Forum
It is possible. As I said haven't his sales been checked at all as far as I know. It's claimed at 8m pure, and that can very well be true based on its certifications. It will also add near 1m from streams. The biggest question are his compilations which there are many of, no idea what these sold.
The dark horse here is Julio Iglesias though. He got several albums in the 5-9m range and tons of comps released all over the world, and unlike more recent Latin acts did he enjoy a strong market for physical singles. Streams and likely digital sales on the other hand are weak.
If we can even consider him a pure Latin act that is. He translated his songs not just to English, but to Portuguese, Italian, German...
these comments have me thinking i came from the future lmao but uvst is now the most streamed album on spotify!
He has announced 22 song album. Gonna be massive album again and his 2022 album is still going strong. That will be around 25 million atleast by end of decade. He is crazy and has touring stats too to back up his hype
At current rate UVST should surpass 25mil by the end of 2025. I think it'll easily be in the 35-40mil range by the end of the decade
His touring power shows that people who put down streaming album units compared to physical albums, they are clueless! He would've sold that much physically too, if it was major consumption today . Those touring numbers don't lie. On way to biggest latin artist of all time
His success is incredible and unprecedented. He is also crazy successful in America too, even with people who don't know a word of Spanish.
Nobody has "put down" the validity of streaming consumption or stated that it is somehow lesser than physical consumption. Just that they are two distinct and disparate consumption methods, one being based on streaming/listening to something, the other on buying/purchasing something.
It's impossible to know how well it would've done in a physical environment.
Touring numbers do not necessarily corelate with how successful an artist is. Pink Floyd and The Stones had some of the biggest tours of the 80s and 90s but neither could be classed as being the most successful artists in those decades. Likewise ABBA and Mariah Carey were two of the most successful acts in their respective decades, yet neither has touring numbers that would indicate as much.
Who is nobody? I have seen even people putting them down and again if I reply with valid points, people will take it out of context and get me banned because they have staff powers. Thousand of streams equal one sales. It evens out. Are we repeating same argument again? Yes some people thing it doesn't feel as big because consumption have changed and in older times, it felt bigger. Personal feelings don't matter. Total number does and he is on his way to 100 million in very fast manner. A
He would've done very well. The way he has latin audience in his palms. It is generational thing. Whatever the consumption method, he would've slayed.
My point was his success goes hand in hand with touring numbers. He didn't have to be legacy act like the older bands. In eighties madonna, tina had biggest tours and albums among women. Same with mj with his bad tour. Biggest current artists have biggest tours most of times. And revenue model has shifted to touring since royalities became less and less in digital world. As acts now depend more on it. Not all streaming giants have same touring power. Only cream among the members. Mariah was never the touring. But keeping exceptions aside, top artists of generations are those who can have albums sales as well as tours. Celine was touring giant at the same time. So if you are among best seller, most times you will also be great at touring. . His giant numbers go hand in hand with millions he can bring every night. That is generational artist thing. I hope this time you got my point, otherwise I am not interested in basic spoonfeeding😀
Pink Floyd and the Stones were legacy acts with decades of success, actually the biggest tours of all-time are mostly from legacy acts (U2, AC/DC...etc), it doesn't make sense to compare them with recent acts like Bad Bunny.
If you want to find a counter-argument, you should look for highly successful tours from recent acts who didn't have highly successful albums, good luck with that.
About 60 million of Americans speak Spanish actually, which explains Bad Bunny's success there.
It's nothing to do with personal feelings or not seeing it as the same achievement as physical sales, it quite simply is, that they are not the same thing. Streaming is not the same as selling, listening to tracks on an album 1500 times, will never be the same as going to a shop and buying an LP or CD for £15.
My point is not about disparaging current artists success, it's purely that we are not measuring like for like anymore and measuring and merging two distinctly different methods of consumption.
There is no way to tell, how he would have done in a physical era. Maybe it is easier and more accessible for people to now access his music, than when LPs and CDs were in their prime, maybe cost would have deterred people buying physically, maybe piracy, counterfeits etc would ruin official physical sales. Truth is, we just don't know how things would have panned out.
The majority of the top tours in the 80s, 90s, 00s and even 10s have been from acts well passed their musical/commercial peak, such as U2, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Madonna, The Police etc. So while yes, BBs touring numbers do mirror his current musical success, in many instances a hugely successful tour does not always mirror current musical success.
Equivalent is this how it works today and no amount of ifs and what's can change that. Streaming has made music reach places where it wasn't accessible before. Even in my country, western music reaches small villages. Which wasn't possible back in past. So the weightage should be more for streaming. For me that is more impressive than a CD sale.
There is no perfect method and this is how industry is run today. From artists to labels they use this method only to see the balanced equation. For me streaming artists deserve more share because of how they are entering markets like never before. It is unfair to them!
Anyone who can sell millions of tickets and have current relevancy on charts would've succeeded in any form of consumption. Same way we can say artist who domianted western physical markets couldnt have found success in current format. But thing is touring is the other measure to show his current relevance which is also happening in charts. He has millions of people who buys his expensive tickets. He is turning his streamers into his ticket buyers as well as merchandise buyers. The rate of his tickets shows he has the willing audience to buy his product. Fact is people could buy your music back but not interested in your live act. To make people stream his music year after year and bring them in stadiums is biggest sign of his numbers being rightful.
Legacy acts will always sell more tickets as their audience is old. I never denied it. But point is many current relevant musicians will also sell their tickets in any era. Whether it is 80s ( madonna mj springsteen tina)90s ( madonna celine mj etc) 2000s( beyonce britney justin Timberlake etc) 2010s ( Taylor katy gaga ed adele pink) . They have the charts and tours. So does bad bunny. His touring power goes with his chart relevancy which has always happened in the past. Got my point?
Arjit singh in India don't sell a single physical product and only has streaming. But he is biggest act here . And like bad bunny sells tickets like crazy. Bad bunny touring success correlates to his chart success. I have made my points clear. Thank you
Why, it's not the artists I'm comparing, it's "touring power" and showing that having a hugely successful tour, in many instances, is not directly related to contemporary success.
