|
|
Post by slicknickshady on Jan 7, 2011 21:35:02 GMT -5
The lowest-selling #1 album just means every other album sold less than that one. It doesn't mean a thing. Exactly. Who cares. It's #1. |
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,062 
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Jan 7, 2011 21:47:39 GMT -5
SMH. Who cares if you are the lowest ever #1 album. You got a #1 album. I couldnt care less. Whoever would use that to insult an artist would be a moron. That is not something that is going to ruin a career people. It's a #1 album. Regardless if it's Eminem, Taylor, or Minaj. A #1 album is a #1 album regardless if it sells 1K or 1 Million in a week. It is not a black mark on a career. Why people think it's a bad thing here to be the lowest ever #1 album i have no clue. Jamrock also said it right....it is not a dent on a career at all. So hopefully this fallacy ends soon. You're right. I don't think it's an insult at all. |
|
Honeymoon
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,256
|
Post by Honeymoon on Jan 7, 2011 22:10:46 GMT -5
A lowest-selling #1 says more about the industry than the artist at hand. Who cares if T-Swift can 'only' do 60k in her 10th(?) week on the chart, it just shows what a mess the industry is currently in, not Taylor, who has already sold 3 million
|
|
like2throw
New Member
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 451
|
Post by like2throw on Jan 7, 2011 22:29:12 GMT -5
lol isnt she also the only one to sell a mil in one week in years too? I doubt this really matters.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2011 23:59:06 GMT -5
For those worried about TaylorSwift having the lowest #1, Taylor Swift occupies most of the list of lowest #1's since her last album was number 1 in January too. All about timing. Big holiday opening for big $$$ but low January
#1 albums < 800000 copies
60,064 Dreamgirls (1/27/07)
60,343 Justin Bieber - My World 2.0 (5/29/10)
60,519 Alicia Keys - As I Am (2/2/2008 )
61,259 Alicia Keys - As I Am (2/16/2008)
62,272 Taylor Swift - Fearless (3/7/2009)
62,575 Taylor Swift - Fearless (2/7/09)
62,947 Glee: The Music: Volume 3: The Showstoppers (6/12/10)
63,301 Tayor Swift - Fearless (1/31/09)
64,831 Juno (2/9/2008)
65,398 Daughtry - Daughtry (2/3/07)
66,355 Dreamgirls (1/20/07)
70,267 Alicia Keys - As I Am (1/26/08)
70.830 Toby Keith - Bullets In The Gun (10/23/10)
71,527 Taylor Swift -Fearless (1/24/09)
73,174 Taylor Swift - Fearless (3/14/09)
75,869 Sugarland - Live on the Inside (8/22/09)*
77,001 Taylor Swift - Speak Now (1/15/11)
77,247 Bruce Springsteen - Magic (11/3/07)
* Sugarland was #1 on the BB200 but not #1 overall
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2011 0:01:07 GMT -5
7 of the 18 lowest are from Taylor Swift
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Post by Enigma. on Jan 8, 2011 9:09:36 GMT -5
The lowest-selling #1 album just means every other album sold less than that one. It doesn't mean a thing. Exactly. Who cares. It's #1. That's how it SHOULD be but go tell that to Christina Aguilera... Bionic was #1 in the UK with poor sales and dropped historically to #29 next week. It is regarded as a horrible flop which it was if we look at overall sales. |
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Jan 8, 2011 9:12:08 GMT -5
^^ okay so not all #1 albums can be considered successful in the long-term (just as a lot of #2 albums have become the most successful of all-time), but when you're #1, you've outsold everything else, if only for a week.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Post by Enigma. on Jan 8, 2011 9:23:25 GMT -5
Yea it's all about timing and I wonder why many middle class acts (especially r&b stars like Keyshia Cole) release their albums during holidays when it's obvious that they can't reach #1 position. If Keyshia (I use her as an example) had released her previous two albums in September, she would have two #1s. Because r&b fans are the most loyal ones to buy the album right out of the gate.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Post by Enigma. on Jan 8, 2011 9:27:06 GMT -5
The week when Kid Rock, Rascal Flatts and Keith Urban released their latest albums was just crazy...All of them would've debuted at #1 on a regular week. Why they didn't spread those releases around the weeks before and after? It's not like they would've made any less money.
|
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Jan 8, 2011 9:52:30 GMT -5
Exactly! That's always bothered me. Why do all these acts cram their releases into the last few months of the year? Spreading it out might be a good thing for album sales across the board, and the industry as a whole.
