base talk Taylor Swift's rival in commercial success is only The Beatles, agree?

[The Music Industry]

2 minutes ago, LittleStarmen said:

This is insane talking if anything she probably has similar Adele 2012 numbers

Taylor factually moved more Billboard units this year than any artist since Luminate started tracking sales in 1991 but sure 

 

[FailSafe]

Just now, fijitears said:

I meant exposure wise.

 

Taylor is not toe to toe with The Beatles or Michael Jackson and that’s just common sense, no hater ****.

 

I said what I said 

 

Exposure wise we had Gaga, Beaver, Brit to rival Tay but they didn't have the mammoth commercial success she is currently experiencing.

 

 

If exposure is the only measurement of success, then Rebecca Black was the biggest artist of 2011

 

[FolkLover1989]

52 minutes ago, JaXXXon said:

I remember back in 2022 a while after Taylor had released Folklore and Evermore she had 44 million monthly listeners and Gaga - who had just released Hold My Hand - had 41 million monthly listeners 

Taylor never had 44m monthly listeners in 2022

Let's keep it cute 

[FailSafe]

1 minute ago, The Music Industry said:

Taylor factually moved more Billboard units this year than any artist since Luminate started tracking sales in 1991 but sure 

 

To Adele's credit  tho, she only had 2 albums by then, with the first one having its majority of sales coming from 21's massive residual success

 

[Cruel Summer]

9 minutes ago, LittleStarmen said:

This is insane talking if anything she probably has similar Adele 2012 numbers

Adele is actually an excellent comparison to help contextualize this question. She had one of the biggest, most respectable peaks of the Soundscan/Luminate era, unquestionably. She moved 14.5 million album equivalent units (including track sales and streams) across 2011 and 2012 combined where Taylor has already moved 14.7 million this year so far.

[byzantium]

30 minutes ago, LittleStarmen said:

I bought one copy of Confessions On A Dance Floor in 2005. Listened to death but it counted as one copy.

 

Since I subscribed to spotify I probably listened to equivalent of 15 copies of the same album since I still love it.

 

But now my consumer unit number is multplied by dozens.

 

Therefore its not comparable

Honestly, if you have listened to a single album about 2,000 times accounting for over 21,000 streams, it deserves to be counted multiple times.

 

On the contrary, there were plenty of albums I bought back in the digital era that I listened to less than 20 times.  It still counted for 1 album unit but nowadays would only be considered (1/7) an album unit.

[Alexz]

[Goaty]

This forum tends to deify the titan legacy acts like MJ, Madonna, etc. as if they will never be rivaled, but it’s an extremely naive position to take with decades of music consumption ahead of us.

[alestevens]

I dont know about that, maybe to soon to tell, but she's most definitely the biggest artist in the 1991-2023 period. No one is touching her

[Finkypop]

Absolutely yes. She’s the biggest artist of all time. She has left every single one of ATRL‘s faves in the dust which is why so many people post and circlejerk utter delusions to cope with her success since they just can’t fathom it. That’s how massive she is 

 

[brenda-walsh]

[unclefloprry]

100 people buying 1 album in the '60s is not the same as 10 white americans buying 10 different versions of an album in 2023.

 

another one thank you

Edited November 4, 2023 by unclefloprry

[brenda-walsh]

she hasn't even outsold Eminem, lets focus on that first

[lonnie]

Good. Now her stans can focus on arguing with the Beatles stans and leave the other female artists alone

 

[byzantium]

Just now, unclefloprry said:

100 people buying 100 albums in the '60s is not the same as 10 crazy white americans buying 10 different versions of an album in 2023.

 

another one thank you

What about 10 white Americans buying the records on vinyl, then Cassettes, then CDs, and now continue to stream it.  A large part of the Beatles sales have come from people updating their library with the change in music consumption. 

[Alexz]

1 minute ago, byzantium said:

What about 10 white Americans buying the records on vinyl, then Cassettes, then CDs, and now continue to stream it.  A large part of the Beatles sales have come from people updating their library with the change in music consumption. 

These people must be immortal.

[FailSafe]

1 minute ago, byzantium said:

What about 10 white Americans buying the records on vinyl, then Cassettes, then CDs, and now continue to stream it.  A large part of the Beatles sales have come from people updating their library with the change in music consumption. 

