mons†er Posted August 12 Posted August 12 Her debut album set the standard but OIDIA elevated it. Remember Britney sold 1 million copies of her sophomore album in a week. No digital singles, no re-releases, pure albums that were between $7.99-$9.99 the first week of release. It's not even a contest, the power that was Britney Spears in the 2000's is unrivaled and unmatched. 1
Feanor Posted August 12 Posted August 12 7 hours ago, Blackout2006 said: Some of y'all in the Olympics of Mental Gymnastics: What mental gymnastics? All those things factually have and are still happening during the 'Midnight' and 'TTPD' era. To deny that they're all part of the same era is the mental gymnastic you speak of. OP: As albums individually, Britney wins. As eras, Taylor in 2022-24 is far bigger than Britney was in 1998-2000.
VioletsandRoses Posted August 12 Posted August 12 Taylor's stats are more impressive in this climate. Britney just had advantage of peak album sales. Her album sales weren't that impressive compared to other 90s albums, especially WW. 1
UnusualBoy Posted August 12 Posted August 12 It's hard to compare because Taylor was basically doing all her eras during those 2 eras, if that makes sense (You know the TVs and the Cruel Summer smashing that hard) I'd give the edge to Britney since she was a newcomer and having 2 HUMONGOUS albums back to back was a rarity and still is but if I'd have to exclude that, Taylor would win.
Blackout2006 Posted August 12 Posted August 12 18 minutes ago, Feanor said: What mental gymnastics? All those things factually have and are still happening during the 'Midnight' and 'TTPD' era. To deny that they're all part of the same era is the mental gymnastic you speak of. Cruel Summer, the re-recordings, the ERAS TOUR, the concert film's success etc.- These are not exclusive to the Midnight and TTPD eras
Blackout2006 Posted August 12 Posted August 12 (edited) 26 minutes ago, VioletsandRoses said: Taylor's stats are more impressive in this climate. Britney just had advantage of peak album sales. Her album sales weren't that impressive compared to other 90s albums, especially WW. I keep seeing you propagate this but Adele, Norah Jones, and Eminem are her only solo peers to exceed her album sales. Linkin Park and BSB too if you want to include bands. She still has the best-selling album of her generation. None of her peers besides Norah Jones have sold over 20 million copies WW with even one album. This can only mean that the widespread attention and popularity Britney attracted translated into the massive and unparalleled sales she was pulling. Also, you do know Britney only had one album out before the Napster era that detrimentally damaged the sales market and she was still shifting sales of over 10 million copies with her albums, right? Britney raised the commercial bar for female artists. Let's put this argument to bed now Edited August 12 by Blackout2006
Blackout2006 Posted August 12 Posted August 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, mons†er said: Her debut album set the standard but OIDIA elevated it. Remember Britney sold 1 million copies of her sophomore album in a week. No digital singles, no re-releases, pure albums that were between $7.99-$9.99 the first week of release. It's not even a contest, the power that was Britney Spears in the 2000's is unrivaled and unmatched. HEAVY on this. You all keep talking abt sales climate and whatever, but artists back then only sold a standard and deluxe edition of an album. The vinyl market was in the pits during this time, so there was no room for profit in generating multiple vinyl variants for one album anyway. There were no variants. There was only one copy of which the majority of even the biggest fans only bought. That makes Britney's sales even more impressive as much as people try to dismiss it. Edited August 12 by Blackout2006
Erreur2 La Nature Posted August 12 Posted August 12 Oops alone is much much bigger than Midnight and TTDP combined
Nickibaby Posted August 12 Posted August 12 Um sweetie if we're talking about albums 21/25 would have been a much better comparison but I'm sure you knew the answer to that one.
Rihinvention Posted August 12 Posted August 12 Apples and oranges. Britney's 1-2 punch was because a new teen idol was emerging at a time when pop was dominated by artists in their 30s/40s. Taylor's 1-2 punch was because the world's biggest artist went on tour after a global pandemic, with many attendees having never been to a concert before. They're so different that it's almost pointless to compare them.
VioletsandRoses Posted August 12 Posted August 12 1 hour ago, Blackout2006 said: I keep seeing you propagate this but Adele, Norah Jones, and Eminem are her only solo peers to exceed her album sales. Linkin Park and BSB too if you want to include bands. She still has the best-selling album of her generation. None of her peers besides Norah Jones have sold over 20 million copies WW with even one album. This can only mean that the widespread attention and popularity Britney attracted translated into the massive and unparalleled sales she was pulling. Also, you do know Britney only had one album out before the Napster era that detrimentally damaged the sales market and she was still shifting sales of over 10 million copies with her albums, right? Britney raised the commercial bar for female artists. Let's put this argument to bed now Why are you comparing her to Norah and Taylor? Britney debuted in 1998 while the other two debuted in 2005 and 2006. Album sales declined 50 percent from 1998-2000 to 2005-2006. While digital downloads took off. Adele debuted in 2008 and didn't take off until 2011. The same time Britney released her 5th album. Compare her to Celine, Shania, Alanis and even Mariah. Those ladies had albums shift 30m+ copies during the same timeframe. And they also had much more hits and sold a ton of physical singles.
