. I think her success isn't really a matter of how great she was, but how well she fit into the marketplace. The Spice Girls were THE band for young girls to adore. By May of 1998, one of the most prominent girls (Geri) left and so the band was essentially over. This gap in the buying public made Britney a ripe candidate to take over that market by the time she released her debut single in October of 1998. The fact that other females starting debuting after her was perhaps a reaction to Britney's success, but not because she was so good but because she sold so well.
Similarly though Adele filled a gap in the market for music that wasn't generic electro, but as it was sold more on her talents than her cute schoolgirl looks and lolita charm, I find this more impressive.
|
That is exactly what im saying. No one was going for female solo POP acts, till Britney appeared, then they started appearing by hundreds: Christina, Jessica, P!nk, Mandy, Avril was marketed as the Anti-Britney, etc.
Same with Adele. They both were influential in separate time frames. Adele is a bit more impressive, hence why i voted for her, but people here is starting to act like BOMT had no impact
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/2/2012
Posts: 37,284
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Signs
21 is more successful than thriller in terms of album sales. So 21.
|
This.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alestevens
That is exactly what im saying. No one was going for female solo POP acts, till Britney appeared, then they started appearing by hundreds: Christina, Jessica, P!nk, Mandy, Avril was marketed as the Anti-Britney, etc.
Same with Adele. They both were influential in separate time frames. Adele is a bit more impressive, hence why i voted for her, but people here is starting to act like BOMT had no impact
|
Yes but do you think that if Britney didn't debut in 1999 that Christina wouldn't have come? Record labels have teams devoted to market research. Being the first and paving the way are different things. But yes, undoubtedly Britney's massive success spawned imitators.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 9,438
|
21. Was gonna vote ARTPOP but it was too late
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 9,657
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
Not really. If Adele milked her era and it didn't come out in such a bad time for albums, 21 would be well over 40 million, probably pushing 50 million.
The majority of 21 sold with little to no promo.
|
Yes, but BOMT didn't have the same wide reaching appeal as 21. Like he said, all demographics were buying 21. The same probably can't be said about BOMT. Therefore, the fact it sold as much as it did when it really only appealed to a certain age group is quite impressive.
And if 21 had come out in a different time period it may have sold less for all we know. Just because it sold a lot in 2011 doesn't mean it would have been as popular in 2001.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2012
Posts: 22,450
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 8,633
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
Yes but do you think that if Britney didn't debut in 1999 that Christina wouldn't have come? Record labels have teams devoted to market research. Being the first and paving the way are different things. But yes, undoubtedly Britney's massive success spawned imitators.
|
No she wouldn't have. She released Reflection instead of a teen pop song in '98 and she didn't have much charm and energy to fill that void.
|
|
|
|
|