 Not to mention The Beatles pioneered the music fandom that bought everything their fav released 

 

 

I guess Taylor and the Beatles have similarities in more ways the one

 

[byzantium]

3 minutes ago, Alexz said:

These people must be immortal.

You are right. There is no way humans can live past the age of 60. 

[Steve Johnson]

2 hours ago, LosingHimWasBlue said:

Yes. Of course.

but it’s ATRL.. OTH would be disagree 

 Only the Biggest artists of all time. 

[Alexz]

1 minute ago, byzantium said:

You are right. There is no way humans can live past the age of 60. 

If they were 20 in the 60s they are 80 years old now...

[Funnyfatty]

1 hour ago, Eternium said:

Spotify in 2020 legalized payola. They now autoplay songs after people play other songs and if an artist chooses to take fewer royalties, they can get their songs autoplayed. After Spotify introduced this feature in 2020, certain artists received a massive jump in success on streaming. While payola on radio has been common in the past, it never counted for album charts before. Now, artists like Drake, BTS and Taylor Swift are using it to manipulate charts.

 

That’s why Taylor Swift went from being a Spotify flop to doing better on Spotify since 2020 despite Midnights, Evermore and that Phoebe Bridgers album being declines with the GP while actual hits like Reputation and 1989 couldn’t score Spotify hits to save their lives.

EXACTLY. You couldn’t make someone PAY 10 years ago in the itunes era and you could only be helpful for your fave by buying it once. Spotify made it so easy for artists who are success hungry to manipulate the charts. 
 

i see her fanbase being so fckng happy that a new vault track is going number. PLS. A #1 song in bb hot 100 means its the MOST POPULAR SONG IN THE COUNTRY. No one knows ANYTHING about that #1 by Taylor. Everything is manipulated and calculated by her its unbelievable. And her fanbase can only come and say that we are haters while i don’t even care a bit about taylor

[byzantium]

Just now, Alexz said:

If they were 20 in the 60s they are 80 years old now...

Good for them! 

[unclefloprry]

2 minutes ago, byzantium said:

What about 10 white Americans buying the records on vinyl, then Cassettes, then CDs, and now continue to stream it.  A large part of the Beatles sales have come from people updating their library with the change in music consumption. 

The difference is that people bought the Beatles catalog years ago (to be more specific, before the 2000s) for what they were made for: listening the music.

Taylor stans buy 4 different vinyls + 4 CDs with different covers just to put them in their living room like a piece of art and never touch them again bc they're already listening the album on streaming platforms.

And that's ok, everybody spends their money how they want. But in terms of REAL demand it is not the same. 

[JaXXXon]

1 hour ago, The Music Industry said:

So why is only Taylor Swift rivaling the biggest legends if everyone's music is being played in the background and streams are so accessible

 

Because she’s the only one who released three albums or releases multiple albums in a calender year? In other words, if she only released one album she would not be at 15 million units. 
 

Like, at this point you Swifties need to stop. By your logic, Drake is about to overtake MJ in terms of hits  Let Drake release three albums in a year and his overall consumption will be rivaling past legends as well. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by JaXXXon

[The Music Industry]

11 minutes ago, unclefloprry said:

The difference is that people bought the Beatles catalog years ago (to be more specific, before the 2000s) for what they were made for: listening the music.

Taylor stans buy 4 different vinyls + 4 CDs with different covers just to put them in their living room like a piece of art and never touch them again bc they're already listening the album on streaming platforms.

And that's ok, everybody spends their money how they want. But in terms of REAL demand it is not the same. 

You're cherry-picking. One could just argue back that, as music wasn't as accessible back then, people were simply more inclined to buy records since it was the only way to consume music, thus boosting units significantly. There were obvious advantages for artists in the physical era and to pretend otherwise is silly. No other artist from the late 2000s is coming even close in units to challenging artists from the physicals era. Even artists like Drake which seemed to do very well in the streaming era started to slow down and are unlikely to catch up to the best-selling acts. It's literally just Taylor Swift. Y'all need to just accept it

Edited November 4, 2023 by The Music Industry