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,062
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Jan 8, 2011 11:15:41 GMT -5
Exactly. Who cares. It's #1. That's how it SHOULD be but go tell that to Christina Aguilera... Bionic was #1 in the UK with poor sales and dropped historically to #29 next week. It is regarded as a horrible flop which it was if we look at overall sales. Yes, but the thing with Xtina, is that the album was a flop overall because sales were low. Taylor, on the other hand has already sold 3m albums, and this isn't her debut week. Exactly! That's always bothered me. Why do all these acts cram their releases into the last few months of the year? Spreading it out might be a good thing for album sales across the board, and the industry as a whole. Sales are higher for all albums during the last few months of the year. It's more $ for them. Don't get me wrong, I love Rihanna but I don't think Loud (for example) would be anywhere near it's current total with a January or February release. |
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Jan 8, 2011 11:47:29 GMT -5
Exactly! That's always bothered me. Why do all these acts cram their releases into the last few months of the year? Spreading it out might be a good thing for album sales across the board, and the industry as a whole. Sales are higher for all albums during the last few months of the year. It's more $ for them. Don't get me wrong, I love Rihanna but I don't think Loud (for example) would be anywhere near it's current total with a January or February release. Lady Antebellum sold beautifully with a January release. Eminem released in the summer, and was one of the biggest albums during the holiday season. Doesn't it stand to reason that moving away from the competition's release date would give an album some room to breathe, and potentially sell better? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2011 12:08:40 GMT -5
Recovery wasn't one of the biggest of the holidays, it was just one of the biggest last week
|
|
Minor Scratch
7x Platinum Member
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 7,027
|
Post by Minor Scratch on Jan 8, 2011 13:33:44 GMT -5
I think labels believe since everyone will be in stores during the 4Q, the chances of their release being picked up is a lot more regardless of the competition. They probably believe that if people are gonna be spending a lot, its gonna be then, so consumers may pick up a few albums instead of just one regardless if they are a huge fan of the artist or not. This is different when say an album has the only big release in February where basically the label banks on the whole fanbase to go out to the store or on iTunes to purchase the album. However, this may all change considering the dismal 4Q sales of 2010.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Post by Enigma. on Jan 8, 2011 13:52:52 GMT -5
And I believe that #7 debut is not what a label hoped for Keith Urban for example after a #1 but it's all their own fault. It would look so much better to have back-to-back #1s.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jan 8, 2011 17:58:58 GMT -5
Surely there isn't anyone trying to diminish Taylor Swift's level of success because her album could score the lowest sales for a No. 1 in the SoundScan era? That would be just too funny.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Post by Enigma. on Jan 9, 2011 8:41:18 GMT -5
Like nobody's saying that Dreamgirls OST was a flop
|
|
|
|
Post by shawnshamrock on Jan 9, 2011 9:31:02 GMT -5
I expect Taylor's album sales to go down a lot in about 2 years. When most of her fans have turned 17 and have moved on with their lives.
|
|
pnobelysk
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 10,116
|
Post by pnobelysk on Jan 9, 2011 10:00:41 GMT -5
I expect Taylor's album sales to go down a lot in about 2 years. When most of her fans have turned 17 and have moved on with their lives. most of her fans wont be 17 in two years, a lot will, but not most. taylor swift has a huge audiene that goes from prbly 7 year olds to 60 year olds. and taylors guna keep smashing. |
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 20,967 
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Jan 9, 2011 10:19:55 GMT -5
I expect Taylor's album sales to go down a lot in about 2 years. When most of her fans have turned 17 and have moved on with their lives. I wonder how many years people are going to repeat this sentiment before realizing Taylor's fan-base is comprised of a lot more than adolescents (it is so widespread at this point). Either way, she could take a steep cut in album sales and still be destroying her competition (so it's not as if it would matter much either way). lol |
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Jan 9, 2011 10:24:57 GMT -5
I expect Taylor's album sales to go down a lot in about 2 years. When most of her fans have turned 17 and have moved on with their lives. Nonsense. I was 17 when I bought Fearless. I bought Speak Now the day it came out, and I have every intention of following her career for as far as it goes. She ain't no Miley. |
|
|
|
Post by passionformusic on Jan 9, 2011 11:34:59 GMT -5
I am 29 and i love her music. Shoot me.