MatiRod Posted August 13 Posted August 13 (edited) 14 hours ago, UnusualBoy said: It's hard to compare because Taylor was basically doing all her eras during those 2 eras, if that makes sense (You know the TVs and the Cruel Summer smashing that hard) I'd give the edge to Britney since she was a newcomer and having 2 HUMONGOUS albums back to back was a rarity and still is but if I'd have to exclude that, Taylor would win. Britney picked up where the Spice Girls left off. Spice Girls showed the world that cheeky girls with bubblegum pop sound could be a formula for mega success. Britney turned that solo. Like, literally as BOMT started to smash is when the Spice Girls went on hiatus. Their audience perfectly transferred into hers and then she was somehow even bigger globally (except for in the UK where Spice Girls were bigger). Edited August 13 by MatiRod
MatiRod Posted August 13 Posted August 13 (edited) 13 hours ago, Blackout2006 said: HEAVY on this. You all keep talking abt sales climate and whatever, but artists back then only sold a standard and deluxe edition of an album. The vinyl market was in the pits during this time, so there was no room for profit in generating multiple vinyl variants for one album anyway. There were no variants. There was only one copy of which the majority of even the biggest fans only bought. That makes Britney's sales even more impressive as much as people try to dismiss it. I disagree. Record-buying was a casual activity back then, the way going to the movie theatre is. People would hang out in record stores, which would be all over the place, and buy albums they were interested in, not necessarily just because they were massive fans. People would often buy albums just because the one hit song on the radio was on it. Record stores were commonplace, there were huge chains of them the way Blockbuster used to be. They all closed by the early 2010s. In today's world it feels impressive, but back then that was the only way to own music you could listen to at your own volition so people did en masse. Edited August 13 by MatiRod
Jeremiah Posted August 13 Posted August 13 11 hours ago, VioletsandRoses said: Why are you comparing her to Norah and Taylor? Britney debuted in 1998 while the other two debuted in 2005 and 2006. Album sales declined 50 percent from 1998-2000 to 2005-2006. While digital downloads took off. Adele debuted in 2008 and didn't take off until 2011. The same time Britney released her 5th album. Compare her to Celine, Shania, Alanis and even Mariah. Those ladies had albums shift 30m+ copies during the same timeframe. And they also had much more hits and sold a ton of physical singles. Norah Jones debuted in 2002. How does it make more sense to compare Britney to all those artist who debuted 10 years prior but not Norah? The music industry enjoyed of a growing business throughout the 90s. How does it make sense to compare those big albums by Mariah et al with ones by a newcomer who debuted the same year than Napster, which made the industry take a nosedive? Yourself said it, digital downloads took off later on. How does it make sense to (belittle) excuse BOMT/OIDIA's success because they're from when "sales peaked" (the CD format, actually), but not to apply the same logic to the artist with big sales from the digital era? Or the streaming era? Or now those enjoying the vinyls boom comeback? Physical singles… They were dead by the early 00s in the US. Labels wouldn't even care putting them out unless for some chart strategy. I doubt you need more than one hand to count the 00s songs that went platinum with physical sales alone. 1
Lorenzo22 Posted August 13 Posted August 13 Midnights and TTPD have The Eras Tour so those automatically
Blackout2006 Posted August 13 Posted August 13 13 hours ago, VioletsandRoses said: Why are you comparing her to Norah and Taylor? Britney debuted in 1998 while the other two debuted in 2005 and 2006. Album sales declined 50 percent from 1998-2000 to 2005-2006. While digital downloads took off. Adele debuted in 2008 and didn't take off until 2011. The same time Britney released her 5th album. Compare her to Celine, Shania, Alanis and even Mariah. Those ladies had albums shift 30m+ copies during the same timeframe. And they also had much more hits and sold a ton of physical singles. I didn't compare her to Taylor tho? Celine, Shania, Alanas, and Mariah are not her peers? Okay even then, she still has the seventh best selling female album of the 1990s, best selling teenage album of all time, and best selling album amongst her solo female peers so now what
Blackout2006 Posted August 13 Posted August 13 35 minutes ago, Jeremiah said: Norah Jones debuted in 2002. How does it make more sense to compare Britney to all those artist who debuted 10 years prior but not Norah? The music industry enjoyed of a growing business throughout the 90s. How does it make sense to compare those big albums by Mariah et al with ones by a newcomer who debuted the same year than Napster, which made the industry take a nosedive? Yourself said it, digital downloads took off later on. How does it make sense to (belittle) excuse BOMT/OIDIA's success because they're from when "sales peaked" (the CD format, actually), but not to apply the same logic to the artist with big sales from the digital era? Or the streaming era? Or now those enjoying the vinyls boom comeback? Physical singles… They were dead by the early 00s in the US. Labels wouldn't even care putting them out unless for some chart strategy. I doubt you need more than one hand to count the 00s songs that went platinum with physical sales alone.
