Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Skin

Do We Give a Shit About Album Sales Anymore?

Recommended Posts

Album sales matter to me because keeping the physical formats alive matters to me.

It's bigger than Madonna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, sales are important. I still buy cd's because they have better sound quality than anything else. Sales and tours are good indicators of how relevant artists are at present. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never cared about album sales in the first place, I just knew that she's the queen of pop and that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course they still matter, not because i need them to enjoy the content of an album but sales bring in more money and more interest which helps with more singles, more videos, more remixes and more to a tour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DitaDolla said:

Album sales will be shit, tnx to GMAYL :IMG_1564:

:chuckle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, tasteinmen said:

I never cared about album sales in the first place, I just knew that she's the queen of pop and that's about it.

She wouldn't have been the Queen of Pop if her sales sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on previous report, LN will exclude album sales out of the next contract (if there's one).

In other words, she will need a proper record company to help to promote & distribute her album.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes a few of us still buy cds but do you realize that the practice is considered laughable by most people?

I'm not just talking about paid streaming, which I am a huge fan of.  I tend to buy the cd to support the artist and play it in my car, but stream the album on Spotify to support them in that fashion as well.  However, there are many people who simply don't think they should have to pay for music and in fact refuse to. The idea of the artist being compensated means nothing to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so to answer it - no i no longer care about charts. if she does well - super great though!

please Madonna go back to ur roots! pure thumping ass pounding dance floor music!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, XXL said:

 

And her male counterparts from her generation who, like her, are still a massive touring and merchandising draw, are never measured up against the younger acts

that's true, male legends are not often measured against young males, but to be completely honest, they don't chase trends, features, trendy producers etc like women do. Every now and then there is a rare collaboration, but most of the older male stars are doing their thing, not teaming up with Niki, Katy, Diplo or whoever is trendy at the moment. Women sometimes reinforce stereotypes and ageism when they are trying to stay current by collaborating with the hottest new trendy kid. It's really a vicious circle.... but male stars rarely go with gimmicks like that, if you look at it objectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, horn said:

She wouldn't have been the Queen of Pop if her sales sucks.

I know sales are important, I just meant I never really thought about the sales until I joined pop forums.

Honestly as far as I was concerned American Life was pretty much a success in the UK back in 2003, until I started using forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, functions_X said:

that's true, male legends are not often measured against young males, but to be completely honest, they don't chase trends, features, trendy producers etc like women do. Every now and then there is a rare collaboration, but most of the older male stars are doing their thing, not teaming up with Niki, Katy, Diplo or whoever is trendy at the moment. Women sometimes reinforce stereotypes and ageism when they are trying to stay current by collaborating with the hottest new trendy kid. It's really a vicious circle.... but male stars rarely go with gimmicks like that, if you look at it objectively.

I think that If we look at it objectively, when was the last time The Rolling Stones, U2, Bruce Springsteen or other male performers of the stature of Madonna have offered an evolved, updated or different to what their core characteristic sound is? If they are doing their thing like you are saying, it is the exactly same thing they have been doing for the last 30-40 years, music and performance wise and their fans are not ever going to ask for more or something else. What could ever be more gimmicky that resorting to the exact same gimmicks that made you famous in the beginning?

I honestly love my ever evolving Madonna, sometimes ahead or the curb or others not so much. 

I'm happy and proud that Madonna is still compared to the new generations because in my eyes that means that she's still the bar and the reference against which everyone is measured, have you thought that everything that Madonna has done, featurings and all is what has made her the most successful female star ever, or the 3rd most successful musical act? 

I understand that you are making a point about the difference between the male and female music industry but don't reinforce or fall in the common stereotypes these same industries have reinforced on us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Pedro said:

I think that If we look at it objectively, when was the last time The Rolling Stones, U2, Bruce Springsteen or other male performers of the stature of Madonna have offered an evolved, updated or different to what their core characteristic sound is?

I honestly love my ever evolving Madonna, sometimes ahead or the curb or others not so much.

but I feel you are oversimplifying things... The Rolling Stones, U2, Bruce etc are doing nothing new, and collaborations with Niki, LMFAO etc are considered "evolving"? What exactly are these collaborations bringing to the table, artistically? And why is she always collaborating with the hottest new thing who just happens to have a hit on the charts?

I think that Madonna's songs that are closer to her core characteristic sound are much stronger artistically than any of these "young" "hip" collaborations. I think that all of these older acts, male or female, are producing better music when they are sticking to their own style, whether it's Madonna or U2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, functions_X said:

but I feel you are oversimplifying things... The Rolling Stones, U2, Bruce etc are doing nothing new, and collaborations with Niki, LMFAO etc are considered "evolving"? What exactly are these collaborations bringing to the table, artistically? And why is she always collaborating with the hottest new thing who just happens to have a hit on the charts?

I think that Madonna's songs that are closer to her core characteristic sound are much stronger artistically than any of these "young" "hip" collaborations. I think that all of these older acts, male or female, are producing better music when they are sticking to their own style, whether it's Madonna or U2.