|
|
slw84
7x Platinum Member
I only tolerate legends
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 7,896
|
Post by slw84 on Jan 9, 2011 12:04:36 GMT -5
I expect Taylor's album sales to go down a lot in about 2 years. When most of her fans have turned 17 and have moved on with their lives. I wonder how many years people are going to repeat this sentiment before realizing Taylor's fan-base is comprised of a lot more than adolescents (it is so widespread at this point). Either way, she could take a steep cut in album sales and still be destroying her competition (so it's not as if it would matter much either way). lol I agree except as sales decline there is bound to be another competitor that will begin to outsell her. Doesn't matter because she has an established fanbase and has the talent to maintain relevancy for years to come. I'm not the hugest fan but am I the only one that sees her being a country star (not so much as a pop star) for decades to come...the longevity of Dolly Parton is what I see. |
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jan 9, 2011 12:20:24 GMT -5
^Could be- for all of her pop success, Ms. Swift still has enjoyed more airplay success at country radio than pop.
As with anyone, there always will be someone new who comes along and sells more. But I think she can maintain a certain level of success, even after her peak.
|
|
Mack
7x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by Mack on Jan 9, 2011 12:26:02 GMT -5
I am 29 and i love her music. Shoot me. And I'm 24. I was already 20 when I rushed out to purchase her debut over four years ago. I actually know more people in my age bracket who like Taylor and her music than I do little kids and adolescents. The "All of taylors fanz are teenage grls!1" claim is just as ludicrous as the "Tayler only sings bout fairy tails!1" argument. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2011 12:52:05 GMT -5
I wonder how many years people are going to repeat this sentiment before realizing Taylor's fan-base is comprised of a lot more than adolescents (it is so widespread at this point). Either way, she could take a steep cut in album sales and still be destroying her competition (so it's not as if it would matter much either way). lol I agree except as sales decline there is bound to be another competitor that will begin to outsell her. Doesn't matter because she has an established fanbase and has the talent to maintain relevancy for years to come. Not the best argument tbh.  I agree though, her tweeny appeal/following will sooner or later die out like the Jobros, Hilary, Miley but she should still sell well because of her country fans. Nowhere near as huge but still well enough. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2011 12:54:39 GMT -5
I am 29 and i love her music. Shoot me. And I'm 24. I was already 20 when I rushed out to purchase her debut over four years ago. I actually know more people in my age bracket who like Taylor and her music than I do little kids and adolescents. The "All of taylors fanz are teenage grls!1" claim is just as ludicrous as the "Tayler only sings bout fairy tails!1" argument. I agree with this. Her massive appeal is really shown with her multi-format success. She's become one of HOT AC'S and AC's biggest artists so the whole Taylor appeals only to teens argument is a bit invalid imo . |
|
texasdevil
New Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 327
|
Post by texasdevil on Jan 9, 2011 13:40:11 GMT -5
I expect Taylor's album sales to go down a lot in about 2 years. When most of her fans have turned 17 and have moved on with their lives. In 1985, people said the SAME THING about a singer named Madonna! |
|
folkfan
Gold Member
Joined: November 2008
Posts: 538
|
Post by folkfan on Jan 9, 2011 13:50:17 GMT -5
I'm in my 30s, and I have all three of Taylor Swift's CDs. And I know several other people in my exact same age range who also buy all of her stuff. She is ridiculously good with writing a catchy hook, and I'd say that White Horse and Mine both show that she is capable of moving away from the the more teen-oriented stuff. JMO.
|
|