Blackout2006 Posted August 13 Posted August 13 1 hour ago, MatiRod said: I disagree. Record-buying was a casual activity back then, the way going to the movie theatre is. People would hang out in record stores, which would be all over the place, and buy albums they were interested in, not necessarily just because they were massive fans. People would often buy albums just because the one hit song on the radio was on it. Record stores were commonplace, there were huge chains of them the way Blockbuster used to be. They all closed by the early 2010s. In today's world it feels impressive, but back then that was the only way to own music you could listen to at your own volition so people did en masse. That's the privilege of consumers in Western countries/developed countries. Whereas around most of the world, buying music was still a costly affair. Also, if we are talking about the 2000s, many methods emerged to access music via second parties such as the radio, MTV/music channels, or borrowing a CD from a friend/relative. Plus, this was the time Napster was in full force and it emerged as the best and most accessible form of music. These all could have reduced Britney's sales for instance, but she was the only female artist besides Adele since the 90s to have two diamond albums and 20+ million global selling records. Also, my post is talking about variants? Okay, granted that record-buying was a casual activity back then but you only bought one copy of an album, right? There was no market for variants like there is today where a considerable bunch of people purchase 2-3 variants of one album.
Blackout2006 Posted August 13 Posted August 13 2 hours ago, naval23 said: the results I'm actually surprised that Britney won in a landslide wow
VioletsandRoses Posted August 13 Posted August 13 1 hour ago, Jeremiah said: Norah Jones debuted in 2002. How does it make more sense to compare Britney to all those artist who debuted 10 years prior but not Norah? The music industry enjoyed of a growing business throughout the 90s. How does it make sense to compare those big albums by Mariah et al with ones by a newcomer who debuted the same year than Napster, which made the industry take a nosedive? Yourself said it, digital downloads took off later on. How does it make sense to (belittle) excuse BOMT/OIDIA's success because they're from when "sales peaked" (the CD format, actually), but not to apply the same logic to the artist with big sales from the digital era? Or the streaming era? Or now those enjoying the vinyls boom comeback? Physical singles… They were dead by the early 00s in the US. Labels wouldn't even care putting them out unless for some chart strategy. I doubt you need more than one hand to count the 00s songs that went platinum with physical sales alone. Sorry I always thought Norah debuted in 2004. But still her album sold the same amount in a worse climate and without the need of having a smash like BOMT. The Mariah comparison makes sense because both artists released their peak albums in the 90s. I don't understand the excuse of being a newcomer because she debuted and peaked with her first album. It's not like she was slowly growing every era and peaked eventually later on. Alanis, Celine, And Shania also released around the same time and sold much more. With Celine having 2 30 sellers. Physicals singles didn't die until 2001, in the USA only. They kept selling in Europe and Australia until 2009-2010. Songs like Poker Face, Umbrella, Say It Right, All Good Things, Hips Don't Lie, Waka Waka, etc all went gold in Germany with physical singles alone. Even in France many singles in the late 00s sold 100k in physicals. Only the UK dropped them a bit earlier. Shania for example sold 2 million physical copies of You're Still The One in the US alone.
Jeremiah Posted August 16 Posted August 16 On 8/13/2024 at 3:44 AM, VioletsandRoses said: Sorry I always thought Norah debuted in 2004. But still her album sold the same amount in a worse climate and without the need of having a smash like BOMT. The Mariah comparison makes sense because both artists released their peak albums in the 90s. I don't understand the excuse of being a newcomer because she debuted and peaked with her first album. It's not like she was slowly growing every era and peaked eventually later on. Alanis, Celine, And Shania also released around the same time and sold much more. With Celine having 2 30 sellers. Physicals singles didn't die until 2001, in the USA only. They kept selling in Europe and Australia until 2009-2010. Songs like Poker Face, Umbrella, Say It Right, All Good Things, Hips Don't Lie, Waka Waka, etc all went gold in Germany with physical singles alone. Even in France many singles in the late 00s sold 100k in physicals. Only the UK dropped them a bit earlier. Shania for example sold 2 million physical copies of You're Still The One in the US alone. It's straight up nonsensical, but what to expect from someone who tries to make a point with an album not knowing its release date? "Released around the same time"... Their biggest albums: Daydream: 1995 Jagged Little Pill: 1995 Falling Into You: 1996 / Let's Talk About Love: 1997 Come On Over: 1997 All these albums enjoyed of the healthy and thriving climate of the 90s music industry, just like most of their discography as they all debuted early in the decade, and as you'd probably know (not really counting on that) none are debuts or even sophomores. Is it just a coincidence that these artists' commercial performance improved just like the market did? You can say Britney debuted at the "peak of album sales," but that only means that the following years, her career developed while the market was collapsing. Not long ago I did some research (on a different topic) through Billboard issues and I'd find myself with articles from 1999 and 2000 worrying about sales growth and markets stalling worldwide. So no, you can't come tell me these albums are comparable in that matter. About physical singles... I know they were still a thing in Europe, Britney herself was one of the best sellers, but they were on their way down. In Germany, they had to lower the certificates threshold in 2003. That's how bad it was. The smashes of the late 00s only scanning Gold doesn't impress me much (if it's true what you say). And "You're Still the One" isn't just an example, it's the biggest hit off the biggest female album of all time. It should tell you enough that it only shipped 2M domestically.
Recommended Posts