I don't consider oversimplifying things by answering to your post where male performers were to be considered in a higher regard against women because they do their own thing and don't resort to the latest producer or "gimmicks" to stay current, but I ask you are they current? do they want to be relevant, do they want to make a contribution to the state of pop culture, do they want to keep being influential? In my humble opinion they want to remain in the same comfortable zone and not challenge their status quo... 

Madonna either we like it or not, either we want it or not is the most commercial act ever, her longevity, influence and success is based on her ability to stay current and being on the charts forever, either with this incredible duality to produce outstanding complex music or the catchiest simplest song like Hung Up. I'm in no way saying that a collaboration moves her artistic output forward or it's a process that assures evolution, but this same albums that have brought this hip collaborations have brought outstanding music. Madonna is Candy Shop, Body Shop as Falling Free and Ghosttown...

If she has chosen this way to present her music there must be a strong reason why behind it, maybe if she hadn't choose this path things could have evolved into a very different scenario...

When you say that she should stick to her own style, what would that style be, the sound of Erotica, AL, COADF,  ROL, etc, the marvel that is Madonna is the ever changing style of her music, things are very easy to judge in hindsight but who's telling us that her decision to work with the trendiest producer today isn't the fabric of her future development. 

I assume that we are talking about the last 3 albums HC (which I adore) that had two trendy producers, MDNA that had one trendy producer and one of the biggest Jedi master ever William Orbit, and RH (which I worship) that couldn't have had more of the most mature and Madonna sounding music and lyrics from the las 10 years made by the most current people in the music business today. Many people consider that not releasing the Avicii Rebel Heart was the biggest mistake ever, and others don't want her to try to hard to sound current and follow trends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Showdown said:

of course they still matter, not because i need them to enjoy the content of an album but sales bring in more money and more interest which helps with more singles, more videos, more remixes and more to a tour. 

THIS! Exactly this!

I mean, if you think about it no sales = no interest = no tour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shane said:

Yes a few of us still buy cds but do you realize that the practice is considered laughable by most people?

I'm not just talking about paid streaming, which I am a huge fan of.  I tend to buy the cd to support the artist and play it in my car, but stream the album on Spotify to support them in that fashion as well.  However, there are many people who simply don't think they should have to pay for music and in fact refuse to. The idea of the artist being compensated means nothing to them.

At this point, can't imagine hardly any people under twenty one even buying music off iTunes. Maybe some legacy type artists will do a bit better with sales. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not care less. I just want some new M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

I always want Madonna to be successful.

Rebel Heart was robbed of a #1 spot and should've been her sixth Number One album in a row. :banghead:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Anne said:

Yes, I like to see my queen being successful. 

And stack those dollars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pedro said:

I think that If we look at it objectively, when was the last time The Rolling Stones, U2, Bruce Springsteen or other male performers of the stature of Madonna have offered an evolved, updated or different to what their core characteristic sound is? If they are doing their thing like you are saying, it is the exactly same thing they have been doing for the last 30-40 years, music and performance wise and their fans are not ever going to ask for more or something else. What could ever be more gimmicky that resorting to the exact same gimmicks that made you famous in the beginning?

I honestly love my ever evolving Madonna, sometimes ahead or the curb or others not so much. 

I'm happy and proud that Madonna is still compared to the new generations because in my eyes that means that she's still the bar and the reference against which everyone is measured, have you thought that everything that Madonna has done, featurings and all is what has made her the most successful female star ever, or the 3rd most successful musical act? 

I understand that you are making a point about the difference between the male and female music industry but don't reinforce or fall in the common stereotypes these same industries have reinforced on us. 

 

:thumbsup:

 

@functions_X, @Pedro has answered beautifully already. Besides Madonna started the collabo thing when she was almost 50. Not 20 or 30 like some other acts who were supposed to have come to steal her thunder and have ended up being visibly outsold by her in the 90s and 2000s. Hello Mariah, Janet, Britney, Chrustina, JLO etc

And U2 haven't made collaborations with younger pop acts? Not really. Maybe not for a single release because they truly don't care about radio play, they know that they can stick to the same arrangements forever, get massive publicity off Bono being photographed next to world leaders (Madonna opens an hospital in Malawi and all they talk about is her supposed words about Whitney and Sharon Stone from 25 years ago), generally get the royal treatment by the media without ever being innovative and they keep selling concert tickets.

Madonna works a lot harder than they do and always does a visceral, visibly more engaging and ever stimulating type of show. She's invested on more than one platform. And I'm not referring to the gyms or her business aspirations to which she's also very much entitled to. Has anyone listened to Bono's voice lately? Nobody in the media, curiously, seems to have picked up on how croaky and thin it's become, meanwhile RHT voice ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never cared for it wether it's Madonna or other musical acts i love (who probably never had a #1 album or single but are still regarded as great).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sexycunt said:

Yes.

I always want Madonna to be successful.

