Forum
The problem is, you stated that “Her all around format success is unparalleled”, but when this was challenged as being a lie, you suddenly state that you meant only amongst women, only in a certain timeframe and about success in general. How could anyone read that original statement of yours and deduce that you meant, just amongst women, just in a certain time frame and about success in general. You didn't give context, “Her all around format success is unparalleled” didn't need context, it's a very self explanatory statement and means no one has the success she has across all formats. To then add in what you did, is not giving context, it is completely changing your statement to mean something else.
To be honest I don't even know what point you are making now and this happens every time you debate. An original point is made but then you just go of on tangents, move the goalposts, twist things, bring all kinds of Taylor facts, figures, stats up, claim she's always at a disadvantage, things are harder nowadays etc etc etc, regardless if any of it actually relates to the original point or is even relevant. This is usually ended by you spouting all kinds of immature rubbish like, I won, I destroyed you etc or shit like "cry in a corner", "seethe", "cope", "shes comin for your artists".
Anyway, going back to your original statement, “Her all around format success is unparalleled”...it quite clearly isn't.
ARTIST --- ALBUMS --- SINGLES --- DOWNS --- STREAMS
The Beatles --- 364,042,000 --- 116,080,000 --- 35,230,000 --- 20,645,000
Michael Jackson --- 284,597,000 --- 79,350,000 --- 79,990,000 --- 19,238,000
Queen --- 229,578,000 --- 49,960,000 --- 59,650,000 --- 27,809,000
Eminem --- 125,407,000 --- 14,320,000 --- 204,920,000 --- 53,131,000
Taylor Swift --- 71,318,000 --- 320,000 --- 162,890,000 --- 93,533,000
You can't be serious saying MJ and beatles achieved less at 33. Beatles got 20 no 1 hits in usa and tons others ww in this time frame. MJ had two best selling albums of all time before he was 33.
They were both more famous than Taylor is ww.
I understand she is currently the biggest act by far but it's ridiculous to exaggerate her success this much.
I agree she is comparable to around peak Madonna maybe.
Taylor Swift's firepower is greater than M. Jackson's ever, let alone Madonna. The numbers don't lie. More units sold per year, higher turnover and the age of 33 is already billionaire club, which Madonna still isn't.
Hi Mikko!
It isn't as simple as picking total EAS units moved in a year to see who has the greatest "firepower". The market changed so much, so did the profile of both consumers and media. Your claim would be similar to saying that Prince or Bruce Springsteen in 1984 had a greater firepower than Beatles' ever, or Paula Abdul in 89/90 was bigger than Elvis at his peak, which would be clearly inaccurate.
I'm among those who believe that Taylor Swift will be part of the historical "big 4" at some point, along with the Beatles, Elvis and Jackson, yet her peak isn't even close to Jackson in 83. The engagement of her listeners is insane, on that aspect she may be challenged only by the Beatles. That being said, Thriller was outselling its pears by 5 to 1 or more, topping charts for months everywhere. It did nearly 40m sales at a point where selling 3m was a global smash. Midnights is among the very top albums of the decade (potentially #1 in the long run) but with numbers in the same scale as others. The Weeknd currently has more global listeners. She is no competition to the top local artists in various places. Jackson would have crushed these statistics back in the day.
I would say that Taylor's popularity now is similar to Madonna's 86 one, although with different textures. Career-wise Taylor is more consistent and prolific, so she will most likely end ahead of her by some margin ultimately.
Agree 100% Jake. Not forgetting that McCartney already had a handful of hit albums solo/with Wings and #1 singles too at age 33. At that point he was already the best selling artist ever, with a considerably margin, topping massive stars like Elvis, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra or the big band leaders in no time despite the fact that these artists had a huge head start discography-wise.
Charts all over the world: Taylor Swift 12 700 weeks on album charts, Michael Jackson 6600 weeks on charts (mainly posthumous), Madonna 3500 weeks on charts on 2000's. Taylor Swift vinyl album price 30-50 dollars, it's revenue what matters. She writes her own songs mainly.
