Forum
Streams are updated automatically and some pure sales are automated automatically
Highest attended female tours in France this decade:
#1. “The Eras Tour” — 301K
#2. “Renaissance World Tour” — 127K
#3. “The Chromatica Ball” — 79K
But my neighbours n frnds didn't hear her song. Or she doesn't have quick lil singles..so she isn't famous. I guess she did fine job there then
Now u can't cherrypick which suits ur argument. Then same way music distinction is wife different for artists from 50s to 80s. Madonna had clear advantage over Aretha generation. So then it was never fair to older competition. Fact remains music is reaching small towns now and hence the sales rise for new generation..touring shows how massive she is in this day and age. Nothing matters but only nostalgia fans opinion should matter ok
Eminem till I collapse wasn't mega smash but it is one of most known ever songs. Chart positions means shit if ur music doesn't age well. Taylor music has aged well and is for generations ahead. Her catalog sales turned like rock stars rather than your typical pop star
Taylor Swift has dozens of top 20 entries across multiple charts, markets and continents. Plus 90% of the world has no oficial charts. Not sure what you mean by this?
No functioning member of society is going around asking their neighbors if they know who Taylor Swift is. That should be the first major red flag of that argument.
Take a look at Rammstein's tour, it is bigger than any Madonna tour or bruce Springsteen tour, but are they as big as Bruce Springsteen used to be? The answer is easy, nowhere near. You can't compare Taylor Swift's tour to Madonna in the 80s when she was at the height of her career, demand for live music was much lower. All tours are huge now Coldplay's tour might end up being as big as Taylor Swift without all the hype and Ed Sheeran is almost as big.
Nobody in the 80s said that Madonna was bigger than Elvis because her concerts drew more people.
That isnt the point. Madonna also never had catalog sales of Taylor. You all say how pure sales are end n all in 2024. When Taylor is dominating streams and still selling decent amount of pure sales in 2024. Rammstein tour is big in some markets only. And if we can't compare your markets. Then we can't compare music sales and downplay current artists achievements. Fact remains Taylor is about to outsell Madonna and has the biggest tour ever. Madonna never had this massive your which remains fact. Ifs n what's don't count.
Ed Sheeran isn't as big as Taylor in 2024. He is flopping and only have decent tour numbers. Many times his shows r not sold out and are way cheap.. Taylor is number one in ifpi artist lust as well as touring. Ed isn't in ifpi posts anymore. Difference..only deluded haters will put him on same level on Taylor in 2024. Taylor tour will do almost two billion usd. Is Ed Sheeran tour doing one billion usd? How is it same level lmao
If they are not comparable. Take that to billboard and ifpi who compared them. We didn't invent it. It is ifpi who did it. Thing is nostalgia fans are not able to digest that music is no more remains exclusive to rich countries and is reaching small towns in third world's. Hence the sales and consumption of music has increased. The inflation is due to consumption habits. Ifpi and billboard has revenue equivalence. And if streaming is generating the threshold. It will be counted for right ful reasons
Neither Coldplay tour and Ed Sheeran tour is grossing 2 billion usd. So how r they equal. Taylor is about to surpass Madonna by ifpi and billboard weightage ( she is already biggest in usa ). She has also crossed 100 million figures outside usa. So much for lack of globalness. Ed n Coldplay r touring on their past hits. Difference is Taylor is biggest artist who has biggest tour. No way comparable
What is wrong with bringing it here, where we talk about the industry and it's practices? Are we supposed to just agree and go along with everything that organisations do?
Thing is, you seem to think it's about older fans not being able to get their head around these things, it's not for me, it's a true belief that what we tracked/measured in the past is not the same as what is currently tracked/measured. Sales haven't really increased have they, vinyl has had a little boost over the years but we are not exactly back to late 90s sales levels. Consumption habits haven't just changed, the whole method of consumption has changed. We no longer have to wait until a shop etc is open, hope it has enough stock, physically go to the shop, possibly get public transport, take time out of our day to go, actually have enough money to buy etc nowadays, provided we have a mobile phone, enough data and reception, we can just roll over in our beds and start listening to anything we want.
That is not like for like in my eyes and it's not just about revenue, there were obviously more physical and financial restraints in acquiring music, in the past, compared to now, as well as the fact, that we used to measure an album sale, we now measure track listens, added to purchases, added to video tracks watched, added to tracks downloaded...we are not even measuring an album or it's sale anymore, we are taking many disparate consumption methods applying a formula to them and presenting a made up and not real or true, sales figure.
It's also completely skewed things for all time comparison. As I pointed out, many albums that weren't hugely successful upon release, now look huge due to the streaming power of maybe just one of it's tracks. Take Survivors Eye of the Tiger album, it currently has 1,333B streams (with EOTT providing 1,280B of that total) and Led Zeppelin II has 1,303B, are we now to just assume that EOTT is the more popular album, the more successful album, because of how consumption has changed, how we measure tracks now and not albums? Don't you see any problems with all this?
To you maybe, to a lot of people they don't. I personally, along with many others who have an interest in charts and sales, have always had issues with Billboard or the RIAA or the BPI or the OCC etc and the decisions they make, the criteria they set etc.
For me, it's not about downplaying current artists success, it's that it's just not truly comparable with success from the 80s. It's like comparing how many bananas got sold in the 80s, with how many are eaten today and just pretending that we are measuring like for like and the exact same thing.
