Jump to content

Do you think that sales is the most important metric when discussing someone legacy?


futuresuperstar2023

Recommended Posts

I think that sales definitely do matter because it's not easy to sell a bunch of records tbh or have success because there are so many artist that wish to have that. My only qualm about that is when sales seem to be the only metric used for impact in music. A perfect Legacy for an artist for me is someone who have Sales, Critical Acclaim and electrifying performances  as well or even reinventions. All of those go hand in hand for me. At the end of the day Lady Gaga might not sell as much as she did during her peak but I'm not going to say she has no impact just because she is not at the top of music anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Aretha Franklin barely sold albums/singles yet she's still a legend. Voices make legends first and foremost.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not really, commercial success eventually fades, so... :gaycat5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't but it certainly helps.

 

Mariah Carey having 19 #1 songs is just legendary

Beyoncé having all 8 of her solo albums go to #1

Taylor having 10 #1 albums, 14 if we include the rerecordings

Rihanna having 14 #1 singles

Katy Perry having 5 #1 singles from one album

Adele 3.48m first week sales

 

These are all legendary achievements

  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't rate sales at all. (Some) questions that have-to-have good answers for legacy imo:

 

If you did advance music (whether audible or otherwise), was it for 2 seconds or did it have staying power?

Who did you influence or inspire? The artists who come from your tree paint a big picture. 

Do you have records that lasted past their initial release? Is your **** still making album canons in 10, 15+ years? Whole lotta albums sold well and don't nobody give af now, and there's albums that didn't move **** but 5 quarters that inspired nations. 

 

People overrank sales because it's the most tangible thus easier for people to wrap their heads around. It be impossible for people to see someone who isn't mega successful can have equal or more impact/influence than someone who moves a lot of records.

 

I think it was 1 or 2 months ago Billie Eilish fans were debating on twitter about whose musical 'trees' she's a part of, some of them were confused and upset by people mentioning JID, xxxtentacion and Vince Staples cause they don't know them, but clearly, she does. :deadbanana4:

 

Okay I went to find it, this is the main tweet about it I remember

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. But look at the list of best selling artists of all time and tell me they don't matter

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask Britney's fans 

 

 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Anyone who thinks "one" metric alone can contribute to a legacy is naive, but someone who denies the contributions of that metric to a legacy is equally ignorant. Sales are not the -only- factor in analyzing the legends of history, but it cannot be discounted or belittled either. 

Edited by PoisonedIvy
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a major factor, but consistency is key. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only for stans of McDonald's of Pop 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sales are one way to measure cultural reach, which matters when discussing the extent to which an artist's catalog is known / remembered by the general public. There's also a (weaker) relationship between sales and influence on other artists. I wouldn't say it's most important, though - there are rich musical legacies by artists who sold poorly and who aren't known outside of niche music circles. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really depends on who what of when. Let's take morgan wallen vs Charlie Puth sales. Apples and oranges 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what kind of act they are. For your average pop superstar, of course commercial success is going to play a big part in their legacy but for everyone else? no, it's a lesser part. Musical influence and/or if they affected the culture around them take on much bigger roles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say longevity and their ability to pull up huge crowds to their shows for years. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part yes. Just look at the top 20 best selling artists in history - all familiar names that people remember.

 

Awards and acclaim can buy you relevance for a brief period of time, but an artist has to translate that into sales or else they won't be remembered. There are notable exceptions, of course (e.g. Aretha) but very few artists in general build off legacy from acclaim alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, A-V-XYZ said:

No. Aretha Franklin barely sold albums/singles yet she's still a legend. Voices make legends first and foremost.

nnn, this is kinda misinformation. Aretha is estimated to have sold 75 million records and for the time period that she came up in (the 50s/60s) and for the kind of music she sang (Soul music), that is actually a lot, especially for a black woman in a pre-Whitney industry. The other iconic black women of the day that outsold her were mainly doing Pop, Rock or Disco. Also, we have to remember that SoundScan was not even a thing before the 90s. They used to have to call up record stores and ask how many copies of an album or single they sold that day/week to measure. For all we know, Aretha is probably under-certified by RIAA and other markets. 

 

Obviously, the main selling point of her musical legacy is her voice as it's influenced generations of singers but let's not sell her commercial viability short. It is part of the reason the masses know of her name vs. some of her peers that came around in the genre at the same time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if your fave is an untalented girl that used to have a cute smile and had nothing but the obsession of her fanbase with numbers to back up her otherwise silly rise to superstardom. 

 

For regular talented artists it is not. Only those who need # for validation can see it that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So much needs to be taken into consideration. 

 

Plenty of great legacy acts can still go on massively successful tours but their new music won't sell. There's also music from the streaming era that smashes but the artist wouldn't be able to go on a successful world tour. 

 

There's a lot of artists who have gotten popular based on image but won't really see a lasting impact once the glitter fades. 

 

In this current era, I think if you can stay relevant for 10+ years you've kinda won 

Edited by BrattyBottom
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Wicked said:

I don't rate sales at all. (Some) questions that have-to-have good answers for legacy imo:

 

If you did advance music (whether audible or otherwise), was it for 2 seconds or did it have staying power?

Who did you influence or inspire? The artists who come from your tree paint a big picture. 

Do you have records that lasted past their initial release? Is your **** still making album canons in 10, 15+ years? Whole lotta albums sold well and don't nobody give af now, and there's albums that didn't move **** but 5 quarters that inspired nations. 

 

People overrank sales because it's the most tangible thus easier for people to wrap their heads around. It be impossible for people to see someone who isn't mega successful can have equal or more impact/influence than someone who moves a lot of records.

 

I think it was 1 or 2 months ago Billie Eilish fans were debating on twitter about whose musical 'trees' she's a part of, some of them were confused and upset by people mentioning JID, xxxtentacion and Vince Staples cause they don't know them, but clearly, she does. :deadbanana4:

 

Okay I went to find it, this is the main tweet about it I remember

 

 

The Billie thing is so funny because if you look back at when her EP dropped the Childish Gambino, X, and Vince inspo is very obvious. Even her image at the same was that blend. And then she elevated that even more with WWAFA which merged her own alternative sound with elements of hip/hop production. Then pop stans looked at all that and compared her to Avril Lavigne :rip: 

 

I think that's why a lot of industry rap artists like Billie so much. She always gave artists her flowers.

 

OT: Some of the most legendary artists don't even have Hot 100 hits. Sales are an interesting look to see what was popular at a certain time but I can name at least 5 low sale artists who have had more real music influence with the shaping of genres than someone like Drake.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talent, longevity artistry and impact does then sales last. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Obviously but NOT when it comes to influence. NOBODY says oh she sold 10 million copies thats why I looked up to her. :dies: 

Edited by Onyxmage
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no

but it's a lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Whatever ATRL tells you the answer is no. And if those sales are streaming based even less.

Edited by ChooseyLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impact is what makes a legend. Plenty of bands and artist in the 80's & 90's were selling Diamond records and spent weeks at number 1 on billboard. But imagine someone making a thread calling Tiffany a Legend. Lol

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sales are not legacy, impact is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.