Rebel Heart was robbed of a #1 spot and should've been her sixth Number One album in a row. :banghead:

 

THIS !!! :americanlife: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, i do not care since the Hard Candy era. At this point, Madonna had 25 years of dominance on the charts which was unheard of. At 50, it was obvious that the years of success on the charts were behind her since no artist of this age and older is able to sell albums. This reality, combined with the fact that the physical medium slowly agonized, led me to accept that a new part of her career began where sales should no longer count in the factors of appreciation. At that time, my only requirement was that she continue to produce quality albums despite low sales. MDNA made me fear the worst but Rebel Heart reassured me.

BTW, all my life, I listened to artists who never had a gold certification of their career. So the level of sales is not a very important element for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I care about album sales, because it´s something that people use against her, to make her look worse, a has been...although we know that nobody is selling as they used to.

and, as somebody has said, I think she needs more a hit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, promise to try said:

I care about album sales, because it´s something that people use against her, to make her look worse, a has been...although we know that nobody is selling as they used to.

and, as somebody has said, I think she needs more a hit

M's impressive album sales (e.g. Guinness World  record) is also something M fans use to mock at other artists.

Didn't we all get upset when she sells lesser than she used to be? I'm one of them.

Thank god we still have touring sales to brag about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2017 at 11:41 PM, horn said:

Yes, album sales is still relevant. Maybe things get a little complicated in the US but it's still good outside US.

There's nothing wrong about US album sales, it's Billboard fucked up their system take in other shit into consideration.

Dun use "CD is over" as an excuse 'cos Adele had proven CD is not dead.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Martin B. said:

Personally, i do not care since the Hard Candy era. At this point, Madonna had 25 years of dominance on the charts which was unheard of. At 50, it was obvious that the years of success on the charts were behind her since no artist of this age and older is able to sell albums. This reality, combined with the fact that the physical medium slowly agonized, led me to accept that a new part of her career began where sales should no longer count in the factors of appreciation. At that time, my only requirement was that she continue to produce quality albums despite low sales. MDNA made me fear the worst but Rebel Heart reassured me.

BTW, all my life, I listened to artists who never had a gold certification of their career. So the level of sales is not a very important element for me.

 

Thank you


You have brought up some amazing and refreshingly objective points. Especially the never before seen chart domination all the way up to 51, uncharted waters for any pop act, ever. Some people talk cluelessly about Cher's Believe as a precedent and an example of longevity or outstanding commercial acclaim past a certain age, without mentioning that album was preceded and equally followed by the absolute years-long void charts wise.

Madonna has consistently released studio albums once every two and a half years on average since she was 25, minus the Evita transition in between BS and ROL and the HC to MDNA interval, and just as consistently saw them debut on top of the charts and spending time there too, has had charting singles all the way to 51 and to score a hit with Celebration after 26 years is nothing short of extraordinary, especially considering how little promotion she did for that GH and the song itself

She also isn't one of those acts who have made their policy to release three thousand compilations and GHs either. Them or their record companies whatever. Hello Kylienne Minogue and friends

And let's not forget that even post quarter of a century WB tenure, MDNA (Universal's 7th biggest seller of 2012 according to the IFPI, for an act 30 years into the business) and RH both had some of the finest UWC opening week figures for any act in their respective years, 750k and 320k respectively

I mean, the fact that Madonna scored a minor hit with BIM on Billboard and on VEVO and YouTube thanks to Nicki Minaj but 30yo Minaj with 20 times the airplay barely sold half a million globally with her studio release of the same time while RH sold 20k copies south of the 1m mark despite being shamelessly ignored by radio, tells you everything you need to know about how obviously biased, contrived and purposely oblique Billboard's charting regulations are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For heritage/veteran acts like Madonna, the Album Sales chart is more relevant than the multi-metric top 200 one as it is now. Even though album sales are not huge like they were, it's still a fair measure, rankwise, when comparing against past performance (newer releases, of course , won't have the longevity of her heyday, but still).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still care because it’s a parameter to understand/size her fanbase and approach.

I think that yeah her sales are low, but we should be not only focusing on physical sales but also streaming, because for the charts they’re also sales and that’s why they added the SPS chart.

I like to think that she hit rock bottom with RH sales and even with the leaks fiasco she managed to sell 1M units and that’s very healthy still, outselling the last albums of Xtina, Janet, Brit, Mariah.

Of course Taylor, Ariana or Adele sell way too much but they are on another league, a millennial league, even there Ariana has sold around 1.6M units of his last album but she has 2Billion streams from Spotify.

M is caught between those trends, 1M sales is ‘healthy’ but not enough, RH has around 130M streams from Spotify and that’s a great number but also ‘not enough’ because the market is still shifting, maybe next era it will rely more on streams.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^However, heritage/veteran acts- unless they pass on or another extraordinary circumstance occurs- do not get streamed like newer/more current acts. Thus, such acts are at a disadvantage on the multi-metric chart, in general. I pay much more mind to the Album Sales chart (listing it before the multi-metric one in my archive files), as it's the only fair comparison to what the BB 200 once was. The albums chart was always just based on one factor, unlike the Hot100, which was always a blend of multiple components. Billboard made a multi-metric chart because album sales had dropped, and that was a way to "inflate" the numbers for what it considers one of its "flagship" charts (I don't any longer, but that's here nor there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×