Should artists who released before the digital era have special recognition?

[Villanelle 5,143]

Im talking mainly about singles here, but lets take Baby One More Time and We Found Love as an example

 

Britney sells 10m copies of BOMT-back in the day CD singles were £2.99-£3.99 /$3-$8 

Rihanna sells 10m copies of WFL-today single prices are £0.99-$1+

Surely it should be counted as being more of an achievement to sell the same amount of a single at a higher price than at a reduced discounted price? 

 

Now i use rihanna (not because im pressed before the rihtards come for me) but because she is rapidly becoming one of the best selling artists of all time for having hardly any significant selling power, It should be noted on sales achievements the difference between physical and digital

[Venice Bitch 9,084]

It's so sad tho. People should buy albums like back in the day

[Xgongiviguess 797]

true tho BOMT doesn't get enough credit

[Robert. 12,777]

I agree tbh None of the digital era pop girls could ever!

[#R8 7]

Um... But sales, digital or otherwise, have DECREASED, so no.

[Polow 9]

Im talking mainly about singles here, but lets take Baby One More Time and We Found Love as an example

 

Britney sells 10m copies of BOMT-back in the day CD singles were £2.99-£3.99 /$3-$8 

Rihanna sells 10m copies of WFL-today single prices are £0.99-$1+

Surely it should be counted as being more of an achievement to sell the same amount of a single at a higher price than at a reduced discounted price? 

 

Now i use rihanna (not because im pressed before the rihtards come for me) but because she is rapidly becoming one of the best selling artists of all time for having hardly any significant selling power, It should be noted on sales achievements the difference between physical and digital

 

I think it just goes to show people still buy music and piracy is not as big of a deal as people say! People support what they like.... Rihanna is arguably the biggest in the biz right now!

[Daydream. 159]

I agree.And back then u actually had to MOVE YOUR ASS and go to the store to buy an album/single.. Now u just click twice on ur phone and u have the music.

 

I prefer it old school anyways.

[Ana 18]

well, it's not that easy to say 'the older one's are more special because they used to be more expensive'

 

yeah sure, but also back then pirating wasn't a big thing and it didn't impact sales. I think selling 10m nowadays is a lot and just as special, even if it's cheap - especially since you can get it in like 5 mouseclicks for free.

[#R8 7]

I think it evens out. Singles were more expensive but there was no pirating/streaming

[Villanelle 5,143]

well, it's not that easy to say 'the older one's are more special because they used to be more expensive'

 

yeah sure, but also back then pirating wasn't a big thing and it didn't impact sales. I think selling 10m nowadays is a lot and just as special, even if it's cheap - especially since you can get it in like 5 mouseclicks for free.

But people went out of their way to get singles back in the day

[Ana 18]

But people went out of their way to get singles back in the day

 

You're making it a much bigger deal than it really was. It's not like people lived in the jungle and had to get back into civilization to get it, they just went to the store and picked it up. There just was no alternative to buying, perhaps recording from the radio on tape. Thinking about it, THAT was going out of one's way to get a song. Buying it is no problem.

[Queen Rivers 7]

No, those were just the times. People who are buying it legally from iTunes or other digital sources would've likely bought the albums back then.

 

It's that simple really.

[Queen Rivers 7]

You're making it a much bigger deal than it really was. It's not like people lived in the jungle and had to get back into civilization to get it, they just went to the store and picked it up. There just was no alternative to buying, perhaps recording from the radio on tape. Thinking about it, THAT was going out of one's way to get a song. Buying it is no problem.

 

Exactly.

[Vesper 5,443]

It seems like you're arguing for sales being kept by amount of money made than physical albums.

If that's the case, then maybe inflation should be kept in check as well. Perhaps the true marker of best sales should go to whichever pop star can generate the most revenue, number of sales be damned. That would mean discounting singles and albums to get sales wouldn't actually benefit them because they would need to sell three times as many to earn the same amount of money.

 

BOTM sales 10 mill at avg. price of $5.50 = $55,000,000 in 1999 - 2013 adjusted for inflation = $76,005,754.78

 

WFL sales 10 mill at avg. price $0.99 = $9,900,000 in 2011 - 2013 adjusted for inflation = $10,259,518.50 

 

So BOTM comparatively earned $65,746,236.20 more than WFL.

 

   

[Vesper 5,443]

dp

[Joanna 1,543]

I agree tbh. Plus what really irks me is that back in the day when artists sold physical singles, the copy usually had 3-4 songs (remixes, b-sides). Nowadays just one digital song will count as a single sold. They should seperate digital sales from physical sales when it comes to achievements.

[RED ANGELO 382]

It seems like you're arguing for sales being kept by amount of money made than physical albums.

If that's the case, then maybe inflation should be kept in check as well. Perhaps the true marker of best sales should go to whichever pop star can generate the most revenue, number of sales be damned. That would mean discounting singles and albums to get sales wouldn't actually benefit them because they would need to sell three times as many to earn the same amount of money.

BOTM sales 10 mill at avg. price of $5.50 = $55,000,000 in 1999 - 2013 adjusted for inflation = $76,005,754.78

WFL sales 10 mill at avg. price $0.99 = $9,900,000 in 2011 - 2013 adjusted for inflation = $10,259,518.50

So BOTM comparatively earned $65,746,236.20 more than WFL.

By your logic, Back to Basics was twice as successful cause the album was been sold 17.99-18.99 for the majority of its lifetime, compared to other albums 9.99-11.99.

So if its sold like 1 million, its getting sales for 2 million. Meaning, we can consider that B2B sold between 8-9 million copies worldwide in sales!

Thats more than Blackout and Circus combined!

I love it!

[unknown 1]

WHO - FUCKING - CARES

[Vesper 5,443]

By your logic, Back to Basics was twice as successful cause the album was been sold 17.99-18.99 for the majority of its lifetime, compared to other albums 9.99-11.99.

So if its sold like 1 million, its getting sales for 2 million. Meaning, we can consider that B2B sold between 8-9 million copies worldwide in sales!

Thats more than Blackout and Circus combined!

I love it!

 

Um you're making up numbers. How was B2B avg price 18$? and just looking at amazon prices now, you can see blackout is at 14$ and B2B is 8.99     

 

Don't try to skew the facts sis.

[Warrior 993]

By your logic, Back to Basics was twice as successful cause the album was been sold 17.99-18.99 for the majority of its lifetime, compared to other albums 9.99-11.99.

So if its sold like 1 million, its getting sales for 2 million. Meaning, we can consider that B2B sold between 8-9 million copies worldwide in sales!

Thats more than Blackout and Circus combined!

I love it!