I remember days of Jackson's popularity, at least here in Northen Europe they weren't massive at all. Here Finland he is nr 55 in album chart history. In Norway about same.
I am not Taylor Swift fan, but Swift is very important, she saved physical recorded market.
"Thriller was outselling its pears by 5 to 1 or more"
Isn't this just due to weak competition though? As you know album sales dropped significantly in the early 80s.
"The Weeknd currently has more global listeners."
What do you mean by "listeners"? In any case she got over twice more streams than him last year, her tour will gross twice more than the previous biggest tour ever (adj for inflation), I don't know if "Madonna in 86" is a good comparison... I'm not even sure she was the biggest artist at the time (Phil Collins maybe?).
When they broke up the Beatles had sold about 50m albums worldwide. MJ had sold less than 100m when he was 33.
"They were both more famous than Taylor is ww."
Please... If you think Lennon was right when he said the Beatles were "more famous than Jesus" or something, well he wasn't.
Regarding to your last phrase, that time (I guess you mean the 1980s) if you sum up solo plus group success, Phil Collins was (and still is) bigger than Madonna. Only MJ was bigger that decade.
Furthermore, I find the whole discussion about Taylor Swift's sales classification quite tiresome, as it is simply an individual interpretation of sales figures. As we have already noted elsewhere, fans usually interpret their idol's successes differently than non-fans. Therefore, just look at the respective sales listed here and everyone can work out their own superlatives.
By the way, I also do that by saying that my favorite artist Phil Collins is currently the fifth most successful artist of all time (262M EAS), counting his Genesis activities (109M EAS from being a full member) and solo activities (153M EAS) together.
If someone interprets the numbers differently, I have no problem with that, as long as we all always start from the same numbers.
Best regards
Would he not be pushed down on such a list from Beatles and Queen members? I mean if we look at a full list of combined sales solo+band membership.
Let's say regarding to overall artists at the moment:
- Paul McCartney is the most successful of all time with Beatles (425M EAS) and Wings/solo (113M EAS) sum up to 538M EAS.
- MJ is runner-up with J5 (61M EAS) and solo (340M EAS) has around 400M EAS.
- Elvis still at 322M EAS.
- Freddie with Queen (281M EAS) and solo (I would guess approximately 15 to 20M EAS) with around almost 300M EAS.
I would classify Phil immediately afterwards.
Now you can also add each of the other Beatles (John/George/Ringo) or Queen (Deaky/Roger/Brain) in front of Phil. But you can also ask yourself if for example Ringo (despite his induction to the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame as a solo artist for whatever reason) can be listed to that, especially since he (obviously) has the smallest share of commercial songwriting/performing presence -> attractivity within the Beatles members.
As I said before, it's just my personal point of view.
Banks, Rutherford and until 1975 Peter Gabriel also played an important role in Genesis. They also had their fingerprints on the band's music. I think Collins was responsible for a 50 % stake in the Genesis, which makes 50-60 million EAS. But back to Swift.
Indeed, that seems to be a good idea to split up the commercial success to each participant of a recording, e.g. songwriters, producers, musicians, singers etc. Then for example top producers like Quincy Jones could be made responsible for hundred millions of EAS. But that should be discussed on another place.
Yes, back to Swift.
"1) Taylor hasn’t got a crossover hit in years, nothing grants that she will ever be able to get new ones"
"3) Taylor is still barely 32, it would be crazy to assume she can’t have hits anymore"
"4) If I had to bet, I would say she will still get at least one new era with a large hit on it"
"9) There are still 2 busy years to come"
"12) Considering her ongoing strength, I do consider Taylor to be virtually ahead of Barbra and Whitney, as in cycling. What it means is that if all female singers stop their career now, she will still organically move ahead at some point"
"13) She is very close, and may be able to confirm it in the next two years, to pull virtually ahead of Mariah too."
"16) In a long run race against Celine, nothing is done"
"17) In that same long run race against Celine, Taylor is already the favorite"
"18) She has very decent chances of coming after Madonna too"
2 years ago, oh mjd the visionary that you are
